Search

The materials included in the collection of documents describe the research of the NASA Ames Fatigue Countermeasures Group (FCG), which examines the extent to which fatigue, sleep loss, and circadian disruption affect flight-crew performance. The group was formed in 1980 in response to a Congressional request to examine a possible safety problem of uncertain magnitude due to transmeridian flying and a potential problem due to fatigue in association with various factors found in air-transport operations and was originally called the Fatigue/Jet Lag Program. The goals of the FCG are: (1) the development and evaluation of strategies for mitigating the effects of sleepiness and circadian disruption on pilot performance levels; (2) the identification and evaluation of objective approaches for the prediction of alertness changes in flight crews; and (3) the transfer and application of research results to the operational field via classes, workshops, and safety briefings. Some of the countermeasure approaches that have been identified to be scientifically valid and operationally relevant are brief naps (less than 40 min) in the cockpit seat and 7-min activity breaks, which include postural changes and ambulation. Although a video-based alertness monitor based on slow eyelid closure shows promise in other operational environments, research by the FCG has demonstrated that in its current form at the time of this reporting, it is not feasible to implement it in the cockpit. Efforts also focus on documenting the impact of untreated fatigue on various types of flight operations. For example, the FCG recently completed a major investigation into the effects of ultra-long-range flights (20 continuous hours in duration) on the alertness and performance of pilots in order to establish a baseline set of parameters against which the effectiveness of new ultra-long-range fatigue remedies can be judged.

Regional operations encompass a broad range of pilots and equipment. This module is intended to help all those involved in regional aviation, including pilots, schedulers, dispatchers, maintenance technicians, policy makers, and others, to understand the physiological factors underlying fatigue, how flight operations affect fatigue, and what can be done to counteract fatigue and maximize alertness and performance in their operations. The overall purpose of this module is to promote aviation safety, performance, and productivity. It is intended to meet three specific objectives: (1) to explain the current state of knowledge about the physiological mechanisms underlying fatigue; (2) to demonstrate how this knowledge can be applied to improving flight crew sleep, performance, and alertness; and (3) to offer strategies for alertness management. Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) and National Transportation Safety Board (NISH) reports are used throughout this module to demonstrate that fatigue is a safety issue in the regional operations community. The appendices at the end of this module include the ASRS reports used for the examples contained in this publication, brief introductions to sleep disorders and relaxation techniques, summaries of relevant NASA publications, and a list of general readings on sleep, sleep disorders, and circadian rhythms.

Regional operations encompass a broad range of pilots and equipment. This module is intended to help all those involved in regional aviation, including pilots, schedulers, dispatchers, maintenance technicians, policy makers, and others, to understand the physiological factors underlying fatigue, how flight operations affect fatigue, and what can be done to counteract fatigue and maximize alertness and performance in their operations. The overall purpose of this module is to promote aviation safety, performance, and productivity. It is intended to meet three specific objectives: (1) to explain the current state of knowledge about the physiological mechanisms underlying fatigue; (2) to demonstrate how this knowledge can be applied to improving flight crew sleep, performance, and alertness; and (3) to offer strategies for alertness management. Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) and National Transportation Safety Board (NISH) reports are used throughout this module to demonstrate that fatigue is a safety issue in the regional operations community. The appendices at the end of this module include the ASRS reports used for the examples contained in this publication, brief introductions to sleep disorders and relaxation techniques, summaries of relevant NASA publications, and a list of general readings on sleep, sleep disorders, and circadian rhythms.

In response to a 1980 congressional request, NASA Ames Research Center initiated a Fatigue/Jet Lag Program to examine fatigue, sleep loss, and circadian disruption in aviation. Research has examined fatigue in a variety of flight environments using a range of measures (from self-report to performance to physiological). In 1991, the program evolved into the Fatigue Countermeasures Program, emphasizing the development and evaluation of strategies to maintain alertness and performance in operational settings. Over the years, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has become a collaborative partner in support of fatigue research and other Program activities. From the inception of the Program, a principal goal was to return the information learned from research and other Program activities to the operational community. The objectives of this Education and Training Module are to explain what has been learned about the physiological mechanisms that underlie fatigue, demonstrate the application of this information in flight operations, and offer some specific fatigue countermeasure recommendations. It is intended for all segments of the aeronautics industry, including pilots, flight attendants, managers, schedulers, safety and policy personnel, maintenance crews, and others involved in an operational environment that challenges human physiological capabilities because of fatigue, sleep loss, and circadian disruption.

