faa fa fatigue 2007

8/14/2019 FAA FA Fatigue 2007

1/70

Flight Attendant

Fatigue

Reports Integrated by:Thomas E. NesthusDavid J. Schroeder

Civil Aerospace Medical InstituteFederal Aviation AdministrationOklahoma City, OK 73125

Reports Prepared by:Mary M. ConnorsHeike K. Rentmeister-BryantCharles A. DeRoshia

NASA Ames Research CenterMoffett Field, CA 94035

July 2007

Final Report

DOT/FAA/AM-07/21Oce o Aerospace MedicineWashington, DC 20591


2/70

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship

of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest

of information exchange. The United States Government

assumes no liability for the contents thereof.

___________

This publication and all Office of Aerospace Medicine

technical reports are available in full-text from the CivilAerospace Medical Institutes publications Web site:

www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/index.cfm


3/70

i

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

DOT/FAA/AM-07/21

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

July 2007Flight Attendant Fatigue6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Nesthus T,1Schroeder D,

1Connors M,

2Rentmeister-Bryant H,

2

DeRoshina C2

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

1FAA Civil Aerospace Medical InstituteP.O. Box 25082Oklahoma City, OK 73125

2NASA Ames Research CenterHuman Factors Research &Technology DivisionMoffett Field, CA 94035

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Office of Aerospace MedicineFederal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Ave., S.W.Washington, DC 20591 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplemental Notes

This report was integrated by the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute from reports prepared by the NASA AmesFatigue Countermeasures Group.16. Abstract

The Departments of Transportation and Treasury and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill (House Rpt.108-671) included a directive to the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct a study of flight attendantfatigue. The NASA Ames Research Center Fatigue Countermeasures Group (FCG) was contracted by CAMI toconduct the study. To meet the goals of the study, this report contains a literature review on fatigue as potentiallyexperienced by flight attendants, an evaluation of currently used (actual vs. scheduled) flight attendant duty

schedules, and a comparison of these schedules to the current CFRs. The report additionally reviews fatigue-related incident/accident information from the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) and the NTSBdatabase. One report section describes the application of three different performance and fatigue models to assesshow flight attendant duty schedules contribute to increased levels of fatigue and predicted changes inperformance. The report concludes with 6 recommendations concerning issues that require further evaluation,including: (1) Survey of Field Operations. To assess the frequency with which fatigue is experienced, the situations inwhich it appears, and the consequences that follow; (2) Focused Study of Incident Reports. To better understanddetails of the incidents; (3) Field Research on the Effects of Fatigue. To explore physiological and neuropsychologicaleffects of fatigue, sleepiness, circadian factors, and rest schedules on flight attendants; (4) Validation of Models forAssessing FA Fatigue.An important step to understanding whether and how models could be used in conjunction withfield operations; (5) International Carrier Policies and Practices Review. To learn how other countries address theseissues and with what results; and (6) Training. FAs could benefit from information on fatigue, its causes and

consequences, its interaction with circadian disruption, and how and when to employ countermeasures (e.g., schedulednaps, physical activity, social interaction, caffeine).

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Flight Attendant Fatigue, Sleep Loss, Circadian RhythmDisruption, Duty Time and Rest, Jet Lag, Workload,Biomathematical Models

Document is available to the public through theDefense Technical Information Center, Ft. Belvior, VA22060; and the National Technical InformationService, Springfield, VA 22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 64Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized


4/70


5/70

iii

ACkNOwlEdgmENTs

We wish to acknowledge the contributions made to this project by the members o the NASAAmes Research Centers Fatigue Countermeasures Group. Specically, we recognize and thank Sum-mer L. Brandt, Dinah D. Reduta-Rojas, Lucia Arsintescu (San Jos State University) and Laura M.Colletti (QSS Group, Inc.) or their valuable contributions.

We also extend our gratitude to Drs. John A. Caldwell and Melissa M. Mallis or taking time toreview our manuscript and their helpul comments on earlier versions o it.


