Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Dajana Bartulović
 -- 2017 2023-11-10 15:36:21 |
2 layout
Camila Xu
 Meta information modification 2017 2023-11-13 02:23:02 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Bartulović, D.; Steiner, S.; Fakleš, D.; Mavrin Jeličić, M. Simulating Flight Crew Workload Settings to Mitigate Fatigue. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51429 (accessed on 06 July 2024).
Bartulović D, Steiner S, Fakleš D, Mavrin Jeličić M. Simulating Flight Crew Workload Settings to Mitigate Fatigue. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51429. Accessed July 06, 2024.
Bartulović, Dajana, Sanja Steiner, Dario Fakleš, Martina Mavrin Jeličić. "Simulating Flight Crew Workload Settings to Mitigate Fatigue" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51429 (accessed July 06, 2024).
Bartulović, D., Steiner, S., Fakleš, D., & Mavrin Jeličić, M. (2023, November 10). Simulating Flight Crew Workload Settings to Mitigate Fatigue. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51429
Bartulović, Dajana, et al. "Simulating Flight Crew Workload Settings to Mitigate Fatigue." Encyclopedia. Web. 10 November, 2023.
Simulating Flight Crew Workload Settings to Mitigate Fatigue
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/aerospace10100904

Fatigue in flight operations can be defined as the result of personal and work-related factors. Personal factors affecting fatigue are related to age, chronotype (morning type, evening type), gender, genetic predisposition, and tolerance towards shift work.

simulation workload settings flight crew fatigue risk mitigation flight operations

1. Introduction

Fatigue in flight operations can be defined as the result of personal and work-related factors [1][2][3][4]. Personal factors affecting fatigue are related to age, chronotype (morning type, evening type) [5], gender, genetic predisposition, and tolerance towards shift work. [6]. In addition to individual lifestyle regarding physical activity or inactivity, numerous factors have an effect on the length and quality of sleep [7][8], which is one the most important personal factors affecting the appearance of fatigue. In flight operations, work-related factors affecting fatigue refer to the shift work that includes early/late/night duties [9], unpredictable schedules (duties can change due to operational reasons, sickness, or other reasons), time-zone transitions, and standby duties. These factors, together with the biological mechanisms affecting periods of wakefulness and drowsiness (the circadian rhythm, homeostatic sleep pressure, sleep inertia), can lead to sleep loss and sleep debt, which incents the appearance of fatigue [10][11].
Fatigue has physical and mental manifestations. Physical manifestations include features such as a general feeling of tiredness, decreased alertness, an irresistible desire for sleep, microsleep, lethargy, and prolonged reaction time. Mental manifestations include features like difficulty with memorizing, forgetting information or actions, lack of concentration, slow understanding, bad will, poor decision-making, and apathy [12].
Long working hours, shift work, work at night, and work in different and numerous time zones—i.e., varying and unbalanced flight crew schedules can cause disturbance of the circadian rhythm and sleep disorder, which can result in the fatigue of flight crew and have an impact on the safety of flight operations [13][14][15]. Fatigue impacts various cognitive abilities, such as vigilance, memory, spatial orientation, learning, problem-solving, and decision-making. In aviation, fatigue is identified as a hazard to the safety of flight operations. Due to this, fatigue risks are continually analyzed and assessed. Due to the severity of fatigue risks, it is necessary to define and implement risk mitigation measures. Aside from provisions of the European regulations—Flight Time Limitations (FTL) [16][17], a vital role in fatigue risk mitigation belongs to the Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS), which uses various quantification and objectivation methods for measuring the fatigue [18][19].
In flight operations, fatigue affects the tasks or situations such as performing inaccurate flight procedures, missing radio calls, missing or being too slow to pick up system warnings, forgetting or performing routine tasks inaccurately, loss of situational awareness, microsleeps, task fixations, and poor communication between crew members [12][13][14].
Flight crew workload elements that might be considered to mitigate fatigue risk in flight operations include, for example, the length of duty, total flight time, number of sectors, rest period duration, time of day, pattern of duty, rest facilities (management of sleep during layover periods), number of time-zone transitions, and number of consecutive duty days [12][20].