Today, 24-hour operations are necessary to meet the demands of our society and the requirements of our industrialized global economy. These around-the-clock demands pose unique physiological challenges for the humans who remain central to safe and productive operations. Optimal alertness and performance are critical factors that are increasingly challenged by unusual, extended, or changing work/rest schedules. Technological advancements and automated systems can exacerbate the challenges faced by the human factor in these environments. Shift work, transportation demands, and continuous operations engender sleep loss and circadian disruption. Both of these physiological factors can lead to increased sleepiness, decreased performance, and a reduced margin of safety. These factors can increase vulnerability to incidents and accidents in operational settings. The consequences can have both societal effects (e.g., major destructive accidents such as Three Mile Island, Exxon Valdez, Bhopal) and personal effects (e.g., an accident driving home after a night shift).

Many aircraft operated on long-haul commercial airline flights are equipped with on-board crew rest facilities, or bunks, to allow crewmembers to rest during the flight. The primary objectives of this study were to gather data on how the bunks were used, the quantity and quality of sleep obtained by flight crewmembers in the facilities, and the factors that affected their sleep. A retrospective survey comprising 54 questions of varied format addressed demographics, home sleep habits, and bunk sleep habits. Crewmembers from three airlines with long-haul fleets carrying augmented crews consisting of B747-100/200, B747-400, and MD-11 aircraft equipped with bunks returned a total of 1404 completed surveys (a 37% response rate). Crewmembers from the three carriers were comparable demographically, although one carrier had older, more experienced flight crewmembers. Each group, on average, rated themselves as "good" or "very good" sleepers at home, and all groups obtained about the same average amount of sleep each night. Most were able to sleep in the bunks, and about two thirds indicated that these rest opportunities benefited their subsequent flight deck alertness and performance. Comfort, environment, and physiology (e.g., being ready for sleep) were identified as factors that most promoted sleep. Factors cited as interfering with sleep included random noise, thoughts, heat, and the need to use the bathroom. These factors, in turn, suggest potential improvements to bunk facilities and their use. Ratings of the three aircraft types suggested differences among facilities. Bunks in the MD-11 were rated significantly better than either of the B747 types, and the B747-400 bunks received better ratings than did the older, B747-100/200 facilities.

Corporate flight crews face unique challenges including unscheduled flights, quickly changing schedules, extended duty days, long waits, time zone changes, and peripheral tasks. Most corporate operations are regulated by Part 91 FARs which set no flight or duty time limits. The objective of this study was to identify operationally significant factors that may influence fatigue, alertness, and performance in corporate operations. In collaboration with the National Business Aircraft Association and the Flight Safety Foundation, NASA developed and distributed a retrospective survey comprising 107 questions addressing demographics, home sleep habits, flight experience, duty schedules, fatigue during operations, and work environment. Corporate crewmembers returned 1,488 surveys. Respondents averaged 45.2 years of age, had 14.9 years of corporate flying experience, and 9,750 total flight hours. The majority (89%) rated themselves as 'good' or 'very good' sleepers at home. Most (82%) indicated they are subject to call for duty and described an average duty day of 9.9 h. About two-thirds reported having a daily duty time limit and over half (57%) reported a daily flight time limit. Nearly three-quarters (71%) acknowledged having 'nodded off' during a flight. Only 21% reported that their flight departments offer training on fatigue issues. Almost three-quarters (74%) described fatigue as a 'moderate' or 'serious' concern, and a majority (61%) characterized it as a common occurrence. Most (85%) identified fatigue as a 'moderate' or 'serious' safety issue.

