1 / 19

SCIENCE IN AN OPERATIONAL SETTING

SCIENCE IN AN OPERATIONAL SETTING. Philippa Gander Sleep/Wake Research Centre, Massey University Jim Mangie Delta Air Lines. Outline. What to measure When to measure Interpreting the data Safety Performance Indicators Conclusions.

alfreda-hughes
Download Presentation

SCIENCE IN AN OPERATIONAL SETTING

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SCIENCE IN AN OPERATIONAL SETTING Philippa Gander Sleep/Wake Research Centre, Massey University Jim Mangie Delta Air Lines

  2. Outline • What to measure • When to measure • Interpreting the data • Safety Performance Indicators • Conclusions

  3. What to Measure in FRMSoperational data / crew fatigue measures Operators need to be able to: • Identify (monitor) level of fatigue hazard(s) • Assess fatigue-related safety risk • Probability/severity • ICAO tolerability matrix • Define and monitor fatigue safety performance indicators • Investigate role of fatigue in incidents/accidents

  4. What to Measure: Crew Fatigue ICAO definition of fatigue: A physiological state of reduced mental or physical performance capability resulting from sleep loss or extended wakefulness,circadian phase, or workload (mental and/or physical activity) that can impair a crew member’s alertness and ability to safely operate an aircraft or perform safety related duties. • Functional status (subjective ,objective) • Sleep history • Circadian phase • Workload

  5. Samn-Perelli Fatigue Ratings 1=fully alert, wide awake 2=very lively, responsive, but not at peak 3=OK, somewhat refreshed 4=a little tired, less than fresh 5=moderately tired, let down 6=extremely tired, difficult to concentrate 7=completely exhausted, unable to function effectively

  6. Karolinska Sleepiness Ratings 1= extremely alert 2= 3= alert 4= 5= neither sleepy nor alert 6= 7= sleepy, but no difficulty remaining awake 8= 9= extremely sleepy, fighting sleep

  7. PVT Performance (Reaction Speed) Press this if you are left-handed Press this if you are right-handed

  8. Sleep: Actigraphy and Diaries

  9. When to Measure Crew Fatigue • Monitoring for FRM Processes • In response to a series of fatigue reports • to identify extent and severity of hazard • In response to an incident • SPIs to evaluate effectiveness of fatigue mitigations and controls • Validation of a new route • Monitoring for FRMS Assurance Processes • SPIs set in FRMS Policy objectives • SPIs for regulatory audit Crew fatigue measures may not always be needed

  10. Safety Performance Indicators(SPIs) 5 FRMS Components 3. Risk Management Processes 1. Policy Fatigue Safety Action Group 4.Safety Assurance Processes SMS 5. Promotion Processes 2. Documentation

  11. Safety Performance Indicators: Example Comparing fatigue on ULR and LR flights

  12. Fatigue Status at Start of DutySPI – sleep in the last 24 hrs

  13. Fatigue Status at Start of DutySPI – mean PVT reaction speed early in flight

  14. Fatigue Status at Top of ClimbSPI – median total in-flight sleep

  15. Fatigue Status at Top of ClimbSPI – mean PVT reaction speed late in flight

  16. Fatigue Status at Top of ClimbSPI – % crew with KSS ≥ 7

  17. Operational SPIs: Examples • Track data on number of : • exceedances of planned crew duty day (e.g. > 14 hrs) • flight duty periods ending > 30 mins later than scheduled • flight duty periods starting / ending within window of circadian low (WOCL) • reserve crew call-outs (on particular flights, at a particular crew base, etc) Monitoring of FRM processes Monitoring of FRMS safety assurance processes

  18. Conclusions • Challenge • Developing in-house expertise versus using consultants ($$) • Data sharing • Operators don’t have to reinvent the wheel • Rich data source for improving fatigue science • Needs • Paradigms for data sharing • Better indicators of fatigue-related performance impairment • Better fatigue measurement technologies • Better fatigue risk assessment (safety consequences of being fatigued in a given context) • Better fatigue risk controls and mitigations Cooperation is the key

  19. Acknowledgements • Dr Jarnail Singh, Singapore CAA • Participants in B-777 study • Scientific Steering Committee, FAA 3-airline study

More Related