6/70


7/70

v

EXECUTIVE sUmmARY

The Departments o Transportation and Treasury andIndependent Agencies Appropriations Bill (House Rpt.108-671) included a directive to the Federal AviationAdministration to report back on the subject o fightattendant atigue. The ollowing is the language rom page18 o the report:

Flight attendant atigue study: The Committee is con-cerned about evidence that FAA minimum crew rest regula-tions may not allow adequate rest time or fight attendants.Especially since the terrorist attacks o September 11, 2001,the nations fight attendants have been asked to assume agreater role in protecting the saety o air travelers duringfight. Current fight attendant duty and rest rules state thatfight attendants should have a minimum o nine hours oduty that may be reduced to eight hours, i the ollowingrest period is ten hours. Although these rules have beenin place or several years, they do not refect the increasedsecurity responsibilities since 2001, and only recently havecarriers begun scheduling attendants or less than nine hourso. There is evidence that what was once occasional useo the reduced rest fexibility is now becoming commonpractice at some carriers. Because FAA regulations allowthe rest period to commence shortly ater the aircrat parksat the gate, the eight hour rest period also includes thetime it takes a fight attendant to get out o the terminal,go through customs i necessary, obtain transportation toa hotel and check in. Due to this situation, it is likely thatmany fight attendants are perorming their duties with nomore than our to six hours o sleep. To better understandthe impact o the minimum rest requirements o CFR121.467 and CFR 135.273, the Committee recom-mended a study o fight attendant atigue. This study is to

consider proessional input rom FAAs Civil AeromedicalInstitute. The study should be nalized and submitted tothe House and Senate Committees on Appropriations nolater than June 1, 2005, including the agencys recom-mendations on potential regulatory revisions.

In response to this directive, representatives o the FAArom the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute initiated anagreement with NASA Ames Research Center to perorman evaluation o the fight attendant atigue issue. TheNASA Ames Research Center Fatigue CountermeasuresGroup (FCG) is independent o regulatory or advocacyinfuence and has extensive experience in conductingaeronautical atigue studies (http://human-actors.arc.

nasa.gov/zteam/).To meet the goals o the study, this report contains a

literature review on atigue as potentially experienced byfight attendants, an evaluation o currently used (actualvs. scheduled) fight attendant duty schedules, and acomparison o these schedules to the current CFRs. Thereport additionally reviews atigue-related incident/ac-cident inormation rom the Aviation Saety ReportingSystem (ASRS) and the NTSB database. One section othe report also describes the application o three dierent

perormance and atigue models currently available asexamples to provide the reader with an idea o how fightattendant duty schedules contribute to increased levels oatigue and predicted changes in perormance. The reportconcludes with recommendations concerning issues thatrequire urther evaluation.

literature RevieResearch has identied key ndings concerning atigue

in occupational settings where sleep deprivation and dis-ruption o circadian rhythms are known to occur. Amongthe ndings are that such environments can result in aninability to get to sleep (which may lead to urther disrup-tion o the circadian rhythm) and to the accumulation osleep debt. Sleep debt is incurred and continues to buildwhen we obtain less than the recommended 7-8 hours osleep each night. The results o these potentially cascad-

ing eects show themselves in perormance decrements.Research or this report ound that the main contributingactors to fight attendant atigue consist o:

Sleep losshas been shown in numerous studies toproduce waking neurobehavioral decits, which includevigilance degradations, increased lapses o attention,cognitive slowing, short term memory ailures, slowedphysical and mental reaction time, rapid and involuntarysleep onsets, decreased cognitive perormance, increasedsubjective sleepiness, and polysomnographic evidenceo increased sleep pressure.

Circadian rhythm disruption is aected by schedulingand sleep disruption. The eects o jet lag and shit work

are oten characterized by symptoms such as disruptedsleep, changes in mood state, loss o appetite, gastro-intestinal disturbance, and disorientation. Sleep lossand circadian rhythms interact dynamically to regulatechanges in alertness and perormance. Cumulative sleeploss results in sleep debt, with chronic sleep deprivation,night ater night, leading to cumulative and progressiveperormance decrements, even in healthy adults.

