Ultra l ong Range Flights John R Fare Introduction Current and Future Demands of our Customers Longer range Aircraft Faster Speeds Shorter Layovers Alertness in the Aircraft Three Distinct Factors that Determine Cockpit Alertness ID: 195708
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document ""Effective Crew Scheduling Strategies on" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
"Effective Crew Scheduling Strategies on Ultra-long Range Flights."
John R FareSlide2
IntroductionCurrent and Future Demands of our Customers
Longer range Aircraft
Faster Speeds
Shorter LayoversSlide3
Alertness in the AircraftThree Distinct Factors that Determine Cockpit Alertness
Circadian Rhythm
Sleep Propensity/Pressure
Sleep InertiaSlide4
Circadian RhythmReason
Regulate bodily functions
Synchronization
Length
25.3 hours
Zeitgebers
“time keepers”
24 hours
Low
0200-0600 and 1500-1700Slide5
Circadian Rhythm (cont.)Slide6
Circadian AdjustmentPhase Advance
Phase Delay
Resynchronization Slide7
Phase AdvanceOccurs when traveling Eastbound
Day is shortened
Forced to “advance” to new rhythm
First sleep is short followed by subsequent longer rest periodSlide8
Phase DelayOccurs when travelling Westbound
Day is lengthened
Initial sleep is longer followed by shorter sleep episodeSlide9
ResynchronizationAsymmetrical Effect
Difference between Eastbound and Westbound
Westbound (8 time zones or more)
5.1 days for 95% adjustment
Eastbound (8 time zones or more)
6.5 days
Circadian Synchronization
Westbound (92 minutes per day)
Eastbound (57 minutes per day)Slide10
Sleep Propensity/PressureDefinition
Adjusting
Performance DecrementsSlide11
Sleep Propensity/PressureDefinition
The physiological need to sleep based off of the last full nights rest
16 hours awake/ 8 hours asleep
Naps improve wakefulness but do not reset Sleep Propensity’s cumulative effect!Slide12
Sleep Propensity/Pressure (cont.)Slide13
Adjusting Sleep PropensityLengthening the Sleep/Wake Cycle
28 hour day (Westbound travel)
Greatest need for sleep at 20 hours
Shortening the Sleep/Wake Cycle
20 hour day (Eastbound travel with less than 24 hours of crew rest)
Greatest need for sleep at 13 hoursSlide14
Performance Decrements after 16 hours and 24 hours Slide15
Sleep Inertia
Definition
In-flight ConsiderationsSlide16
Sleep InertiaDefinition
The grogginess that one feels after waking up from a deep sleepSlide17
Sleep InertiaIn-flight ConsiderationsShort Naps (NASA Naps)
Less than 40 minutes to stay out of Deep Sleep
Effective when crew rest time is shorter
Long Naps
More beneficial in reducing fatigue levels
More realistic during circadian low times
Afford at least 40 minutes of recovery prior to resuming flight deck dutiesSlide18
Crew Types and LogisticsTwo-Pilot Crew
Augmented or Three-Pilot Crew
Crew ChangeSlide19
Two-Pilot CrewDuty/Flight Time Limitation Considerations
Normal
14 hours duty/ 12 hours of flight (FSF, 1997)
Circadian Low
*Is flight flying through or landing between the hours of 0200 - 0600 body adjusted time or duty day starts at 0400 or earlier
12 hours duty/ 10 hours of flight and consider max amount of landings (FSF, 1997)Slide20
Augmented CrewsDefinition
Crew Bunk Categories and Considerations
Circadian and Sleep Propensity ConsiderationsSlide21
Augmented CrewsThree PilotsFrom original point of departure?
From intermediate and or tech stop?
Supine rest available in a separated area?
20 hours of duty (FSF, 1997)
No supine
18 hours of duty (FSF, 1997)Slide22
Crew Bunk CategoriesClass I75% sleep opportunity credit (George, 2011)
Class II*
56% sleep opportunity credit (George, 2011)
Class III
25% sleep opportunity credit (George, 2011)
*
Business Jet with separated crew rest facilitiesSlide23
Crew ChangeLogistics
Circadian ConsiderationsSlide24
Crew Change LogisticsLocation!Available Resources i.e. pilots?
Great Circle?
Airline Service for preposition?
Cost?
Time to get there?
Weather?