This report is the eleventh in a series on the physiological effects of flight operations on flight crews. A 119-question survey was completed by 1,424 flight crewmembers from 26 regional carriers to identify factors contributing to fatigue in regional airline operations. Eighty-nine percent of crewmembers identified fatigue as a moderate or serious concern with 88% reporting that it was a common occurrence and 92% reporting that, when it occurs, fatigue represents a moderate or serious safety issue. However, 86% reported they received no company training addressing fatigue issues. Identified fatigue factors included multiple flight segments, scheduling considerations, varying regulations, and others. The two most commonly cited fatigue factors regarded flying multiple (more than four) segments. Scheduling factors accounted for nine of the ten most common recommendations to reduce fatigue in regional operations. Differing requirements among regulations were cited as contributing to fatigue. Other identified factors were the flight deck environment, automation, and diet. The data suggested specific recommendations, including education of industry personnel about fatigue issues and examination of scheduling practices. Education plays a critical role in any effort to address fatigue. Analyzing scheduling practices and identifying potential improvements may result in reduced fatigue as well as other benefits to operations.

In response to a 1980 congressional request, NASA Ames Research Center initiated a Fatigue/Jet Lag Program to examine fatigue, sleep loss, and circadian disruption in aviation. Research has examined fatigue in a variety of flight environments using a range of measures (from self-report to performance to physiological). In 1991, the program evolved into the Fatigue Countermeasures Program, emphasizing the development and evaluation of strategies to maintain alertness and performance in operational settings. Over the years, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has become a collaborative partner in support of fatigue research and other Program activities. From the inception of the Program, a principal goal was to return the information learned from research and other Program activities to the operational community. The objectives of this Education and Training Module are to explain what has been learned about the physiological mechanisms that underlie fatigue, demonstrate the application of this information in flight operations, and offer some specific fatigue counter-measure recommendations. It is intended for all segments of the aeronautics industry, including pilots, flight attendants, managers, schedulers, safety and policy personnel, maintenance crews, and others involved in an operational environment that challenges human physiological capabilities because of fatigue, sleep loss, and circadian disruption.

Twenty-four hour, global aviation operations pose unique challenges to humans. Physiological requirements related to sleep, the internal circadian clock, and human fatigue are critical factors that are known to affect safety, performance, and productivity. Understanding the human operators' physiological capabilities, and limitations, will be important to address these issues as global demand for aviation activities continues to increase. In 1980, in response to a Congressional request, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Center initiated a Fatigue/Jet Lag Program to examine the role of fatigue in flight operations. Originally established by Dr. John K. Lauber and Dr. Charles E. Billings, the Program was designed to address three objectives: (1) determine the extent of fatigue, sleep loss, and circadian disruption in flight operations; (2) determine how fatigue affected flight crew performance; and (3) develop strategies to maximize performance and alertness during flight operations.

This paper will summarize the results of a study which introduces a structured, model based approach to learning how the automated vertical guidance system works on a modern commercial air transport. The study proposes a framework to provide accurate and complete information in an attempt to eliminate confusion about 'what the system is doing'. This study will examine a structured methodology for organizing the ideas on which the system was designed, communicating this information through the training material, and displaying it in the airplane. Previous research on model-based, computer aided instructional technology has shown reductions in the amount of time to a specified level of competence. The lessons learned from the development of these technologies are well suited for use with the design methodology which was used to develop the vertical guidance logic for a large commercial air transport. The design methodology presents the model from which to derive the training material, and the content of information to be displayed to the operator. The study consists of a 2 X 2 factorial experiment which will compare a new method of training vertical guidance logic and a new type of display. The format of the material used to derive both the training and the display will be provided by the Operational Procedure Methodology. The training condition will compare current training material to the new structured format. The display condition will involve a change of the content of the information displayed into pieces that agree with the concepts with which the system was designed.