Length of duty. End-o-duty sleepiness and atiguehave been reported in fight attendants working bothdomestic and international fights. Fatigue during in-ternational fights is due mainly to fight duration andtime zone dierences, while atigue on domestic fights

is related to total working hours, landing requency(number o legs), workload, and layover duration.

Workload. Flight attendants have reported increasedperceived stress due to changes in duties and respon-sibilities since 9/11. The eects o sleep loss, circadiandisruption, and scheduling in fight attendants aresimilar to those experienced by pilots although fightattendants duties are varied and include more physicalactivity, working in a noisy environment, with highersocial involvement.


8/70

vi

scheueCFRs 121.467 and 135.273 require that fight at-

tendants receive a minimum rest period o nine consecu-tive hours ollowing a scheduled duty period o 14 hoursor less. This rest period may be reduced to eight hoursi the subsequent rest period is at least 10 consecutivehours. Further, changes to the rest period can occur whenadditional fight attendants are scheduled or a particular

fight. Rest period is not the same as sleep hours, since itincludes the time required to travel to and rom the airport,time or meals, personal hygiene, and time to relax andgo to sleep. The report provides a comparison betweenscheduledon-duty and o-duty layover times and actualschedules. The small sample o schedules reviewed werelimited and not scientically based. Overall, our smallsample ound the duty and rest times were scheduledtobe compliant with the CFRs, but a small number o theactualtimes extended beyond these limitations when un-oreseen operational and weather-related events disruptedthe original schedule.

Incient ReportSeventeen fight attendant atigue-related incident re-

ports were identied in the ASRS database. ASRS reportscannot reveal the prevalence o the fight attendant atigueproblem; however, they do provide evidence that atigueis an important issue. Some reports mentioned a lack oadequate rest or meals and listed general symptoms oatigue. Flight attendants also reported that atigue hadaected completion o critical tasks and expressed a lacko condence in their ability to handle unusual situationsand/or perorm adequate security duties.

Fatiue moeDierent biomathematical models o atigue, sleepi-ness, and perormance are available and could be appliedto fight attendants schedules. All models are based on thecombination o homeostatic and circadian infuences butthey dier in the number and nature o the actors thatare included. Three models were selected to examine themanner in which they predict atigue and perormance.Although the three selected models diered in particulars,results indicated that they produced consistent results.This analysis was oered as a rst step toward the urtherdevelopment and validation o models or predictingfight crew atigue.

ConcuionA review o the evaluation materials available or this

report has suggested that some segments o this workorceare experiencing atigue and tiredness and, as such, is asalient issue warranting urther evaluation. The Commit-tee on Appropriations (House Rpt. 108-671) suggestedthat the practice o airlines to schedule closer to the CFRminima on a more regular basis, and very short periodspost-fight beore the beginning o the rest period may be

contributing to this eect. However, the limited natureo the study did not allow us to determine the extent towhich scheduling practices either within a single carrieror across carriers were problematic. An additional actoris the dierence between the scheduledwork/rest peri-ods and the actualwork/rest periods as they play out ineld operations. Aircrat-related and weather delays aswell as other unoreseen operational events contribute

to extending a duty period beyond what was originallyscheduled.

CFRs provide end points or not-to-exceed levelso regulation. But CFRs do not, and perhaps cannot,capture the multiple variables that impact atigue andthe individuals ability to tolerate atigue. Taken romthe standpoint o just the pre-determined dimensionso the fight itsel, the CFRs do not distinguish amongthe number o segments fown, daytime versus nighttimefights, fights that are uni-meridianal vs. those that aretransmeridianal, and regional versus domestic fights.

To truly address the atigue issue, regulations must becombined with sound and realistic operational practicesand supplemented, as needed, by personal strategies. Airtravel will always require fexibility in operations in orderto adjust to unusual and/or non-routine circumstances.From the standpoint o fight attendant tness and well-being, consideration needs to be given to the establish-ment o work/rest practices that take into account theoccurrence o unusual circumstances.

This report was developed with data that becameavailable in the short time beore the studys deadlines.However, not all the inormation needed could be acquiredto gain a complete understanding o the phenomenon/problem o fight attendant atigue. Given the nature o

the issue and the questions that remain unanswered, theollowing are a ew suggestions oered or continuedresearch to address the topic o fight attendant atigue.