Handling?Slide25
Fatigue StudyOverviewAssumptions
Limitations
Methodology
Treatment of Data
Results
ConclusionSlide26
OverviewBackground
Fatigue Management Program for our SMS
Justify or refute our current policies
Geographic Representation
Europe, Asia, South America
Participants
Pilots and Flight EngineersSlide27
HypothesisThree-Pilot Crews are less tired than Two-Pilot Crews during the last two hours of a flight to include top-of-descent, approach, landing, and post-flightSlide28
AssumptionsAll participants were operating during or through their circadian low
All pilots afforded supine rest
Two-Pilot Crews
Two pilots and one Flight Engineer
Flight Engineer data from augmented flights considered two-pilot crew
Three-Pilot Crews
Three pilots from original point of departureSlide29
LimitationsHuman Factors
Health, emotional stability, family life, quality of sleep, alcohol/substance abuse
Meteorological
Day, Night
In-flight Conditions
Turbulence, Convective WeatherSlide30
MethodologySlide31
Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS)Slide32
Treatment of DataAll Duty Start Times Adjusted to “Body Adjusted Time”
Eastbound
57 minutes per day
Westbound
90 minutes per daySlide33
ResultsSSS Mean for the Last Two Hours of Duty
Crewing Technique vs. SSS
SSS Mean for Entire Flight vs. Start Time of Duty Day
Crew Rest Sleep Percentages vs. Duty Hour Slide34
SSS Mean for the Last Two Hours of DutySlide35
ConclusionThree-Pilot Flight Crews are Less Tired than Two-Pilot CrewsSlide36
Crewing Technique vs. SSSSlide37
ConclusionSSS Levels Separate at Duty Hour 11/ Flight Hour 9
Johnson & Johnson Aviation Lowered its Circadian Low Duty Limits to 9 Hours of Flight with a Max of 2 LandingsSlide38
SSS Mean for Entire Flight vs. Start Time of Duty DaySlide39
ConclusionStart time does correlate to SSS levels of augmented crews
There is a significant increase in SSS with start times between 1800 and 0700Slide40
Crew Rest Sleep Percentages vs. Duty Hour Slide41
ConclusionsPhysiological need determines success
Most sleep attained between duty hour 9 and 18
Strategic “rostering”
PF gets the most considerationSlide42
Practical Approaches
Two Pilots
KTEB – LFPB – KTEB
Minimum Layover
Off Duty Prior to Circadian Low
Three Pilots
KTEB – RJTT
Fuel Stop in PANCSlide43
Europe “Quickturn”
Two Pilots
Depart KTEB @ 1800 Local
Arrive LFPB @ 0630 Local
10 hour rest period + 2 hours for travel and “unwinding”
Depart LFPB @ 1830 Local
Arrive KTEB @ 2030 LocalSlide44Slide45Slide46
Three Pilots to TokyoThree Pilots
Depart KTEB @ 0800 Local
Arrive RJTT @ 1300 Local the next daySlide47Slide48
SummaryThree-pilot crews are less tired than two-pilot crews on extended circadian low flights!
Sleep propensity needs to be considered when augmenting
Have a plan!
Rostering
In-flight fatigue countermeasures
Learn from your ExperiencesSlide49
ReferencesBilliard, M, & Kent, A. (2003).
Sleep: physiology, investigations, and medicine
. New York,
NY:
Kluwer
Academic/Plenum
Caldwell, John A., & Caldwell, J. Lynn (2003). Fatigue in Aviation: A Guide to
Staying Awake at the Stick. Burlington, VT:
Ashgate
Publishing Limited
CEriksen
, C.A.,
Torbjorn
, E., & Nilsson, J.P. (2006). Fatigue in trans-
atlantic
airline operations:
Diaries and
actigraphy
for two- vs. three-pilot crews.
Aviation, Space, and
Environmental
Medicine
,
77
(6), 605-612.
Gander, P.H., Gregory, B.S., Miller, D.L.,
Graebner
, R.C., Connell, L.J., &
Rosekind
, R. (1998).
Flight crew fatigue V: Long-haul air transport operations.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine,
69(9), B37-B48
Gander, P.H.,
Rosekind
, M.R., & Gregory, K.B. (1998). Flight crew fatigue VI: A synthesis.
Aviation,
Space, and Environmental Medicine
,
69
(9), B49-B60.
George, F. (2011, February). Fatigue risk management.
Business & Commercial Aviation
, 32-37.
Miller, J. C. (2005, May).
Operational Risk Management of Fatigue
Effects
(AFRL-HE-BR-TR-2005-0073). : United State Air Force Research Lab.
Neri
, D.,
Oyung
, R.,
Colletti
, L.,
Mallis
, M., Tam, D., &
Dinges
, D. (2002), Controlled Breaks as
a Fatigue Countermeasure on the Flight Deck.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine,
73(7)
United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), Safety Regulation Group. (2007).
Aircrew fatigue:
A review of research undertaken on behalf of the UK Civil Aviation Authority
(CAA PAPER 2005/04). Retrieved from
http://www.caa.co.uk