Advancing air traffic management technologies have enabled a greater number of aircraft to use the same airspace more effectively. As aircraft separations are reduced and final approaches are more finely timed, there is less room for error. The present study examined 122 terminal-area, loss-of-separation and procedure violation incidents reported to the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) by air traffic controllers. Narrative description codes were used for the incidents for type of violation, contributing factors, recovery strategies, and consequences. Usually multiple errors occurred prior to the violation. Error sequences were analyzed and common patterns of errors were identified. In half of the incidents, errors were noticed in time to correct mistakes. Of these, almost 43% committed additional errors during the recovery attempt. This analysis shows that redundancies in the present air traffic control system may not be sufficient to support large increases in traffic density. Error prevention and design considerations for air traffic management systems are discussed.

Automated aids and decision support tools are rapidly becoming indispensible tools in high-technology cockpits, and are assuming increasing control of "cognitive" flight tasks, such as calculating fuel-efficient routes, navigating, or detecting and diagnosing system malfunctions and abnormalities. This study was designed to investigate "automation bias," a recently documented factor in the use of automated aids and decision support systems. The term refers to omission and commission errors resulting from the use of automated cues as a heuristic replacement for vigilant information seeking and processing. Glass-cockpit pilots flew flight scenarios involving automation "events," or opportunities for automation-related omission and commission errors. Pilots who perceived themselves as "accountable" for their performance and strategies of interaction with the automation were more likely to double-check automated functioning against other cues, and less likely to commit errors. Pilots were also likely to erroneously "remember" the presence of expected cues when describing their decision-making processes.

Adverse weather conditions can put considerable strain on the National Airspace System. Even small decreases in visibility on the airport surface can create delays, hinder safe movement and lead to errors. Studies of Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) surface movement incidents support the need for technologies and procedures to improve ground operations in low-visibility conditions. This study examined 139 ASRS reports of low-visibility surface movement incidents at 10 major U.S. airports. Errors were characterized in terms of incident type, contributing factors and consequences. The incidents in the present sample were comprised of runway transgressions, taxiway excursions and ground conflicts. The primary contributing factors were Airport Layout and Markings, Communication and Distraction. In half the incidents the controller issued a new clearance or the flight crew took an evasive action and in the remaining half, no recovery attempt was made because the error was detected after the fact. By gaining a better understanding the factors that affect crew navigation in low visibility and the types of errors that are likely to occur, it will be possible to develop more robust technologies to aid pilots in the ground taxi task. Implications for crew training and procedure development for low-visibility ground taxi are also discussed.

It is well known that a significant proportion of aviation accidents and incidents are tied to human error. In flight operations, research of operational errors has shown that so-called "pilot error" often involves a variety of human factors issues and not a simple lack of individual technical skills. In aircraft maintenance operations, there is similar concern that maintenance errors which may lead to incidents and accidents are related to a large variety of human factors issues. Although maintenance error data and research are limited, industry initiatives involving human factors training in maintenance have become increasingly accepted as one type of maintenance error intervention. Conscientious efforts have been made in re-inventing the "team" concept for maintenance operations and in tailoring programs to fit the needs of technical operations. Nevertheless, there remains a dual challenge: to develop human factors interventions which are directly supported by reliable human error data, and to integrate human factors concepts into the procedures and practices of everyday technical tasks. In this paper, we describe several varieties of human factors interventions and focus on two specific alternatives which target problems related to procedures and practices; namely, 1) structured on-the-job training and 2) procedure re-design. We hope to demonstrate that the key to leveraging the impact of these solutions comes from focused interventions; that is, interventions which are derived from a clear understanding of specific maintenance errors, their operational context and human factors components.

Sleep is a vital physiological need which must be met to insure optimal functioning. A single night of significantly shortened sleep negatively impacts performance, alertness, and mood. Restricted sleep studies have shown that even a relatively small amount of sleep loss over several consecutive days can be additive and result in a cumulative sleep debt with similar detrimental effects. Compounding the problem of sleep loss in the operational environment is the poor correlation between subjective reports of sleepiness and objective measures of physiological sleep need. Some of the factors determining how sleepy an individual is at a given point in time are: (1) individual characteristics (e.g., amount of prior sleep and wakefulness, circadian phase, age), (2) environmental conditions (e.g., noise, temperature, amount of social interaction), and (3) task variables (e.g., signal rate, workload). Although sleep need can be masked with medications, the only way to reduce it is with sleep itself. The timing of the sleep period can affect sleep duration and quality and thus its restorative strength. The data are clear that increasing sleep time results in improved alertness. This paper will briefly review the scientific findings on sleep need, the effects of sleep loss, napping strategies, and the implications of incorporating physiologically sound sleep and rest strategies into the operational aviation environment.

