I have received a reply from NASA, I have attached it because it provides an enormous amount of information on the topic via the links provided.
They make an interesting comment that to use any program that has not been validated is questionable. They state they are not aware of any progrmas that have yet be validated.
Maybe CASA are going down the right path but without the correct research and validation, too soon too quick.
Furthermore those that are going down the path feeling they have no option consider;
Many already have crew on base and operate under a stand by agreement with CASA, which when they are not flying and not doing work of the employer they are effectively resting, given that certain facilities are available.
Given those operators that roster their crew for 14 hour night shifts are concerned about losing their dispensation and having to go back to CAO 48 which does not allow, but surely the term "reserve time" in CAO 48 could be applied to those crews who are allowed to sleep etc, CASA are prepared to call it standby both under old dispensations and the new fatigue models and allow them to do 7 days of 24 hour standby. So doing 14 as reserve time which CAO 48 allows a maximum of 16 hours should be a non issue and the matter resolved. With that accepted, CAO 48 would be less restrictive then the dispensations because there is no restrictions on late night operations.
CONFUSED?????????
NASA REPLY
You're wise to
question the use of fatigue management software based on an industry
entirely different from yours. There are several models that are
being developed to address the issues of predicting fatigue in
aviation. The U.S. Army, Air Force, and other organizations are
working on the development of prediction tools. I don't know of any
fatigue management programs that have been validated (which is key
for any fatigue modeling software or management program that's
applied to the real world). Nothing is currently available for
application in an aviation setting.
The AIRLOG that we developed is strictly an electronic survey data
collection device used to help us collect subjective information from
participants in our studies concerning sleep/wake times, sleep
quality, duty segment schedules, etc. It's not what you're looking
for.
This is a very important issue that you bring up. Our group has been
working on scientific countermeasures to assist in alertness
management for many years. Guidelines have been developed to assist
with duty/rest scheduling and are available on our web site at:
http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/zt.../FCP.pubs.html under the
Policy link. The title of the publication is Principles and
Guidelines for Duty and Rest Scheduling in Commercial Aviation. If
you have any questions about the content, please don't hesitate to
contact me or our principle investigator, Dr. Melissa Mallis.
Although naps on the flight deck are not sanctioned in the U.S., it
may be an option for your organization:
http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/zt...story-crs.html
...verify with the Australian Aviation Authority about this topic.
Quantas allows for cockpit napping in their SOPs. Activity breaks
may be another option:
http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/zt...MES1/AMES1.htm
Unfortunately there's no quick answer or solution to your question.
It will take the effort of the operators, management, and unions (if
applicable to your situation) to work out the rules that balance the
economic bottom line and safety of the operators and the general
public. The idea that software can solve the problems or provide the
clear answers should be examined with a careful eye...as you have
already surmised.
Good luck in your efforts to make your environment a safer place,