ATSB Fatigue Report
Thread Starter
ATSB Fatigue Report
From the ATSB News Room;
Those stats could actually be framed from a different angle,
ie
When assessing the risk associated with nearly half the surveyed pilots having averaged less than seven hours sleep per day for the two days leading up to their duty end,other factors should be taken into account;
Was the ‘less than seven hours’ achieved between midnight and six am?
How many hours were spent at a cabin altitude of 8000ft?
How many hours were spent in a low frequency 50+ dB environment?
How many hours were spent sitting without the opportunity to get up and move about as reccomended?
Were high levels of cognitive performance expected/ required between the hours of midnight and six am?
Apart from sleeping we’re there hours available to the pilot to tend to family responsibilities?
Was there opportunity for rest breaks away from the flight deck?
The Report seems lite and meaningless to me.
Over half of the pilots reported having seven hours of sleep or more in the previous 24 hours, and over 60 per cent reported having more than 14 hours in the previous 48 hours at the end of their past duty.
ATSB Chief Commissioner, Greg Hood, said the report highlighted fatigue, and issues associated fatigue, were not common in the Australia, but some pilots do face operating in conditions conducive to fatigue.
“While small in number, some pilots did report operating in conditions consistent with thresholds that have been shown to be associated with impaired performance due to fatigue at the end of their last flight,” Mr Hood said.
The report shows that 10 per cent of pilots reported obtaining less than five hours of sleep in the previous 24 hours, and 17 per cent reported they had less 12 hours in the previous 48 hours of their last fight.
ATSB Chief Commissioner, Greg Hood, said the report highlighted fatigue, and issues associated fatigue, were not common in the Australia, but some pilots do face operating in conditions conducive to fatigue.
“While small in number, some pilots did report operating in conditions consistent with thresholds that have been shown to be associated with impaired performance due to fatigue at the end of their last flight,” Mr Hood said.
The report shows that 10 per cent of pilots reported obtaining less than five hours of sleep in the previous 24 hours, and 17 per cent reported they had less 12 hours in the previous 48 hours of their last fight.
ie
49% of pilots reported having less than seven hours of sleep or more in the previous 24 hours, and 39% reported having less than 14 hours in the previous 48 hours at the end of their past duty.
ATSB Chief Commissioner, Greg Hood, said the report highlighted fatigue, and issues associated fatigue, were not common in the Australia, but some pilots do face operating in conditions conducive to fatigue.
“some pilots did report operating in conditions consistent with thresholds that have been shown to be associated with impaired performance due to fatigue at the end of their last flight,” Mr Hood said.
The report shows that 10 per cent of pilots reported obtaining less than five hours of sleep in the previous 24 hours, and 17 per cent reported they had less 12 hours in the previous 48 hours of their last fight.
ATSB Chief Commissioner, Greg Hood, said the report highlighted fatigue, and issues associated fatigue, were not common in the Australia, but some pilots do face operating in conditions conducive to fatigue.
“some pilots did report operating in conditions consistent with thresholds that have been shown to be associated with impaired performance due to fatigue at the end of their last flight,” Mr Hood said.
The report shows that 10 per cent of pilots reported obtaining less than five hours of sleep in the previous 24 hours, and 17 per cent reported they had less 12 hours in the previous 48 hours of their last fight.
Was the ‘less than seven hours’ achieved between midnight and six am?
How many hours were spent at a cabin altitude of 8000ft?
How many hours were spent in a low frequency 50+ dB environment?
How many hours were spent sitting without the opportunity to get up and move about as reccomended?
Were high levels of cognitive performance expected/ required between the hours of midnight and six am?
Apart from sleeping we’re there hours available to the pilot to tend to family responsibilities?
Was there opportunity for rest breaks away from the flight deck?
The Report seems lite and meaningless to me.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's entirely the point, soft soothing noises from the regulator, nothing to see here, move along passengers. This could be part of an longer term "perceptions management" strategy to undermine any mandate for a FRMS away from business as usual CAO48E. No need to adopt to the 2011 ICAO recommended FRMS system, that at least has the fig leaf of some pretense of science to back up the rules.
The message is for the public, not those that in OA & 0B.