2. Workload versus Fatigue in Flight Operations

Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS), as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), represents data-driven methods of constant monitoring, data collecting, analyzing, and mitigating fatigue-related safety risks in flight operations, using scientific methods, previous knowledge, and operational experience [1][18][19].
In Europe, fatigue management ensures that crew members are protected from excessive fatigue levels by issuing regulations called Flight Time Limitations (FTL) [9][21]. However, restrictions on working hours are different from country to country, and in various ways, they restrict the permitted flight duty, length of rest period, and other FTL elements [16][17]. Also, the prescriptive nature of these limitations prohibits some elements of crew schedules but also allows others that can be very fatigue-inducing while all regulatory provisions are complied with at the same time. Although the European regulation—FTL [9] promotes the use of the Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) [1][18], it does not oblige the airlines to implement it, except in certain specific cases.
At the same time, European FTL also requires the airlines [9][12] to ensure that flight duty periods are planned in a way that enables crew members to remain sufficiently alert so that they can operate to a satisfactory level of safety to appreciate the relationship between the frequencies and pattern of flight duty and rest periods and consider the cumulative effects of undertaking long duty hours interspersed with minimum rest; to allocate duty patterns that avoid such undesirable practices as alternating day/night duties or the positioning of crew members so that a serious disruption of established sleep/work patterns occurs; and to provide rest periods of sufficient duration, especially after long flights crossing numerous time zones, to enable crew members to overcome the effects of the previous duties and to be rested by the start of the following flight duty period.
Another example is USA regulations pertaining to Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS) for aviation safety, which are issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Fatigue Risk Management Systems are prescribed to ensure aviation industry personnel perform their duties safely. Information is provided regarding the components of an aviation FRMS and FRMS implementation within the aviation system, and it defines an FRMS as an operator-specific process, i.e., while all FRMSs have common elements, the specifics can be tailored to a certificate holder’s particular conditions. Detailed guidance on how to prepare for the FRMS approval process, develop the required documentation, develop and apply fatigue risk management and safety assurance processes, collect and analyze data, and develop flight crew FRMS operations procedures is also available [22].
The most commonly used measurement methods of flight crew fatigue in any FRMS include subjective fatigue scales (e.g., Samn Perelli, Karolinska), psychomotor vigilance tests, actigraphy, predictive models (biomathematical algorithms), and sleep diaries [12][19][23].
An important source of data for fatigue research, especially in flight operations, is subjective fatigue scales used in fatigue-related reporting [1]. The application of subjective scales in flight crew fatigue research can be found in numerous studies where pilots reported subjective fatigue levels using the Samn Perelli scale, such as research conducted by Powell and others in 2007 and 2008 [24][25]. Some studies involved actigraphy, sleep diaries, performance vigilance tests, and biomathematical predictive models where fatigue impact was studied using different quantification methods, such as research conducted by Powell and others in 2014, Gander and others in 2014, Van den Berg and others in 2015 [26][27][28]. Predictive models can be found in advanced crew management software, and they can warn flight crew planners on the existence of fatigue risk (usually with warning messages and/or color schemes—from green as no risk to red as high fatigue risk). Research conducted by Yi and Moochhala in 2013 showed that there is a strong correlation between certain biomarkers in saliva and fatigue levels [29]. In addition to the objectivation methods of quantifying the flight crew fatigue, cognitive abilities that deteriorate as fatigue increases, can be measured with a chronometric approach of measuring cognitive functions, i.e., an electronic CRD system of standardized chronometric cognitive tests, as per Drenovac in 2009 [30]. CRD series have been used in various studies since 1969 [30]. Instruments, methodology, measuring parameters, and other information are well explained and documented in the CRD handbook [30]. The CRD series has been used to study psychomotor disturbances of scuba divers, as per Petri in 2003 [31], and other studies showed differences between the working ability of the driver, train operator, and dispatcher during day and night shift [32][33]. A study by Meško in 2008 showed how CRD series have been used to evaluate the psychomotor abilities of military pilots [34], and some older research showed how CRD series have been used to study workload and work efficiency during certain periods [35][36]. Recent research includes several innovative approaches, such as determining sleeping patterns of flight attendants during the off-duty period using a photovoice technique, conducted by Laovoravit and others in 2019 [37]; studying new tools for use by pilots and the aviation industry to manage risks pertaining to work-related stress and wellbeing, performed by Cahill and others in 2020 [38]; analyzing aircraft pilots workload using Heart Rate Variability (HRV) and the NASA Task Load Index questionnaire, presented by Alaimo and others in 2020 [39]; applying multimodal analysis of eye movements and fatigue in a simulated glass cockpit environment, conducted by Naeeri and others in 2021 [40]; studying work type influence on air traffic controllers’ fatigue based on data-driven PERCLOS detection, conducted by Zhang and others in 2021 [41]; identifying pilots’ fatigue status based on functional near-infrared spectroscopy, conducted by Pan and others in 2022 [42]; examining fatigue during long-haul flights of different crew compositions under exemption from layover and flight time during COVID-19, conducted by Zhou and others in 2022 [43]; studying factors impacting fatigue among collegiate aviation pilots, conducted by Keller and others in 2022 [44], and examining fatigue, work overload, and sleepiness on a sample of commercial airline pilots, presented by Alaminos-Torres and others in 2023 [45].