1. A scientiically-based, randomly-selected light at-tendant Survey o Field Operations.

2. A uller understanding o atigue-related incidentscan be achieved by a ollow-up Focused Study o Incident Reports.

3. Field Research on the Eects o Fatiguewould explorethe impact o rest schedules, circadian actors, andsleep loss on light attendants.

4. Validation o Models or Assessing Flight AttendantFatiguewould be an important step to understanding

whether and how models could be used in conjunc-tion with ield operations.5. A study oInternational Policies and Practicesto see

how other countries address these issues. This studywould provide additional data to supplement otheron going research.

6.Training.Flight crews could beneit rom exposure toinormation on atigue, its causes and consequences,its interaction with circadian disruption, and howand when to employ countermeasures.


9/70

vii

Content

sECTION 1: CURRENT sTATUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter I. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

FAA/NASA Approach to the Present Committees Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter II. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21. Denition o Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Bases o Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3. Scope o the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Chapter III. Code o Federal Regulations (CFRs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

sECTION 2: U.s. FlIgHT ATTENdANTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Chapter IV. Flight Attendant Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Flight Attendant Responsibilities, Fatigue and the Issue o Post 9/11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Chapter V. Background Literature on Flight Attendant Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1. Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52. Extrapolation o Pilot Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3. Other Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

sECTION 3: INCIdENT/ACCIdENT REVIEw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chapter VI. Sources o Inormation on Flight Attendant Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1. ASRS Incident Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2. NTSB Accident Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

sECTION 4: CREw sCHEdUlINg ANAlYsIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter VII. Examples o Cabin Crew Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1. Examples o Various Airline Schedule Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2. Samples o Actual Cabin Crew Airlines Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3. Additional Schedules Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4. Description o Unknowns Regarding Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Chapter VIII. Fatigue Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

sECTION 5: FINdINgs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Chapter IX. General Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1. Impact on Saety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2. Impact on Well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Chapter X. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Chapter XI. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Reerences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Appendix 1. Flight Attendant Duties and Their Physical Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A1-1

Appendix 2. Categories and Variables Associated With Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A2-1

Appendix 3. Flight Attendant Schedule Duty Times, Total Flight Time, Layover Duration, and Time Zone A3-1

Appendix 4. Scheduling Assistant Models or Potential Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A4-1

Appendix 5. Three Models Selected or This Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A5-1

Appendix 6. Model Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A6-1


10/70


11/70

1

FLIGHT ATTENDANT FATIGUE

sECTION 1: CURRENT sTATUs

Chapter I. Backroun

The Departments o Transportation and Treasury andIndependent Agencies Appropriations Bill (House Rpt.108-671) included a directive to the Federal AviationAdministration to report back on the subject o fightattendant atigue. The ollowing is the actual languagerom page 18 o the report:

Flight attendant atigue study: The Committee is con-cerned about evidence that FAA minimum crew rest regula-tions may not allow adequate rest time or fight attendants.Especially since the terrorist attacks o September 11, 2001,

the nations fight attendants have been asked to assume agreater role in protecting the saety o air travelers duringfight. Current fight attendant duty and rest rules state thatfight attendants should have a minimum o nine hours oduty that may be reduced to eight hours, i the ollowingrest period is ten hours. Although these rules have beenin place or several years, they do not refect the increasedsecurity responsibilities since 2001, and only recently havecarriers begun scheduling attendants or less than nine hourso. There is evidence that what was once occasional useo the reduced rest fexibility is now becoming commonpractice at some carriers. Because FAA regulations allow

the rest period to commence shortly ater the aircrat parksat the gate, the eight hour rest period also includes thetime it takes a fight attendant to get out o the terminal,go through customs i necessary, obtain transportation toa hotel and check in. Due to this situation, it is likely thatmany fight attendants are perorming their duties with nomore than our to six hours o sleep. To better understandthe impact o the minimum rest requirements o CFR121.467 and CFR 135.273, the Committee recom-mended a study o fight attendant atigue. This study is toconsider proessional input rom FAAs Civil AeromedicalInstitute. The study should be nalized and submitted tothe House and Senate Committees on Appropriations nolater than June 1, 2005, including the agencys recommen-dations on potential regulatory revisions. (108th Congress2d Session, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Report108-671, DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION

AND TREASURY AND INDEPENDENT AGEN-CIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2005, SEPTEMBER8, 2004, p.18.)