Went to the ATSB's site to read the actual report, at the end of the article is a link to what I thought would be the actual report, but no, it was just another waffle piece. Making claims like this is bullsh1te without the actual report to review, it's methodology etc. As the OP said, if you take the other end of the statement it isn't so good. It's Survey Monkey at best and pretty much like any company employee survey and cannot be considered to be an actual REPORT.
What we have here is no different than what the Hayne RC has shown, that we have wholesale regulator capture across Australia, in every area, from Finance to the various state EPAs. Governments have progressively ensured that the regulators don't embarrass them. They are now really just another arm of Gov, there only for the appearance of independence.
I'm sure you've seen the SMH piece on ASIC, APRA and the ACCC taking freebies from the companies that they overlook.
What we have here is no different than what the Hayne RC has shown, that we have wholesale regulator capture across Australia, in every area, from Finance to the various state EPAs. Governments have progressively ensured that the regulators don't embarrass them. They are now really just another arm of Gov, there only for the appearance of independence.
I'm sure you've seen the SMH piece on ASIC, APRA and the ACCC taking freebies from the companies that they overlook.
I'm sure you've seen the SMH piece on ASIC, APRA and the ACCC taking freebies from the companies that they overlook.
On a positive note, we are all hereby absolved of all responsibility should we have an accident due to fatigue. The subject of fatigue in this country has been investigated and found to be a non-problem, hooraah!
I was not a contributor to this survey ( I didn't know it had been run) but do find the results limited in their range of data.
To use a survey covering only 24 hour and a 48 hour periods of duty is not looking at all areas that contribute to Pilot fatigue.
I'm sure most reading both the survey and the posts here are well aware of the longer term fatigue induced by constant high hours per month, regular east/west long haul flights, back-of-the-clock flights, variable start and finish times, regular short periods free of duty and the list goes on. Arguably, it is this longer term fatigue that is more likely to lead to an 'operational event', particularly if a large proportion of a pilot group within an operation are subject to the same stress.
This is a start, but I would hope that a competent regulator would be looking at more than just this limited survey to recommend fatigue management changes and oversee the operators across the board.
To use a survey covering only 24 hour and a 48 hour periods of duty is not looking at all areas that contribute to Pilot fatigue.
I'm sure most reading both the survey and the posts here are well aware of the longer term fatigue induced by constant high hours per month, regular east/west long haul flights, back-of-the-clock flights, variable start and finish times, regular short periods free of duty and the list goes on. Arguably, it is this longer term fatigue that is more likely to lead to an 'operational event', particularly if a large proportion of a pilot group within an operation are subject to the same stress.
This is a start, but I would hope that a competent regulator would be looking at more than just this limited survey to recommend fatigue management changes and oversee the operators across the board.
Thread Starter
I think we can all stop holding our breath for some sensible regulation of duty time.
I suspect the only way to prevent accidents and incidents due Fatigue in Australia over the next fifty years will be to develop a culture within the pilot group of calling ‘fatigued’ on a semi regular basis rather than attempting to recover during rostered rest time.
Not a culture of calling fatigued when it’s unjustified, but a culture of calling fatigued in order to be safe at work while not neglecting family and personal health.
I suspect the only way to prevent accidents and incidents due Fatigue in Australia over the next fifty years will be to develop a culture within the pilot group of calling ‘fatigued’ on a semi regular basis rather than attempting to recover during rostered rest time.
Not a culture of calling fatigued when it’s unjustified, but a culture of calling fatigued in order to be safe at work while not neglecting family and personal health.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The survey scope was limiting and failed to consider a range of substantive factors, however the reality appears certain that there will be no fixed regulatory FRMS regime leaving the issues and impacts to the mercy of the 'culture' at each individual airline. Sadly, some will have a better culture than others.
Went to the ATSB's site to read the actual report, at the end of the article is a link to what I thought would be the actual report, but no, it was just another waffle piece. Making claims like this is bullsh1te without the actual report to review, it's methodology etc. As the OP said, if you take the other end of the statement it isn't so good. It's Survey Monkey at best and pretty much like any company employee survey and cannot be considered to be an actual REPORT.
What we have here is no different than what the Hayne RC has shown, that we have wholesale regulator capture across Australia, in every area, from Finance to the various state EPAs. Governments have progressively ensured that the regulators don't embarrass them. They are now really just another arm of Gov, there only for the appearance of independence.
I'm sure you've seen the SMH piece on ASIC, APRA and the ACCC taking freebies from the companies that they overlook.
