Originally Posted by
C441
No, the 'study' to which Maggie Island and FightDeck refer is in fact a Monash university study conducted primarily on MEL-LAX-MEL and PER-LHR-PER flights initially amongst A380 and 787 Captains and F/O's and then amongst S/O's as well, collecting data from a few days before departure through to 3 or 4 days after return to their base. The data collected included sleep diary info, psychomotor testing at various stages of the duty and acti-graph data.
As has been alluded to before, this was a joint study with the support of AIPA.
The data collection was completed recently and is now being analysed. Whilst the hope is it will provide some significant recommendations useful to Sunrise planning, it was not exclusively designed with that in mind. Hopefully it will provide a range of recommendations for all of our ULR operations - including (among other things) appropriate crew complements for operations in excess of 20 hours…..
How wide is the sample?
How many observations?
Of what duration is the longitudinal study?
Does AIPA have a statistician?
The problem obvious to anyone familiar with statistical modelling, is any attempt to model/extrapolate from a short duration small sample size "study" is that any result has very limited inference.
Incorrectly specifying the representative sample, too few people in the sample, too few observations for too short a period means the "results" have little application other than as a consulting project.
If health outcomes are what is being "modelled" then this sort of falls well short of benchmark statistical models. Health effects on crew are not linear.
Meaningful inferences are difficult to draw with a limited sample size, few observations and only making observations on a short term basis.
As fatigue is cumulative this "research" ignores the benefit of
long term repeated observation.
It looks far more like a consulting project, rather than solid research design.
If the airline and "representatives" really want more
solid data, the study would be involve far more observations. Simply put the health outcomes need monitoring for an
extended period.
Out of interest, how many pilots and cabin crew does Qantas have Long term sick?
What are the most common diseases?
If the company and representatives really desire a robust study, they could
study the long term health outcomes for their crew, versus those of the general population.
With a
far larger sample size, years of data, and a general population with which to compare, statistical inferences would actually mean something.
This data exists in all airlines at present, for pilots and cabin crew, but perhaps health outcomes for those involved are not really the focus.
Ignoring the impact long term of cumulative fatigue, which according to the relevant literature is very important when considering long term health, the study itself (given its very short duration) ignores perhaps the most important correlated risk factor for health outcomes: deprivation of quality sleep for extended periods.
Qantas needed a new fleet a long time ago.
Management have no trouble committing billions to JQ fleet renewal, why all the fuss for the parent?