Recently, various studies were conducted regarding fatigue-risk issues related to flight operations. In order to detect and reduce fatigue risks in flight operations, various measurement and analysis methods have been presented in the last decade.
In 2014, Borghini and others reviewed the neurophysiological measurements in pilots/drivers during their operational tasks, with the objective of summarizing the main neurophysiological findings regarding the measurements of the pilot/driver’s brain activity during their performance and its connection with the mental workload, mental fatigue, or situational awareness [46]. In 2015, Thomas and others collected physiological and performance data from commercial flight crews performing simulated operations under both rested and fatigued conditions in order to evaluate the effects of varying levels of fatigue and workload on pilot performance and physiological responses and constructed a statistical/machine learning model that was able to accurately categorize fatigue-related data for each individual pilot [47]. In 2018, Lee and Kim proposed a fatigue model for airline pilots, which verified that pilot physical fatigue, mental decline, and rest defects are affected by seven factors: flight direction, crew scheduling, partnership, aircraft environment, job assignment, ethnic difference, and hotel environment [48]. In 2020, Hu and Lodewijks explored effective non-invasive methods and psychophysiological indicators for detecting and monitoring fatigue in car drivers and aircraft pilots [49]. Papanikou and others studied the neuroscientific methodology able to yield markers of subtle pilot states, such as drowsiness and microsleep episodes, that can be integrated into a decision support system for operational aviation settings [50]. Coombes and others gathered and presented data on reported rates of occurrence and predicted fatigue risk exposure associated with UK airline pilot work schedules [51]. In 2021, Qin and others studied approaches for mental fatigue detection based on psychophysiological measurements in flying-relevant environments by performing an experiment where several conventional heart rate variability and ocular indices were examined to study their relevance to mental fatigue [52]. In 2022, Bongo and Seva studied the effect of fatigue in air traffic controllers’ workload, situational awareness, and control strategy by performing a case study in an actual tower control center in the Philippines, using questionnaires based on situational awareness methods, the Samn-Perelli fatigue scale, and the visual attention self-report [53]. In 2023, Sun and others used a software model as an analysis tool for pilot’s fatigue risk prediction, as well as the fatigue self-assessment scale and the objective alertness test, to conduct a comprehensive analysis and an assessment of the fatigue risk of flight crews before and after the COVID-19 epidemic [54]. Hamann and Carstengerdes performed an experiment where mental fatigue was induced during a simulated flight task, and data were collected from the participants using concurrent electroencephalography (EEG)—functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) assessment methods, and the performance and self-reports, with the aim of determining valid physiological assessment measures [55]. Veksler and others integrated a biomathematical fatigue model with a task network model in order to estimate the pilot performance degradation and to provide real-time information on pilot fatigue and the expected performance on specific aircraft operations [56].
In order to find correlations among various sets of workload settings indicators, causal modeling techniques and methods can be used. These methods use datasets of collected data and build causal models that show correlations among them. Using causal models, specifically by detecting the correlations (impacts among variables), it can be learned which variables should be modified to obtain the desired performance of targeted indicator(s), in this case flight crew fatigue. Simulating workload settings can reveal significant useful information regarding fatigue risk mitigation.