What we have here is no different than what the Hayne RC has shown, that we have wholesale regulator capture across Australia, in every area, from Finance to the various state EPAs. Governments have progressively ensured that the regulators don't embarrass them. They are now really just another arm of Gov, there only for the appearance of independence.
I'm sure you've seen the SMH piece on ASIC, APRA and the ACCC taking freebies from the companies that they overlook.
The regulatory capture of ASIC/APRA (not to mention in their case at least, the gutting of funding by Abbott and Hockey) is exactly what I was thinking about with new the new fatigue rules and the new target of “international averages” as though mediocrity where the new gold standard. It’s disgraceful given that there is most likely some highly qualified people working in government that are genuinely trying to do what’s best for the travelling public and those under their flight path.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The regulatory capture of ASIC/APRA (not to mention in their case at least, the gutting of funding by Abbott and Hockey) is exactly what I was thinking about with new the new fatigue rules and the new target of “international averages” as though mediocrity where the new gold standard. It’s disgraceful given that there is most likely some highly qualified people working in government that are genuinely trying to do what’s best for the travelling public and those under their flight path.
Sir Humphrey To put it simply, certain informal discussions took place involving a full and frank exchange of views out of which there arose a series of proposals, which on examination proved to indicate certain promising lines of inquiry, which, when pursued, lead to the realization that the alternative courses of action might, in fact, in certain circumstances, be susceptible of discreet modification, leading to a reappraisal of the original areas of difference and pointing the way to encouraging possibilities of compromise and cooperation, which, if bilaterally implemented with appropriate give and take on both sides might, if the climate were right, have a reasonable probability at the end of the day of leading, rightly or wrongly, to a mutually satisfactory resolution.
Hacker: What the hell are you talking about?
Sir Humphrey: (They) We did a deal.
Hacker: What the hell are you talking about?
Sir Humphrey: (They) We did a deal.
GordonexpletiveRamsey,
" Surely bribery would never happen in this country."
No, it isn't a case of " I'll give you money for a given result", it's basic psychology. I cannot remember which Ivy League uni it was, but their research said even cheap gifts alter the behaviour of the receiver towards the gift giver, The research was into gift giving by companies to regulators, customers (purchasers) etc. Similar effect is behind political donations.
" Surely bribery would never happen in this country."
No, it isn't a case of " I'll give you money for a given result", it's basic psychology. I cannot remember which Ivy League uni it was, but their research said even cheap gifts alter the behaviour of the receiver towards the gift giver, The research was into gift giving by companies to regulators, customers (purchasers) etc. Similar effect is behind political donations.
Bribery is the act of offering someone money or something valuable in order to persuade them to do something for you.
Anyway the ATSB is more astute than to engage in bribery so it’s moot.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is an interesting exchange from 2011. Corruption, nothing to see here!
Source: Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee 31/03/2011 Pilot training, airline safety and the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010
More discussion about fatigue, FRMS & FAID in the complete source document.
Source: Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee 31/03/2011 Pilot training, airline safety and the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010
More discussion about fatigue, FRMS & FAID in the complete source document.
Senator XENOPHON —Sure, and no doubt we will hear from you about that. I want to go to the issue of the CASA audit—and maybe Mr Rossiter can assist us on this. Jetstar out of the Darwin-Singapore flights operates to an exemption to CAO order 48, which relates to flight and duty time limitations. Mr Rossiter, at the time, on 18 September 2009, you were the manager of CASA Air Transport Operations Southern Region—correct?
Mr Rossiter —That is correct.
Senator XENOPHON —And you signed off on this exemption?
Mr Rossiter —Yes, that is correct.
Senator XENOPHON —You commenced work with Jetstar in—what was it?—December.
Mr Rossiter —15 December.
Senator XENOPHON —And just for the record, because it was raised by previous senators—I think I know the answer, but I think to be fair to you: at what stage did you apply for a job with Jetstar?
Mr Rossiter —I did not in fact have a conversation with Jetstar about any potential of even entering into a process until after the time of the signing of that exemption.
Senator XENOPHON —That was in October some time?
Mr Rossiter —The exemption was about—
Senator XENOPHON —The exemption was 18 September.
Mr Rossiter —Yes, 18 September. It was about three weeks after that that I first had a dialogue with Bruce.
