Kirksville: duty cycle and professionalism

Stubby wrote:

The summary http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAR0601.htm
contains

quote
9. The pilots failed to follow established procedures to
effectively monitor the airplane's descent rate and height above
terrain during the later stages of the approach and relied too much on
minimal external visual cues. Although descent rate and altitude
information were readily available through cockpit instruments, both
pilots were largely preoccupied with looking for the approach lights.

10. The pilots' nonessential conversation below 10,000 feet mean sea
level (msl) was contrary to established sterile cockpit regulations and
reflected a demeanor and cockpit environment that fostered deviation
from established standard procedures, crew resource management
disciplines, division of labor practices, and professionalism, reducing
the margin of safety well below acceptable limits during the accident
approach and likely contributing to the pilots' degraded performance.


11. Compliance with sterile cockpit rules may have resulted in an
increased focus on standard procedures and professionalism during the
accident flight.

12. The captain should have, but did not, arrest the airplane's
rapid descent when they reached the MDA, and the first officer should
have, but did not, challenge the captain's descent below the minimum
descent altitude.
/quote

Note that the NTSB conclusions are not admissable
evidence because they are hearsay.

No, they are expert testimony the way a psychologist's conclusions
would be if a psychological evaluation was ordered by the trial judge
[in a case where there was someone to be evluated].

AIUI, in a trial the expert would be expected to show what evidence led
to the conclusions, and that the conclusions follow from the evidence
according to the expertise of the subject area. Opposing counsel might
bring in other experts to offer testimony that different conclusions
might be reached.

A jury must be presented with the
facts and allowed to draw its own conclusion.

A jury could certainly be presented with the facts: cockpit voice
tape, duty logs, check-in/check-out records at the hotel, the papers
the crew signs and returns to the ground staff, etc. The same stuff
the NTSB report draws its conclusions from.

/dps

quote
15. On the basis of the less than optimal overnight rest time
available, the early reporting time for duty, the length of the duty
day, the number of flight legs, the demanding conditions (non-precision
instrument approaches flown manually in conditions of low ceilings and
reduced visibilities) encountered during the long duty day (and the two
previous days), it is likely that fatigue contributed to the pilots'
degraded performance and decisionmaking.



16. Existing Federal Aviation Administration pilot duty regulations do
not reflect recent research on pilot fatigue and sleep issues,
increasing the possibility that pilots will fly in a fatigued
condition.
/quote