Flight/duty/rest considerations involve two highly complex factors: the diverse demands of aviation operations and human physiology (especially sleep and circadian rhythms). Several core operational issues related to fatigue have been identified, such as minimum rest requirements, duty length, flight time considerations, crossing multiple time zones, and night flying. Operations also can involve on-call reserve status and callout, delays due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., weather, mechanical), and on-demand flights. Over 40 years of scientific research is now available to apply to these complex issues of flight/duty/rest requirements. This research involves controlled 'laboratory studies, simulations, and data collected during regular flight operations. When flight/duty/rest requirements are determined they are typically based on a variety of considerations, such as operational demand, safety, economic, etc. Rarely has the available, state-of-the-art science been a consideration along with these other factors when determining flight/duty/rest requirements. While the complexity of the operational demand and human physiology precludes an absolute solution, there is an opportunity to take full advantage of the current scientific data. Incorporating these data in a rational operational manner into flight/duty/rest requirements can improve flight crew performance, alertness, and ultimately, aviation safety.

I will be participating on a Free Flight Human Factors Panel at the Ninth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology in Columbus, Ohio. My representation is related to the work that our group has conducted on flight deck issues associate with free flight. Our group completed a full-mission simulation study investigating procedural issues associated with airborne self-separation. Ten crews flew eight scenarios each in the B747-400 simulator at Ames. Each scenario had a representation of different conflict geometries with intruder aircraft. New alerting logic was created and integrated into the simulator to enable self-separation. In addition, new display features were created to help provide for enhanced information to the flight crew about relevant aircraft, The participants were asked to coordinate maneuvers for self-separation with the intruder aircraft. Data analyses for the many of the crew procedures have been completed.

Results of recent research investigating the use of automated systems have indicated the presence of automation bias, a term describing errors made when decision makers rely on automated cues as a heuristic replacement for vigilant information seeking and processing. Automation commission errors, i.e., errors made when decision makers take inappropriate action because they over-attend to automated information or directives, and automation omission errors, i.e., errors made when decision makers do not take appropriate action because they are not informed of an imminent problem or situation by automated aids, can result from this tendency. In a series of studies, participants who perceived themselves as "accountable" for their strategies of interaction with automation were significantly more likely to verify its correct functioning, and committed significantly fewer automation-related errors than those who did not report this perception. In this study, we focus on two manipulations to encourage verification behaviors within cockpit crews. The first, an information/training manipulation, will focus on explicit information on automation bias, and training for verification of automated functioning. The second manipulation will consist of display prompts to verify automated functioning. Participants (glass-cockpit crews) will fly a series of approaches on the Mini-ACFS, a two-person pan-task flight simulator. Approach scenarios include several automation "events," that is, glitches, malfunctions, or inappropriate recommendations, that can be caught if cross-checked with other cockpit indicators. We anticipate that these manipulations will ameliorate automation bias. Final data analysis will be completed prior to the OSU symposium, and is expected to support the hypotheses that: a) reduced errors are associated with verification behaviors; b) crews will be more likely to verify under training/display conditions than when in the control condition; and c) effects will persist when subjects return for a follow-up exercise 6-9 weeks after their first session. Implications for training and automation design will be discussed.

