Lets not forget that the regulations, the ones that state that a controller must not exercise their license whilst having the most minor of incapacitiations, do not provide any protection to controllers re-duty time limitations.
This would be the same for driving a car. If a controller, following a night shift, had a FAID of 80 (equal to a Blood Alcohol Content of .05) and CHOSE to drive and had an accident it would legally be seen as the controllers fault.
The other night 7 controllers in Brisbane centre were looking for stand-down rooms to sleep following the doggo. These 7 people considered that they were too tired to drive and needed to sleep before attempting to drive home. It is ironic that the ASA organization-wide policy is a workplace .02 BAC limit, but are content to let their most safety critical area work up to and above an equivalent BAC of .05.
It seems that the whole idea of FAID is to put all the responsibilty on to the controller, yet again, whilst enabling plausible corporate deniabilty. There is an article in last months Flight Safety about real fatigue management, it is especially makes mention that some organisations have been seen to implement fatigue management but use it only as a 'box-ticking' exercise and are happy to manipulate these programs for their own ends. Hmmm, I wonder who they may be referring to.