Mr Buchanan —Can say a few things on this one?
Senator XENOPHON —Yes, but you can understand why I am raising it—because it was raised by some of my colleagues. I am quite satisfied with that answer, but I think it is important to put that on the record.
Mr Buchanan —But just to give a bit of context around the CAO 48 exemption: that is a document that was renewed for the fifth time by Mark. It is a document that exists for almost all airlines in the world. It is a pretty standard process it goes through. It is really to deal with the flight time duty limitations that were derived back—I don’t know—50 years ago and were not really thought through.
Senator XENOPHON —That is not quite right, though, is it, because there is a difference between international operations and those short-haul international operations? That has been one of the challenges to CAO 48.
Mr Buchanan —I am talking about the original ones. That is why you have the CAO 48 exemption which exist now, which is trying to deal with modern jet operations, RPT services and—
Senator XENOPHON —and the shorter haul international legs?
Mr Buchanan —A combination of both, yes.
Senator XENOPHON —Sure. I accept that.
Mr Joyce —Can make another comment. It is a general point that should be made. The interchange between CASA and the airlines has taken place for some time. There is a sort of an impression that there may be some impropriety in having people change between the two organisations. We feel that it is actually really good for safety and the improvement of safety practices in this country to have that interchange, because people who come from the regulator into the airline get a different dimension, a different perspective and actually improve the safety within the airline community—and vice versa. We talked about CASA resources and CASA’s need to build up resources going forward. The prime source of those resources will come from the aviation industry. What we see within CASA is appropriate checks and balances. In this case there were appropriate checks and balances when Mark came across—for other people that review his approvals and his activities to make sure that the areas no impropriety in anything that occurs.
Senator XENOPHON —Mr Joyce, I am not suggesting it. I just think it was important to have that on the record: that at the time that the exemption was given Mr Rossiter had not engaged in any discussions with Jetstar. I want to be fair to Mr Rossiter. That is on the record.
Mr Joyce —I accept what you are saying, Senator. I just wanted to explain from our perspective that there are a lot of checks and balances and this is a good thing; it is not a bad thing.
Mr Rossiter —That is correct.
Senator XENOPHON —And you signed off on this exemption?
Mr Rossiter —Yes, that is correct.
Senator XENOPHON —You commenced work with Jetstar in—what was it?—December.
Mr Rossiter —15 December.
Senator XENOPHON —And just for the record, because it was raised by previous senators—I think I know the answer, but I think to be fair to you: at what stage did you apply for a job with Jetstar?
Mr Rossiter —I did not in fact have a conversation with Jetstar about any potential of even entering into a process until after the time of the signing of that exemption.
Senator XENOPHON —That was in October some time?
Mr Rossiter —The exemption was about—
Senator XENOPHON —The exemption was 18 September.
Mr Rossiter —Yes, 18 September. It was about three weeks after that that I first had a dialogue with Bruce.
Mr Buchanan —Can say a few things on this one?
Senator XENOPHON —Yes, but you can understand why I am raising it—because it was raised by some of my colleagues. I am quite satisfied with that answer, but I think it is important to put that on the record.
Mr Buchanan —But just to give a bit of context around the CAO 48 exemption: that is a document that was renewed for the fifth time by Mark. It is a document that exists for almost all airlines in the world. It is a pretty standard process it goes through. It is really to deal with the flight time duty limitations that were derived back—I don’t know—50 years ago and were not really thought through.
Senator XENOPHON —That is not quite right, though, is it, because there is a difference between international operations and those short-haul international operations? That has been one of the challenges to CAO 48.
Mr Buchanan —I am talking about the original ones. That is why you have the CAO 48 exemption which exist now, which is trying to deal with modern jet operations, RPT services and—
Senator XENOPHON —and the shorter haul international legs?
Mr Buchanan —A combination of both, yes.
Senator XENOPHON —Sure. I accept that.
Mr Joyce —Can make another comment. It is a general point that should be made. The interchange between CASA and the airlines has taken place for some time. There is a sort of an impression that there may be some impropriety in having people change between the two organisations. We feel that it is actually really good for safety and the improvement of safety practices in this country to have that interchange, because people who come from the regulator into the airline get a different dimension, a different perspective and actually improve the safety within the airline community—and vice versa. We talked about CASA resources and CASA’s need to build up resources going forward. The prime source of those resources will come from the aviation industry. What we see within CASA is appropriate checks and balances. In this case there were appropriate checks and balances when Mark came across—for other people that review his approvals and his activities to make sure that the areas no impropriety in anything that occurs.
