Introduction
The experience of fatigue leads to numerous deleterious consequences in the aviation industry. Specifically, the harmful ramifications of the issue on a flight crew’s performance are a well-established fact. Performance-related human errors have been linked to several aviation incidents in recent years (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021).
The following deliberation presents the argument that fatigue negatively impacts personnel performance and increases the risk of adverse events during flights. Firstly, a comprehensive assessment of the concept is presented, followed by an analysis of the International Civil Aviation Organization’s position on the matter. A specific assessment of the damaging results is conducted to contextualize its effects on employees aboard an aircraft, followed by an evaluation of potential solutions. Finally, the lessons learned and a summary of the solutions are presented.
Wen et al.’s Study on Fatigue
Fatigue negatively affects staff performance and increases the likelihood of unfavorable incidents during flights. The degree of fatigue is impacted by numerous variables related to airplane operation. In a scoping review conducted by Wen et al. (2023), whenever a round trip was examined, arriving flights were linked to more claims of debility than outgoing flights.
Wen et al. (2023) reiterate that the cabin staff described feeling less drained before the flight, becoming gradually more worn out during the flight, and feeling the most prostration on the drive home. In a study reviewed by Wen et al. (2023), when cabin staff were asked how long they could work before getting jet-lagged, 61.1% of them would feel spent after a 4-6 hour workday. Therefore, it was not surprising that at the end of a trip, the cabin crew often reported feeling tired.
Furthermore, Wen et al. (2023) found that eastbound flights were considered to be more tiring than westbound flights. The cabin staff further stated that the subsequent sleep deficiencies persisted into their rest days (Wen et al., 2023). The challenges posed by flight operational elements significantly contributed to the crew’s experience of exhaustion.
Various personal factors influence the cabin personnel’s experience of fatigue. The appraisal by Wen et al. (2023) noted that families were frequently seen as a solid foundation for support. Nevertheless, during focus groups on exhaustion, relationships were reported to be a source of stress, as they were seen as a competing time demand (Wen et al., 2023). It is worth noting that, due to childcare responsibilities and household duties, females have historically been perceived as having fewer opportunities to alleviate fatigue.
However, Wen et al. (2023) show that studies that evaluated the levels of tiredness between genders revealed no such differences. The studies reviewed by Wen et al. (2023) emphasized how enfeeblement was a common and harmful condition that did not solely affect women. Finally, youth was found to be associated with increased feelings of exhaustion, even after accounting for age (Wen et al., 2023). Individual factors must be considered in the context of systemic operational elements when evaluating the genesis of lethargy.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and Fatigue
There is a broad spectrum of factors that can contribute to an individual’s exposure to fatigue. As mentioned earlier, flight operational issues and individual factors have a significant impact on the experience of somnolence. The ICAO has identified key contributors in the aviation industry to ensure that the specified factors are addressed and their associated risks are mitigated. The key elements reviewed by the ICAO include loss of sleep, lengthened waking periods, circadian cycles, and workload (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). The contextualization of the aforementioned origins is essential for a better understanding of the impacts of listlessness on people aboard an aircraft.
Sleep Loss
Adequate sleep is necessary for the effective avoidance of somnolence. Although each individual’s ideal amount of sleep varies, adults should aim for 7-8 hours of sleep each night (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). In contrast to mental exhaustion, which is primarily caused by the time spent on tasks and cognitive load, sleepiness is primarily the result of disturbances in the circadian rhythm, sleep loss, and prolonged wakefulness (Keller et al., 2022). A highly realistic Boeing 747-400 simulator demonstrated that the quantity of sleep the previous day was a strong predictor of self-rated weariness and mean response time after international flight sectors (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021).
Additionally, sleep was found to be an independent predictor of threat and fault management. Wingelaar-Jagt et al. (2021) note that confusion is linked to restricted sleep, which is defined as less than 5 hours of sleep during the previous 24 hours. Acute sleep loss, also known as not sleeping at all for an extended period, or chronic sleep restriction, which involves cutting back on nighttime sleep by one or two hours, contributes to drudgery (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). Limited sleep amplifies the experience of lassitude, thereby increasing the risk of human flaws in the aviation industry.
Inadequate sleep is a common phenomenon among staff in the aviation industry. Approximately 90% of airmen in training and up to 80% of army aviators were found to sleep for under 8 hours each night, with these individuals sleeping an estimated 6.6 hours each night (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). The average amount of sleep per night reduced even more following operations, from 6 hours before work to only 5.6 hours afterward (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021).
Similar trends have been observed in civil aviation, with studies revealing that 22% of business airline pilots in the Gulf region reported sleeping for less than six hours per night (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). It is also worth noting that over the course of a 7-day duty period, the mean sleep length reduced from 7.8 hours to 6 hours, resulting in a total sleep loss of 1.8 hours (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). This is significant because the consequences of insufficient sleep compound, resulting in a gradual decline in performance that worsens as the number of hours of sleep deprivation increases per night. Recognizing the severity of sleep scarcity is necessary for implementing effective safety measures.
