My favourite part of the article is where the ASA spindoctor says " We have a fatigue management system which is designed to ensure controllers do not work more than a safe number of hours" What he neglects to say is that even though it is designed that way, that is not how it is used.
I believe the company that produced it is not at all happy with the way ASA use their software. One example is a controller coming in early to work a night shift, 2300- 0600 vice the following days 0700-1500, funnily enough due staff shortage.
The aisle supervisor noticed in the morning that the 0700 shift had not been deleted from the controllers roster, meaning the machine had him having an hours break and then starting work again. Out of curiousity he got the software to check the fatigue score. The machine worked out that the controllers fatigue would have improved after having a one hour break and then working an 8 hour shift. That is correct , this fatigue management systems answer was you would be less tired at 1500 than 0600 even though you hadn't slept.
An answer was eventually forthcoming,(small panic) that your body clock resets at sunrise.
So next time you are out very late , think as long as I can see the sun come up, I can last til tonights sleep.
There are loads of examples of the fatigue tool being manipulated to come under the magical 80 fatigue score. person X will be over tonight , manipulate machine until it is not over 80. How? Finish person 15/30/45/60 minutes (whatever it takes) early on their morning shift(leaving morning shift short!). The fact that the controller started at 0500 doesn't seem to matter, or , instead of starting at 0000 come in at 0100.
Fatigue management is regarded by management as something to get around rather than something to enforce.