BACKGROUND: In-flight breaks are used during augmented long-haul flight operations, allowing pilots a sleep opportunity. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration duty and rest regulations restrict the pilot flying the landing to using the third rest break. It is unclear how effective these restrictions are on pilots ability to obtain sleep. We hypothesized there would be no difference in self-reported sleep, alertness, and fatigue between pilots taking the second vs. third rest breaks.METHODS: Pilots flying augmented operations in two U.S.-based commercial airlines were eligible for the study. Volunteers completed a survey at top-of-descent (TOD), including self-reported in-flight sleep duration, and Samn-Perelli fatigue and Karolinska Sleepiness Scale ratings. We compared the second to third rest break using noninferiority analysis. The influence of time of day (home-base time; HBT) was evaluated in 4-h blocks using repeated measures ANOVA.RESULTS: From 787 flights 500 pilots provided complete data. The second rest break was noninferior to the third break for self-reported sleep duration (1.5 0.7 h vs. 1.4 0.7 h), fatigue (2.0 1.0 vs. 2.9 1.3), and sleepiness (2.6 1.4 vs. 3.8 1.8) at TOD for landing pilots. Measures of sleep duration, fatigue, and sleepiness were influenced by HBT circadian time of day.DISCUSSION: We conclude that self-reported in-flight sleep, fatigue, and sleepiness from landing pilots taking the second in-flight rest break are equivalent to or better than pilots taking the third break. Our findings support providing pilots with choice in taking the second or third in-flight rest break during augmented operations.Gregory KB, Soriano-Smith RN, Lamp ACM, Hilditch CJ, Rempe MJ, Flynn-Evans EE, Belenky GL. Flight crew alertness and sleep relative to timing of in-flight rest periods in long-haul flights. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2021; 92(2):8391.
Introduction Safety performance indicators (SPIs) are used in aviation to determine if a trip that is non-compliant with federal regulations is safe to fly. Exemptions to regulations can be granted if a safety case demonstrates that the SPIs for an alternative means of compliance (AMOC; i.e., a trip outside regulations) are non-inferior to SPIs for a safety standard operation (SSO; i.e. a trip compliant with regulations). Through this process, it has previously been suggested that ultra-long-range flights are non-inferior to long-range flights due to increased sleep opportunity. We determined whether SPIs for non-compliant ultra-long-range (ULR) trips are non-inferior to those for compliant short-haul (SH) trips. Methods Performance, fatigue, and sleepiness were assessed at the top of descent (TOD) of flight segments using the Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT), Samn-Perelli (SP) fatigue scale, and Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS), respectively. Data were analyzed using non-inferiority testing. Two different ULR trips with different TOD times (ULR trip 1: n=81; ULR trip 2: n=22) were compared to two types of SH trips, including one trip that contained one or more all-night flights (SH trip 1: n=48) and one trip with zero all-night flights (SH trip 2: n=47). Results Non-inferiority was found for the SPIs at most comparison points. For example, comparing the SPIs for ULR trip 2 and SH trip 1 at final TOD, non-inferiority was found for all SPIs. In contrast, comparing the SPIs for ULR trip 1 and SH trip 1 at final TOD, non-inferiority was found for SP and KSS, while non-inferiority for PVT was only suggested. Conclusion The findings suggest that the AMOC trips are as safe as or safer than the compliant SH trips. This raises questions regarding the structure of SH trips and how differences in the structures play a role in performance, fatigue and sleepiness. Support United Airlines
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.