References

  1. Fatigue Management Guide for Airline Operators. Available online: https://www.icao.int/safety/fatiguemanagement/FRMS%20Tools/FMG%20for%20Airline%20Operators%202nd%20Ed%20(Final)%20EN.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2023).
  2. Hartzler, B.M. Fatigue on the flight deck: The consequences of sleep loss and the benefits of napping. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 62, 309–318.
  3. Fakleš, D.; Petrin, I.; Simonić, D. The Issue of Fatigue in Planning Flight Operations. In Proceedings of the Medical, Technical and Legal Aspects of Traffic Safety, Zagreb, Croatia, 1 December 2009.
  4. Bendak, S.; Rashid, H. Fatigue in aviation: A systematic review of the literature. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2020, 76, 102928.
  5. Horne, J.A.; Ostberg, O. A self-assessment questionnaire to determine morningness-eveningness in human circadian rhythms. Int. J. Chronobiol. 1976, 4, 97–110.
  6. Saksvik, I.B.; Bjorvatn, B.; Hetland, H.; Sandal, G.M.; Pallesen, S. Individual differences in tolerance to shift work: A systematic review. Sleep Med. Rev. 2011, 15, 221–235.
  7. Kakinami, L.; O’Loughlin, E.K.; Brunet, J.; Dugas, E.N.; Constantin, E.; Sabiston, C.M.; O’Loughlin, J. Associations between physical activity and sedentary behavior with sleep quality and quantity in young adults. Sleep Health 2016, 3, 56–61.
  8. King, A.C.; Oman, R.F.; Brassington, G.S.; Bliwise, D.L.; Haskell, W.L. Moderate-intensity exercise and self-rated quality of sleep in older adults. JAMA 1997, 277, 32–37.
  9. Commission Regulation (EU) No 83/2014. Annex II. Subpart FTL. Flight and Duty Time Limitations and Rest Requirements. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014R0083 (accessed on 15 July 2023).
  10. Van den Berg, J.; Neely, G. Performance on a simple reaction time task while sleep deprived. Percept. Mot. Skills 2006, 102, 589–599.
  11. Bougard, C.; Espie, S.; Larnaudie, B.; Moussay, S.; Davenne, D. Effects of time of day and sleep deprivation on motorcycle-driving performance. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e39735.
  12. Steiner, S.; Bartulović, D.; Fakleš, D. Integration of Fatigue Risk Management in Aviation Safety Management System. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Transport Science, Portorož, Slovenia, 14–15 June 2018.
  13. Goode, J.H. Are pilots at risk of accidents due to fatigue? J. Saf. Res. 2003, 34, 309–313.
  14. Williamson, A.; Lombardi, D.A.; Folkard, S.; Stutts, J.; Courtney, T.K.; Connor, J.L. The link between fatigue and safety. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 498–515.
  15. Caldwell, J.A. Crew schedules, sleep deprivation, and aviation performance. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2012, 21, 85–89.
  16. Cabon, P.; Bourgeois-Bougrine, S.; Mollard, R.; Coblentz, A.; Speyer, J.J. Flight and duty time limitations in civil aviation and their impact on crew fatigue: A comparative analysis of 26 national regulations. Hum. Factors Aerosp. Safety. 2002, 2, 379–393.
  17. Caldwell, J.A.; Mallis, M.M.; Caldwell, J.L.; Paul, M.A.; Miller, J.C.; Neri, D.F. Fatigue countermeasures in aviation. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2009, 80, 29–59.
  18. Fatigue Risk Management Systems. Implementation Guide for Operators. Available online: www.icao.int/safety/fatiguemanagement/frms%20tools/frms%20implementation%20guide%20for%20operators%20july%202011.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2023).
  19. Steiner, S.; Fakleš, D.; Bartulović, D. Methodological Approach to Fatigue Risk Mitigation in Flight Operations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Traffic and Transport Engineering (ICTTE 2018), Belgrade, Serbia, 27–28 September 2018.
  20. Gander, P.H.; Graeber, R.C.; Foushee, H.C.; Lauber, J.K.; Connell, L.J. Crew Factors in Flight Operations II: Psychophysiological Responses to Short-Haul Air Transport Operations; NASA Ames Research Center: Moffett Field, USA, 1994.
