Title - Scientific and Medical Evaluation of Flight Time Limitations
Description - Final Report - “Scientific and Medical Evaluation of Flight Time Limitations”
The quality of rest regarding rest location / rest facilities for flight crew and cabin crew (
re. EU OPS 1.1115 para 1.1 and 1.2).
Various adjustments will be required if the rest facilities do not meet the standards of a ‘good quality’ bunk (
footnote to Q11...... The bunk facility should be completely separated from cockpit and passenger compartment and should be adequately insulated and situated to minimize random and aircraft noise and light. It should contain one or two horizontal sleeping surfaces of adequate size. Preferably, it also has a comfortable seat, climate and humidity control. It is assumed that the requirements for rest facilities will be covered under a separate document after conducting comparative studies of different bunk arrangements (e.g. advisory circular).
From studies that have investigated the extent to which aircrew are able to rest and recuperate in seating accommodation, it has been concluded that rest in a ‘normal’ business class seat separated from the passengers is 75% effective compared with bunk rest, and rest in a flight deck seat that meets certain minimal standards is 33% effective [
Simons M & Spencer M, 2007].
These factors should therefore be applied to those for bunk sleep so that, for example, the 75% increase, applied to bunk sleep, is reduced to 0.75 x 0.75 = 56% and 0.75 x 0.33 = 25% respectively.
No data have been collected from aircrew resting in normal economy seating, and it is not recommended that any increase in maximum FDP be allowed in that case (
until studies are carried out on this).
To summarize, the recommended extensions to the unaugmented FDP, based on the quality of accommodation described below, expressed as a percentage of the rest period available to a single crew member, are as follows [
Simons M & Spencer M, 2007]. The percentages have been suitably rounded for ease of application.
Recommended extensions to the unaugmented FDP, as a percentage of the rest period:
- Acclimatised: 75% (Bunk) / 60% (Business Seat) / 25% Flight Deck or other Seat / no extension (Economy Seat).
- Unacclimatised: 50% (Bunk) / 40% (Business Seat) / 20% Flight Deck or other Seat / no Extension (Economy Seat).
The seating arrangement must meet certain minimum specifications for these extensions to be justified.
A business seat should be a seat reclining to at least 40 degrees back angle to the vertical, outside the cockpit and separated from the passengers and cabin illumination by at least a dark curtain. The seat should offer sufficient leg and foot support and should have sufficient pitch and width to rest comfortably [
Simons M & Spencer M, 2007].
A flight deck / other seat should be a seat in the cockpit or in the passenger cabin reclining to at least 40 degrees from the vertical and providing sufficient leg and foot support
[Simons M & Spencer M, 2007; Nicholson AN & Stone BM, 1987].
No data are available of comparative studies of seating arrangements; more detailed requirements may await the results of future comparative studies.
The recommendations above are based on studies in cockpit crew. No data are available about the relation between seating accommodation and sleep in cabin crew. Although it is assumed that physiological characteristics and needs of cabin crew are similar to those of cockpit crew, their work and augmentation schedules differ considerably from those of cockpit crew. Therefore, it is recommended to conduct studies of the above-mentioned issues in cabin crew in order to define specific requirements.