The sleeping killer

Civil Aviation Order 48 was designed to combat potential fatigue. Its aim was to limit the amount of flight hours and time on duty a pilot can serve to assure a rested pilot was at the controls.

It is a well-intentioned document that extends quite a way back in its history and has served reasonably well to date. However, the nature of flying has changed dramatically since its inception.

Back-of-clock flying has become the norm internationally and for freight pilots, while long-haul duties have been stretched further and further as aircraft ranges increase. Multi-crew operations now stretch to four pilots, or even two entire crews and then there are extensions of duty when things don’t go to schedule. It’s a minefield.

The upshot is that it is impossible to lay a fixed template over such a dynamic environment – you might as well try to cage water with a cyclone fence. Nevertheless, we must set some guidelines. From this dilemma has grown the concept of Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS). Rather than a universal template, the principle calls for a system tailored to the particular operation. It ideally looks at the idiosyncrasies and nuances that make one air operator different from the next.

In general terms there are three parties involved in the process – CASA, the company and its pilots. And while safety is undoubtedly everyone’s first priority, on the second tier there are potentially differing interests. For the company the ongoing quest for productivity and efficiency exists, while the pilots need to have adequate rest periods that coexist with some form of a normal home life.

The concept of an FRMS is fundamentally a good one, but it is still a very challenging task that lies ahead.

Part of the problem lies in the fact that the world has grown more and more into a 24 hour society over the last century.

In contravention of every basic human need and the circadian rhythm, we have become a planet that operatesin spite of the sun.

Passengers may be restless en route and suffer from jet lag on arrival, but on the flightdeck the only respite lies in the crew bunk. At all other times they must remain focused and prepared for any eventuality, and when they arrive on distant shores there is a short break and then it’s back again.

You can regulate around this, but still the body wants what the body wants and the instinct to sleep is deeply rooted beyond any FRMS.

Furthermore, the individual’s chemistry varies with age and, in turn, from one pilot to another. It is a very complex set of variables. And regardless of the integrity of the system, nothing can manage those ever-challenging events of day-to-day life.

Family matters and financial pressures don’t disappear when the brakes are parked, if anything they become more prevalent. Even in the happiest of homes, sick children and noisy neighbours can play havoc with sleep patterns. There is also the issue of cumulative fatigue that may stem from a run of early mornings or just a lifetime in long-haul starting to wear thin. These are all issues that no system can entirely cater for, so what is the answer? Just as when a situation unravels in the air, the pilot is often the final filter, the final slice in the ‘Swiss cheese’ model. So it is with the onset of fatigue, where only the individual can truly make the judgement – although that is often more easily said than done.

Pilots generally like their job and by their very nature, they are task-driven individuals. For them there is real sense of satisfaction to complete a day’s flying safely and on schedule. When low cloud at the minima or unserviceabilities stand in their way, they are frustrated, but the issue is cut and dried. Fatigue is a far less distinct area of definition and the temptation to persevere and complete the task is very tempting.

With hundreds of passengers’ appointments, weddings and birthdays relying on the scheduled service to depart, pilots can almost feel honour-bound to go the extra mile. However, in all honesty they aren’t doing anyone any favours.

So CAO 48 may have dispensations and FRMSs may be designed and tailored to the needs of a particular company, but the buck must stop with the pilot. Only the pilot can truly assess whether they are free of fatigue, for often only they know the situation at home and how they have been sleeping.

Their fellow flightcrew can be vigilant for obvious signs of fatigue, but that is tending to leave things a little too late. Pilots must endeavour to be objective and truly assess whether this is the day that they should be flying, or whether they are fit to extend their tour of duty a little longer. If it is a difficult decision, then the correct answer is probably not to fly. Ideally, they should offer the company and their passengers as much notice as possible to allow alternative measures to be put in place.

Regardless of the regulations, the FRMS or any other system or template, if fatigue is present it should be dealt with. It can only be resolved by adequate rest in suitable surroundings. A cat-nap on a crew lounge is not a substitute for genuine recovery.

As the world grows smaller and the air routes busier, the schedules will continue to apply increasing pressure on flightcrew to keep pace.

But they are only human and can only perform if they are able to satisfy their basic needs of food, rest and shelter. If they do not, then they are leaving the cockpit door ajar to the sleeping killer.