Prolonged Wakefulness
The length of time an individual stays awake is directly correlated to an individual’s desire for sleep. This results from a homeostatic process in which an increase in time spent awake is followed by an increase in the pressure to sleep (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). When sleep pressure rises beyond a specific threshold, it precipitates sleepiness, and when it falls below a different threshold, it triggers insomnia.
Wen et al. (2023) note that a study conducted by the NTSB demonstrated that crews that spent a longer time awake committed 40% more mistakes than those that spent less time awake. The majority of the committed mistakes were faults of omission (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). Tactical decision-making miscalculations and procedural mistakes were also observed among crew members who remained awake for extended periods (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). Protracted sleeplessness leads to an increased desire for sleep, which is detrimental to the affected individual’s overall effectiveness and productivity.
Circadian Cycle
The circadian cycle is a significant factor in determining fatigue in aircraft crews. The circadian body clock is a neuronal pacemaker in the cerebral cortex that regulates the preference for sleep at night (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). It accomplishes this by keeping track of the day and night rhythm through a system that monitors ocular light input (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). This mechanism regulates the circadian process, essentially establishing the pressure thresholds for sleep, as mentioned in the preceding section.
The following instances from the day/night cycle deserve specific attention, given their relevance to safety in the aviation industry. The window of circadian low refers to the time of the circadian cycle when exhaustion and sleepiness are at their peak, and people are least capable of performing mental or physical activities (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). There are personal variations in sleep patterns during this phase, which typically occur between 2 and 6 AM, when attention levels are at their lowest (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021).
The post-lunch slump, which occurs between 2 and 4 PM when alertness levels and the threshold for sleep are low, is another vital circadian period. Individuals experience a period of high awareness between 4 and 8 PM, followed by the “evening wake maintenance zone,” shortly before their usual bedtime, when it is particularly challenging to fall asleep (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021, p. 4). It is worth noting that time-zone transitions and night shifts often have a deleterious effect on circadian rhythms, resulting in increased fatigue among crew members. Disruptions to the circadian rhythm increase the incidence of mistakes.
Workload
An aircraft staff’s workload determines the effectiveness with which they accomplish specific tasks. Both situations with a high and low workload can result in decreased performance, which are categorized as active and passive forms, respectively (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). On the one hand, the considerable mental effort exerted during high work conditions may limit a fatigued person’s capacity to accomplish tasks (Sun et al., 2022). On the other hand, low workload situations might not provide sufficient stimulation, thus revealing underlying sleepiness. A low work environment typically results in less motivation and task engagement, whereas a high workload often produces more distress and may make it difficult to sleep after work (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). Establishing a balanced work schedule is essential to ensure increased efficiency among team members.
Additional Negative Impacts
There is a direct association between the level of fatigue and the degree of human error incidents in aviation. The aforementioned issues occur as a result of reduced cognitive function, impaired situational awareness, altered neurobehavioral activity, and a decline in performance (Keller et al., 2019). Despite sufficient instruction, knowledge, and motivation, the biological impacts of fatigue significantly reduce an affected individual’s operational performance (Olaganathan et al., 2021). The highlighted effects have been verified through investigations conducted by the Australian Transport Safety Board (Olaganathan et al., 2021).
Mental lethargy impairs one’s ability to focus, resulting in disruptions to attention (Olaganathan et al., 2021). As a result, individuals encounter difficulties remembering or anticipating specific events, which limits their capability to take action when necessary. It also has an impact on communication abilities, which can result in the loss of critical information. Olaganathan et al. (2021) note that studies conducted by the Transportation Safety Board demonstrate that irritability, impatience, and lowered social inhibitions increase as a consequence of fatigue. Evidently, the phenomenon poses a serious threat to the safety of both crew and passengers on an aircraft.
Altered Alertness
The ability to remain vigilant is impacted by the level of fatigue an individual experiences. Fatigued employees are less vigilant and may eventually start to feel sleepy or sluggish (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). These individuals may experience extreme tiredness if they do not get the rest they require, which could lead to microsleep, characterized as brief, involuntary bouts of sleep (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021).
For instance, 78% of commercial airline pilots from the Gulf Cooperation Council reported that they felt so exhausted that they shouldn’t have been operating the aircraft at least once (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). In addition, 34% of the pilots reported feeling excessively sleepy during the day(Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). The sense of tiredness lowers a flight staff member’s awareness, ultimately leading to unintended naps that impair performance. Therefore, crew members must receive adequate rest to remain prepared during flights.