In general, even relatively modest sleep restrictionsignicantly increases sleepiness levels and degrades cogni-

tive readiness and perormance (Van Dongen, Maislin,Mullington, & Dinges, 2003). As ound in fights, aswell as other transportation venues, atigued individualssuer rom variable and inecient perormance; impairedattention, inormation processing, and reaction time;reduced short-term memory capacity; and increasedinvoluntary lapses into varying durations o actual sleepepisodes (Balkin, Thome, Sing, Thomas, & Redmond,2000; Dinges, 1995).

FAA/NASA approach to the present committees concern:In response to the Congressional direction, representa-

tives o the FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI)initiated an agreement with the NASA Ames ResearchCenter, Fatigue Countermeasures Group (FCG) that hasextensive experience in conducting aeronautical atiguestudies (http://human-actors.arc.nasa.gov/zteam/). Thedeadline established by Congress or the delivery o thereport (June 2005) posed severe limitations on the studydesign. The team proposed to provide an interim reportby May and an addendum report by the end o the scalyear. Even the extended time rame associated with thedelivery o the addendum report limited the extent othe study and as a result, attention was ocused primarily

on a review o the existing scientic literature on atigueissues, fight attendants and fight crew, an assessment oexisting incident and accident databases, and an analysiso schedules or fight attendants rom a small sample oconvenience. The limited sample o fight attendant dutyschedules were compared with the current CFRs and as-sessed using three atigue models to determine potentialatigue states among the schedule examples. The reportalso provides a description o gaps in current knowledgeabout fight attendant atigue, with recommendations oradditional issues that should be evaluated with regard tofight attendant atigue. The NASA atigue countermea-sures group met the established timelines in the deliveryo the respective reports and FAA management elected toconsolidate both reports into a single document.


12/70

2

Chapter II. Introuction

1. Deinition o atigueThe term atigue has been criticized as a vague

multidimensional construct that can be interpreted ina variety o ways (kerstedt, Knutsson, Westerholm,Theorell, Alredsson, & Kecklund, 2004; Dodge, 1982;

Hawkins, 1993; Winget, DeRoshia, Markley, & Holley,1984), the term is now widely used, and in general isunderstood to refect the underlying sleepiness/tirenessthat results rom extended wakeulness, insucient sleep,and circadian desynchrony (kerstedt, 1995a). For thepurposes o this report, we dene atigue in the aviationenvironment in terms o its symptoms, which consist o:impaired mood, orgetulness, reduced vigilance, poordecision making, slowed reaction time, poor communi-cation, nodding o, or becoming xated, apathetic, orlethargic (Rosekind et al., 1996).

Perormance, alertness, and well-being o personnel

working in the aviation industry, including fight at-tendants, are signicantly infuenced by the presenceo circadian rhythms in physiological and psychologicalprocesses, by the necessity or shit work duty schedules,extended wakeulness on night fight duty, and the eectso transmeridian fight upon sleep quality and durationand upon circadian rhythmicity in domestic and inter-national routes. These infuences refect 1) the bodyscircadian timing system or the bodys internal clock, and 2)the homeostatic mechanism or recent sleep history, whichincludes the amount o time since the last sleep periodand the amount o prior sleep (Caldwell, 2005).