  21. Starr, A.W., Jr. Tegrating Fatigue management with safety management systems for commercial flight crew operations. Int. J. Aviat. Aeronaut. Aerosp. 2017, 4, 1–13.
  22. FAA AC 120-103: Fatigue Risk Management Systems for Aviation Safety. Available online: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/1021088 (accessed on 4 September 2023).
  23. Steiner, S.; Fakleš, D.; Gradišar, T. Problems of Crew Fatigue Management in Airline Operations. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Traffic and Transport Engineering (ICTTE 2012), Belgrade, Serbia, 29–30 November 2012.
  24. Powell, D.M.C.; Spencer, M.B.; Holland, D.; Broadbent, E.; Petrie, K.J. Pilot fatigue in short-haul operations: Effects of number of sectors, duty length, and time of day. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2007, 78, 698–701.
  25. Powell, D.M.C.; Spencer, M.B.; Holland, D.; Petrie, K.J. Fatigue in two-pilot operations: Implications for flight and duty time limitations. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2008, 79, 1047–1050.
  26. Powell, D.M.C.; Spencer, M.B.; Petrie, K.J. Comparison of In-flight measures with predictions of a bio-mathematical fatigue model. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2014, 85, 1177–1184.
  27. Gander, P.H.; Mulrine, H.M.; Van den Berg, M.J.; Smith, A.A.T.; Signal, T.L.; Wu, L.J.; Belenky, G. Pilot fatigue: Relationships with departure and arrival times, flight duration, and direction. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2014, 85, 833–840.
  28. Van den Berg, M.J.; Signal, T.J.; Mulrine, H.M.; Smith, A.A.T.; Gander, P.H.; Serfontein, W. Monitoring and managing cabin crew sleep and fatigue during an ultra-long range trip. Aerosp. Med. Hum. Perform. 2015, 86, 705–713.
  29. Yi, T.C.; Moochhala, S. Current opinion on salivary biomarkers as a measurement for stress and fatigue. Open Biomark. J. 2013, 6, 9–14.
  30. Drenovac, M. Chronometry of Mental Processing Dynamics; Josip Juraj Strossmayer University, Philosophy Faculty: Osijek, Croatia, 2009.
  31. Petri, N. Change in strategy of solving psychological tests: Evidence of nitrogen narcosis in shallow air-diving. Undersea Hyperb. Med. 2003, 30, 293–303.
  32. Drenovac, S.; Drenovac, M. Fluctuations in the performance of dispatchers in solving mental and psychomotor tasks during day and night 12-hour shift. Hum. Traffic 1989, 15, 115–127.
  33. Drenovac, M. Sports Psychology; Josip Juraj Strossmayer University, Philosophy Faculty: Osijek, Croatia, 2005.
  34. Meško, M. Defining the Peculiarities of Some Movement Abilities and Psychological Characteristics of Slovenian Military Pilots. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2008.
  35. Drenovac, M.; Drenovac, S. Achievement on Time Restricted Tests as the Function of Previous Working Load. In Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of Yugoslav Psychologists, Skopje, Macedonia, 12–16 May 1976.
  36. Lučanin, D.; Matešić, K. Daily Variations in Work Efficiency on Short-Time Memory Examination Tasks; Days of Ramiro Bujas: Zagreb, Croatia, 1980.
  37. Laovoravit, V.; Pongpirul, K.; Manon, W.; Thiptananont, N.; Imsombut, A. Sleeping patterns of Thai Airways flight attendants during the off-duty period using a photovoice technique. Proceedings 2019, 39, 7.
  38. Cahill, J.; Cullen, P.; Anwer, S.; Gaynor, K.; Wilson, S. The requirements for new tools for use by pilots and the aviation industry to manage risks pertaining to work-related stress (WRS) and wellbeing, and the ensuing impact on performance and safety. Technologies 2020, 8, 40.
  39. Alaimo, A.; Esposito, A.; Orlando, C.; Simoncini, A. Aircraft pilots workload analysis: Heart Rate Variability objective measures and NASA-Task Load Index Subjective Evaluation. Aerospace 2020, 7, 137.