Long-Term Health Consequences
There is ample evidence to support the idea that fatigue may have long-term, undesirable impacts on an aviation employee’s health. Although they may not have a significant impact on a weary pilot’s immediate performance, these health consequences could have a detrimental effect on long-term performance (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). It has been demonstrated that lassitude lowers general functioning capacity and may be linked to depressive or anxious thoughts.
Additionally, Wingelaar-Jagt et al. (2021) note that compared to non-fatigued pilots, highly fatigued pilots have a higher incidence of excessive daytime drowsiness, depression, and obstructive sleep apnea. Wingelaar-Jagt et al. (2021) also note that cardiovascular strain levels were higher on day four of a work period than on day one. These findings support the notion that lethargy and prolonged work periods increase the susceptibility of aircrews to cardiac strain. The long-term health consequences of fatigue impair an individual’s capacity to perform at their optimum level during flight operations.
Recommended Action
Several recommended strategies can be employed to enhance safety in the highlighted context. The establishment of data-driven, continuous surveillance and the administration of fatigue risk management systems (FRMSs) based on objective, reliable measures is essential (Sun et al., 2022). Crew member exhaustion risk can be identified and predicted using biomathematical models.
Sun et al. (2022) note that by using physiological parameters connected to the body as input data, biomathematical modeling produces several mathematical models in the form of usable equations. The biomathematical model of fatigue can evaluate and track crew members’ levels of fatigue at all times, both during work and flights. This effectively addresses the issue of quantitative pilot fatigue measurement and is crucial for pre-flight fatigue intervention before the crew is lined up for duty (Sun et al., 2022). Additionally, it enables the observation of crew members’ awareness in the cockpit, the assessment of crew members’ fatigue levels, and the enhancement of flight safety during the journey (Sun et al., 2022). The application of sound scientific strategies is essential to ensure the safety of the crew and all passengers aboard the flight.
Sleep hygiene training is an effective way of improving alertness during flights. Even though getting enough good-quality sleep is the most effective way to prevent fatigue, inadequate sleep hygiene is probably to blame for the majority of persistent sleep problems in otherwise healthy people (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). When dealing with erratic flying schedules and circadian disruption, people may find it challenging to maintain good sleep hygiene. As a result, it is crucial to educate crew members about the importance of rest and good sleep habits.
In fact, Wingelaar-Jagt et al. (2021) note that sleep hygiene training is currently considered to be a requirement in fatigue management. It has been demonstrated that implementing these techniques improves sleep quality and performance, while reducing self-reported fatigue (Wingelaar-Jagt et al., 2021). It should be noted, however, that there is still room for improvement in terms of poor sleep hygiene and environmental factors. All crew members should be trained to develop good habits to ensure they get adequate rest, thereby minimizing the frequency of fatigue.
Conclusion
It has been argued that fatigue hurts the performance of flight crews in an aircraft. Sleep loss, stretched wakefulness, circadian cycles, and workload are among the factors identified as contributors to the phenomenon. Research on aviation employee performance has shown that it can alter alertness, impair decision-making, increase the incidence of human error, reduce situational awareness, and predispose individuals to long-term health consequences.
Additionally, fatigued individuals are often irritable and struggle to communicate effectively, which significantly reduces their efficiency during a flight. The lessons learned here include the fact that fatigue affects all personnel, regardless of their level of training, and that effective fatigue management can save lives. The aforementioned consequences necessitate the implementation of effective fatigue alleviation measures to ensure that flight employee performance is enhanced and accidents are avoided. Proposed actions include prioritizing sleep hygiene training, where personnel are educated on adopting good sleep habits, and implementing fatigue risk management systems. It is crucial to monitor personnel using accurate biomedical models that can accurately predict fatigue.
References
Keller, J., Coimbra, F., Cutter, J. E., Keller, J., Mendonca, F. C., & Cutter, J. E. (2019). Collegiate aviation pilots: Analyses of fatigue-related decision-making scenarios. International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 6(4), 1–24.
Keller, J., Mendonca, F. A. C., & Adjekum, D. K. (2022). Understanding factors underlying fatigue among collegiate aviation pilots in the United States. Safety, 8(2), 1–21.
Olaganathan, R., Holt, T. B., Luedtke, J., & Bowen, B. D. (2021). Fatigue and its management in the aviation industry, with special reference to pilots. Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering, 10(1), 57.
Sun, J., Sun, R., Li, J., Wang, P., & Zhang, N. (2022). Flight crew fatigue risk assessment for international flights under the COVID-19 outbreak response exemption policy. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 1–20.
Wen, C. C. Y., Cherian, D., Schenker, M. T., & Jordan, A. S. (2023). Fatigue and sleep in airline cabin crew: A scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(3), 1–27.
Wingelaar-Jagt, Y. Q., Wingelaar, T. T., Riedel, W. J., & Ramaekers, J. G. (2021). Fatigue in aviation: Safety risks, preventive strategies, and pharmacological interventions. Frontiers in Physiology, 12, 1–21.