This paper proposes a model-based training program for the skills necessary to operate advance avionics systems that incorporate advanced autopilots and fight management systems. The training model is based on a formalism, the operational procedure model, that represents the mission model, the rules, and the functions of a modem avionics system. This formalism has been defined such that it can be understood and shared by pilots, the avionics software, and design engineers. Each element of the software is defined in terms of its intent (What?), the rationale (Why?), and the resulting behavior (How?). The Advanced Computer Tutoring project at Carnegie Mellon University has developed a type of model-based, computer aided instructional technology called cognitive tutors. They summarize numerous studies showing that training times to a specified level of competence can be achieved in one third the time of conventional class room instruction. We are developing a similar model-based training program for the skills necessary to operation the avionics. The model underlying the instructional program and that simulates the effects of pilots entries and the behavior of the avionics is based on the operational procedure model. Pilots are given a series of vertical flightpath management problems. Entries that result in violations, such as failure to make a crossing restriction or violating the speed limits, result in error messages with instruction. At any time, the flightcrew can request suggestions on the appropriate set of actions. A similar and successful training program for basic skills for the FMS on the Boeing 737-300 was developed and evaluated. The results strongly support the claim that the training methodology can be adapted to the cockpit.

In 1980, responding to a Congressional request, NASA Ames Research Center created a program to examine whether 'there is a safety problem of uncertain magnitude, due to transmeridian flying and a potential problem due to fatigue in association with various factors found in air transport operations.' The NASA Ames Fatigue/Jet Lag Program was created to collect systematic, scientific information on fatigue, sleep, circadian rhythms, and performance in flight operations. Three Program goals were established and continue to guide research efforts to: (1) determine the extent of fatigue, sleep loss, and circadian disruption in flight operations; (2) determine the impact of these factors on flight crew performance; (3) develop and evaluate countermeasures to mitigate the adverse effects of these factors and maximize flight crew performance and alertness. Since 1980, studies have been conducted in a variety of aviation environments, in controlled laboratory environments, as well as in a full-mission flight simulation. Early studies included investigations of short-haul, long-haul, and overnight cargo flight crews. In 1991, the name of the program was changed to the Fatigue Countermeasures Program to provide a greater emphasis on the development and evaluation of countermeasures. More recent work has examined the effects of planned cockpit rest as an operational countermeasure and provided analyses of the pertinent sleep/duty factors preceding an aviation accident at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Short-Haul study examined the extent of sleep loss, circadian disruption, and fatigue engendered by flying commercial short-haul air transport operations (flight legs less than eight hours). This was one of the first field studies conducted by the NASA program and provided unique insight into the physiological and subjective effects of flying commercial short-haul operations. It demonstrated that a range of measures could be obtained in an operational environment without disturbing the regular performance of duties. The Long-Haul study examined how long-haul flight crews organized their sleep during a variety of international trip patterns and examined how duty requirements, local time, and the circadian system affected the timing, duration, and quality of sleep. Duty requirements and local time can be viewed as external/environmental constraints on time available for sleep, while the internal circadian system is a major physiological modulator of sleep duration and quality. The Overnight Cargo study documented the psychophysiological effects of flying overnight cargo operations. The data collected clearly demonstrated that overnight cargo operations, like other night work, involve physiological disruption not found in comparable daytime operations.

Dynamic growth and technology advances in commercial aviation have turned the terminal area into a complex, multi-organization workplace which requires the smooth coordination of many operational teams. In addition to pilots, cabin crew, air traffic controllers, and dispatch (who nominally work together throughout a flight), surface operations additionally involve local, ground and ramp controllers, ramp agents, maintenance, dozens of service contractors, and any number of teams who are responsible for airport operations. Under abnormal or emergency conditions, even more teams become actively involved. In order to accommodate growth and to meet productivity and safety challenges, numerous changes are being made in surface operations. Unfortunately, it is often the case that changes in technologies, organizational roles, procedures, and training are developed and implemented in isolated and piecemeal fashion without regard to cross organizational impact. Thus, there is a need for evaluation methodologies which assure integrated system safety for all organizations. Such methodologies should aid the understanding of how organizations work together and how changes in one domain affects the next. In this study, we develop one approach toward addressing these organizational issues. Examples of surface operations in abnormal situations are examined in regard to their impact on personnel in the terminal area. Timelines are given for the responses to incidents, along with the necessary communication links, the specific roles that members of terminal teams have, and any overlapping responsibilities. Suggestions to improve cross-operational teamwork are given. Methods of graphic representation are explored, both in regards to human links and access to information. The outcome of such an approach should enhance the understanding which is critical for resolving organizational conflicts and maximizing system effectiveness.