Fatigued vs intoxicated
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatigued vs intoxicated
Having just watched an episode of Mythbusters where an experiment was carried out on the effects of fatigue vs alcohol impairment, the results were profound and very obvious that it was far more dangerous to operate a vehicle while being sleep deprived than being slightly intoxicated (.06). This is another piece of data added to a growing body of evidence that shows how dangerous fatigue can be. To be clear I'm not suggesting that there should be any relief from the industry regulations on rules governing alcohol use but instead questioning why the worldwide airlines and regulatory bodies seem to ignore what is becoming a clear and present danger in the global airline industry. The science is clear and I believe that airlines and regulating bodies will be culpable in any future accident that has fatigue as one of the cause factors. Money talks but so do expensive lawsuits.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatigued vs intoxicated
Fcu agree with your points. However it's never that clean cut. If we look at the Ups crash at Birmingham USA . Airlines and union get thrown out of FAA enquiry. Airline says self management of rest. Union says regs. In the Uk there are an average of 8 road deaths a year maybe four sleepiness affected. In the plane two crew, technical systems, sops being a defense against fatigue , Atc and so on. In truth airlines are doing more about fatigue than ever before, some I admit don't seem to involve crew in the process and many do a half job but overall it's moving in the right direction
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Elsewhere
Age: 56
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we look at the Ups crash at Birmingham USA . Airlines and union get thrown out of FAA enquiry. Airline says self management of rest. Union says regs.
The three big challenges here will be:
1. The perception by unions/employees that airlines are attempting to regulate their time off.
2. There is an empirical test for alcohol. Fatigue is less black and white and difficult for the employer to prove if disciplinary action for failure to manage fatigue is challenged in court. The unions like it that way as it makes protecting their members easier. Airlines like it that way as it is difficult to prove that the company did not comply with FAA/EASA/CAA requirements.
3. There is only a general definition in any regulations that I have seen of 'rest' prior to duty, and no specific regulation when it comes to physical exercise or sport. Example: for one crew member a round of golf is a relaxation, while for another it is (as George Bernard Shaw called it) "A good walk ruined". Similarly, for a regular runner a 5 mile jog is refreshing but for somebody more sedentary this distance could leave them seriously fatigued. It is practically impossible to coalesce this variable for an entire industry of diverse human behavior into a single one size fits all regulation.
Until there is a definitive accepted test that can be also be self-administered by the employee to ensure compliance then this grey area will remain. We have also drifted away from the entire concept of personal responsibility for fitness to fly. FRMS is a good concept, but it will enhance the airlines ability to transfer the responsibility for the accident back to the individual.
As an investigator, I have come across multiple instances of crews within their duty period but still fatigued. The two are not the same.
