Fatigue and its mis-management
CASA knows (from the plethora of research into fatigue management they have commissioned) that compressed rosters (L A D M N - where the break between shifts progressively decreases until the final morning doggo quick change) are far more taxing on the employee than expanded rosters that start with a doggo and end with a late shift. Since CASA's role is about risk management in a safety critical industry, it would appear that their lack of action could be regarded as 'unconscionable' when tested against the law of torts 'reasonable man' criteria.
I am by no means an advocate for any regulation that constricts rostering by quite supposedly 'sound' fatigue management criteria (eg max length shifts, minimum length breaks, maximum numbers of shifts in a row, etc). In many cases such criteria have been demonstrated to be capable of being abused by both employee and management alike. Everyone knows what the contributors to fatigue are. We even know that there are different types of fatigue. What is lacking is clear regulation that requires both parties (employee and management) to adhere to defensible practices that ensure no fatigued person is working or is required to work in a safety critical position. Or if required to work in such a state, there are adequate additional defences to protect the integrity (read safety) of the system - this is risk management - after all, air traffic control and flying or repairing an aircraft is ALL about risk management.
The model currently in use by Airservices (which incorporates some aspects of FAID) should be seen as a first step towards such a Utopia - not as the final answer. Someone earlier reminded us that we are actually human beings and therefore susceptible to impacts of all the social activities that humans attract. I am sure some will immediately think of partying to excess, but what I am referring to is typical ordinary life away from (and even in) the workplace - family life and all the trials and tribulations that entails, sport to combat the ever worsening human conditioning, simply driving to and from wherever, grappling with a work related issue, etc. All of these factors should find their way into a fatigue model.
Others have suggested that some work is more fatiguing than other work. Probably some truth in that too but I am not sure that if researched properly, it will be the answer expected. How fatiguing is it to be alert when there is little or no traffic?
Regrettably, a large problem with Airservices' FRMS is that those implementing it have lost sight of the real objective - ie risk management, not just putting a bum on a seat. This lack of proper understanding and proper implementation should not be the reason it is discarded, but should be the lesson for moving forward and developing a more improved FRMS where everyone (employee and management alike) embrace the concept of risk management rather than concentrating entirely on service delivery - what quality is the service if that service is NOT managing the very real risks that abound both in and out of the workplace?
Let’s go back to the report that was provided to Airservices during the development of the FRMS and re-examine the responses to the issues raised therein - making sure that the implementation focus is shifted from filling a vacant seat to addressing the delivery of a quality service with an acceptable risk. Risk in this context should NOT be limited to the risks associated with a collision but expanded to include risks within and outside the workplace, risk to future health, risk to family stability, etc. (I am sure the many creative among you will recognise other risks that should be included in the melting pot. Maybe not at the second step of the FRMS evolution, but at a later step. Perhaps someone should even begin to map those future steps so everyone can see where it is headed (wouldn't that be innovative?)
I guess I have provided sufficient fuel to the debate for now, to ensure some criticism.
Over....