  40. Naeeri, S.; Kang, Z.; Mandal, S.; Kim, K. Multimodal analysis of eye movements and fatigue in a simulated glass cockpit environment. Aerospace 2021, 8, 283.
  41. Zhang, J.; Chen, Z.; Liu, W.; Ding, P.; Wu, Q. A field study of work type influence on air traffic controllers’ fatigue based on data-driven PERCLOS detection. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11937.
  42. Pan, T.; Wang, H.; Si, H.; Liu, H.; Xu, M. Research on the identification of pilots’ fatigue status based on functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Aerospace 2022, 9, 173.
  43. Li, J.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, X.; Fan, T. Fatigue during long-haul flights of different crew compositions under exemption from layover and flight time during COVID-19. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13567.
  44. Keller, J.; Mendonca, F.A.C.; Adjekum, D.K. Understanding factors underlying fatigue among collegiate aviation pilots in the United States. Safety 2022, 8, 46.
  45. Alaminos-Torres, A.; Martínez-Álvarez, J.R.; Martínez-Lorca, M.; López-Ejeda, N.; Marrodán Serrano, M.D. Fatigue, work overload, and sleepiness in a sample of Spanish commercial airline pilots. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 300.
  46. Borghini, G.; Astolfi, L.; Vecchiato, G.; Mattia, D.; Babiloni, F. Measuring neurophysiological signals in aircraft pilots and car drivers for the assessment of mental workload, fatigue and drowsiness. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2014, 44, 58–75.
  47. Thomas, L.C.; Gast, C.; Grube, R.; Kimberly, C. Fatigue detection in commercial flight operations: Results using physiological measures. Procedia Manuf. 2015, 3, 2357–2364.
  48. Lee, S.; Kim, J.K. Factors contributing to the risk of airline pilot fatigue. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2018, 67, 197–207.
  49. Hu, X.; Lodewijks, G. Detecting fatigue in car drivers and aircraft pilots by using non-invasive measures: The value of differentiation of sleepiness and mental fatigue. J. Saf. Res. 2020, 72, 173–187.
  50. Papanikou, M.C.; Frantzidis, C.A.; Nikolaidou, A.; Plomariti, C.; Karagianni, M.; Nigdelis, V.; Karkala, A.; Nday, C.; Ntakakis, G.; Krachtis, A.; et al. Neuroscientific tools in the cockpit: Towards a meaningful decision support system for fatigue risk management. In Proceedings of the MATEC Web Conference, International Cross-Industry Safety Conference & International Symposium on Aircraft Technology, MRO and Operations (ICSC-ISATECH 2019), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 9–11 October 2019.
  51. Coombes, C.; Whale, A.; Hunter, R.; Christie, N. Sleepiness on the flight deck: Reported rates of occurrence and predicted fatigue risk exposure associated with UK airline pilot work schedules. Saf. Sci. 2020, 129, 104833.
  52. Qin, H.; Zhou, X.; Ou, X.; Liu, Y.; Xue, C. Detection of mental fatigue state using heart rate variability and eye metrics during simulated flight. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. 2021, 31, 637–651.
  53. Bongo, M.; Seva, R. Effect of fatigue in air traffic controllers’ workload, situation awareness, and control strategy. Int. J. Aerosp. Psychol. 2022, 32, 1–23.
  54. Sun, J.Y.; Liao, Y.; Lu, F.; Sun, R.S.; Jia, H.B. Assessment of pilot fatigue risk on international flights under the prevention and control policy of the Chinese civil aviation industry during the COVID-19. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2023, 112, 102466.
  55. Hamann, A.; Carstengerdes, N. Assessing the development of mental fatigue during simulated flights with concurrent EEG-fNIRS measurement. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 4738.
  56. Veksler, B.Z.; Morris, M.B.; Krusmark, M.A.; Gunzelmann, G. Integrated modeling of fatigue impacts on C-17 approach and landing performance. Int. J. Aerosp. Psychol. 2023, 33, 61–78.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Engineering, Aerospace
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Dajana Bartulović
,
Sanja Steiner
,
Dario Fakleš
,
Martina Mavrin Jeličić
View Times: 153
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 13 Nov 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback