The FAA discussed this @ the hearing yesterday afternoon. The FAA' Civil Aerospace Medical Institute research shows that going over 17 hours between a full sleep (defined as 4-5 full sleep cycles consisting of the 5 stages of sleep) leads to rapid deterioration of skills. Most people require 7-8 hours to attain a full sleep, thus why the FAA recommends a minimum 10 hour rest, allowing for 2 hours to be spent in non-sleep activity. Sadly, the FAR's do not reflect this.

And more's the pity. The FAA knows there's a problem with the regs. The NTSB has been trying for years to get this changed. ALPA has pushed as hard as they can.

Yet the rules stay the same, and unscrupulous carriers may follow the law while simultaneously building schedules that are inherently fatiguing.

Although it must be said, that does not seem to be the case in this accident, however.

Well maybe the the new head of the FAA will actually change this.

acl what happened to your avatar?

Well, that brings us full circle to what I getting at that you tried to deflect.

Sorry, but regional schedules can be just as fatiguing, as well as contain just as much circadian disruption as the pilot that commuted in for this trip. I'm talking about while being on the trip, not before the trip even began. Again, it's the same.

Funny, I've gone coast to coast being a "regional" pilot with an intermediate stop that contained lots of sit time, then followed by a reduced rest overnight. Doesn't matter which direction, they both suck. I've also done regular flying combined with back side of the clock "red eye" flying in the same pairing.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. You could start a trip being rested, but be in the same fatigue state as this pilot as early as day 2 of trip, let alone days 3 and 4.

I've been seeing more 2day back to backs and 3 on 3 off trips crop up. More of these kind of trips reduce hotel cost and discourage commuting.

This is going to sound pretty cold, but I hope the industry in general, as well as the FAA, gets a bunch of bad press over this.

Let's be honest:

There is a significant difference in qualifications, training, experience, etc between the major carriers and the (especially the smaller) regionals. Similarly there is a big difference in compensation and benefits.

Passengers think pilots are pilots and they expect all to be well qualified. From what I've read the flight crew was not well trained, not particularly experienced, and not very disciplined; a recipe for disaster. Add in the fatigue issue and it gets worse.

I suspect the personal injury lawyers are licking their chops at the upcoming lawsuits.

If the lawyers are successful at getting a healthy judgement against Continental (code share partner) perhaps the majors will start to carefully evaluate just who does their contract flying and what their qualifications and experience level minimums should be.

That might (hopefully) raise the bar in terms of compensation as well. You can't attract the best and the brightest at the wages that the regionals are paying.

Either Ameriflot or Airtrak.

the real story in all of this should be about the major airlines OUTSOURCING flying to the lowest bidders essentially outsourcing safety. Passengers buy a ticket on DAL, CAL, UAL, etc and they expect to be flown by that airline. Then they show up and fly on XYZ airline. If the media would get that into the story passengers would really be irritated. EWR-BUF used to be flown by CAL on dc9s and 737's and now are flown by Colgan which has shotty mx, training, and pay.

I just wish the media would get onto that subject. Outsourcing safety to the lowest bidder.

My old regional had a good training department which increased the cost of doing business and guess what happened? Continental said You guys are too expensive we're bringing Colgan in to fly for us.... :cool:

Instead of competing on cost, airlines compete on service. This includes hiring higher quality employees to provide that service.