Senator XENOPHON —Mr Joyce, I am not suggesting it. I just think it was important to have that on the record: that at the time that the exemption was given Mr Rossiter had not engaged in any discussions with Jetstar. I want to be fair to Mr Rossiter. That is on the record.
Mr Joyce —I accept what you are saying, Senator. I just wanted to explain from our perspective that there are a lot of checks and balances and this is a good thing; it is not a bad thing.
Whilst this may may indeed be the case, especially given the new 48.1(2019) proposed rule set, I hope that everyone can put in the time to respond the 48.1 consultation process. There were only 26 submissions last time around - perhaps this level of apathy is a small part to blame.
Sure it it might not make much of a difference, but if enough feedback is received from flight crew outlining the significant issues with the new rules, perhaps that can bring about some small change.
https://consultation.casa.gov.au/reg.../consultation/
So AFAP commissioned a fatigue survey of Australian commercial pilots in 2017, and this report written by Prof Williamson and Dr Friswell of UNSW is published at the "click here" in
https://www.afap.org.au/news1/ArtMID...-survey-report
The ATSB survey published in 2019 does not refer to these results in the text or in its references, yet it is clearly relevant. Is the omission of this AFAP (UNSW) survey in the ATSB report deliberate or accidental? Either reflects badly on ATSB. Greg?
SB
https://www.afap.org.au/news1/ArtMID...-survey-report
The ATSB survey published in 2019 does not refer to these results in the text or in its references, yet it is clearly relevant. Is the omission of this AFAP (UNSW) survey in the ATSB report deliberate or accidental? Either reflects badly on ATSB. Greg?
SB
I think we can all stop holding our breath for some sensible regulation of duty time.
I suspect the only way to prevent accidents and incidents due Fatigue in Australia over the next fifty years will be to develop a culture within the pilot group of calling ‘fatigued’ on a semi regular basis rather than attempting to recover during rostered rest time.
Not a culture of calling fatigued when it’s unjustified, but a culture of calling fatigued in order to be safe at work while not neglecting family and personal health.
I suspect the only way to prevent accidents and incidents due Fatigue in Australia over the next fifty years will be to develop a culture within the pilot group of calling ‘fatigued’ on a semi regular basis rather than attempting to recover during rostered rest time.
Not a culture of calling fatigued when it’s unjustified, but a culture of calling fatigued in order to be safe at work while not neglecting family and personal health.
Yes, you read that correctly, “falling asleep at the console”.
Review the ATSB site https://www.atsb.gov.au/repcon_reports/?mode=Aviation.
Of the last seven published REPCON reports, 5 relate to fatigue (air crew, cabin crew and air traffic control). Its an Industry wide issue and unfortunately, the scramble to the bottom has meant less staff doing more. Work scheduling “rules”, minimum time off and maximum hours are seen by the bean counters as a KPI to be achieved and failure to achieve these places their bonuses at risk.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its an Industry wide issue and unfortunately, the scramble to the bottom has meant less staff doing more. Work scheduling “rules”, minimum time off and maximum hours are seen by the bean counters as a KPI to be achieved and failure to achieve these places their bonuses at risk.
When the target is met, the industry pushes for new limits.
With lavish perks bestowed on regulators, parliamentarians and public servants alike, is it any wonder industry gets what it wants?
In other countries Australians would call it for what it is; corruption.
Of the last seven published REPCON reports, 5 relate to fatigue (air crew, cabin crew and air traffic control).
That's fine as long as the CASA board:
Mr Shane Carmody
Mr Anthony Mathews
Ms Anita Taylor
Ms Cheryl Cartwright
Ms Jane McAloon
Mr Mark Rindfleish, and
Mr Michael Bridge,
are ok with the disgusting reality if one of our colleagues falls asleep or makes a minor mistake at the end of a long day. It must be nice to be completely responsible for such a dangerous approach to fatigue but not be liable.
Thread Starter
It will be easy for them to point to the rules and say “ if only the pilot had adhered to the regulations and removed themselves from duty as was their responsibility, isn’t it tragic that they broke the rules and so many paid the price”.