2. Bases o atigueCircadian rhythms.Circadian rhythms result rom cyclic

environmental infuences (exogenous) or sel-sustained(endogenous) oscillations. Circadian rhythms are char-acterized primarily by phase (time reerence point in thecycle), period (time to complete one oscillation cycle),and amplitude (change rom the cycle mean value to thepeak or trough o the oscillation). Circadian rhythmsare primarily synchronized by local light-dark cycles,but also by periodic social synchronizers, which includesocial contacts and activities (Klein & Wegmann, 1980;Winget et al., 1984). The circadian rhythm results inan increased sleep tendency and diminished capacity tounction during early morning hours (circa 0200-0700),and, to a lesser degree, during a period in mid-aternoon(circa 1400-1700; Mitler, Carskadon, Czeisler, Dement,Dinges, & Graeber, 1988). These rhythms peak in the lateaternoon (during the day) and trough in the predawn orearly morning hours (at night). The body-temperaturerhythm, which in shit workers oten coincides withperormance rhythms (Folkard & Monk, 1985) peaks at

approximately 1700 and dips at around 0500. Conversely,melatonin levels, which are inversely-related to alertness(Arendt, Deacon, English, Hampton, & Morgan, 1995)tend to be lowest at 1600 and highest at 0400.

Homeostatic sleep process. The homeostatic mechanismcan result in progressive deterioration in alertness andperormance, which is superimposed on the circadian

rhythmic modulation o these unctions (Caldwell, 2005).The homeostatic regulation o sleep and wakeulnessis primarily a unction o two actors. The rst is theamount (and quality) o sleep obtained prior to a givenperiod o perormance; and the second is the amount ocontinuous wakeulness prior to the period o perormance(Caldwell, 2005). Sucient daily sleep, a key componentin the homeostatic regulation o alertness, is oten oneo the rst casualties in aviation operations. In generalterms, it appears that aircrews suer rom work-relatedsleep disturbances in the same manner as do industrialshit workers who primarily complain about their sleep

patterns or their lack o sleep (Costa, 1997). Insucientsleep is central to the homeostatically-based drowsinessand inattention that is known to be problematic in workthat involves non-standard schedules. Importantly, itshould be noted that duty time is not the same as wake-ulness. Sleep loss is measured by time awake, not thetime one is on duty (Caldwell, 2005).

Continuous wakeulness periods o 19-22 hours onlong-haul fights (Nicholson, Pascoe, Spencer, Stone, &Green, 1986) can contribute substantially to aviation crewatigue (Caldwell, 2005). Wakeulness prolonged by aslittle as three hours can produce decrements as serious

as those ound at the legal limits o alcohol consump-tion (Arnedt, Wilde, Munt, & MacLean, 2001). Theconsequences o losing even one - two hours o sleep in asingle night may result in decrements in daytime unctioncontributing to human error, accidents and catastrophicevents (Mitler et al., 1988; Powell, Schechtman, Riley, Li,Troell, & Guilleminault, 2001). Another study showedthe physiological alertness o a night shit worker betweenthe hours o 0200-0800 was comparable to that o a dayshit worker who had obtained only our hours o sleepor two consecutive nights (National Commission onSleep Disorders Research, 1993).

3. Scope o the report Aircrew atigue is oten thought o primarily as a

unction o scheduling and workload (Samel, Wegmann,& Vejvoda, 1995), and the present report will ocus onthese issues within the ramework o the existing CFRs.Thereore, the primary issues addressed here are on theeect o the duration o work (and to some extent theintensity o workload), the timing o work hours, timezone shits, and the subsequent impact on o-duty sleep


13/70

3

quality and fight duty perormance. However, althoughother actors such as age, gender, various individual ac-tors, type o aircrat, cabin class, cabin air quality, physicaland medical problems, aircrat actors, and personal ordomestic situations (e.g., marital status and commutingrom domicile location) also may contribute to fightattendant atigue, these will be noted only briefy since a

detailed analysis and discussion o these variables wouldbe beyond the scope o this report because they logicallyvary regionally and individually. (For a detailed discus-sion o these issues see: Enck, Muller-Sacks, Holtman,& Wegmann, 1995; Ewing, 1999; Haugli, Skogstad, &Hellesoy, 1994; Hunt & Space, 1994; Nagda & Koontz,2003; Rayman, 1997; Smolensky, Lee, Mott, & Colligan,1982; Tashkin, Coulson, Simmons, & Spivey, 1983).

Chapter III. Coe o Feera Reuation (CFR)

Regulations set orth by the FAA or Aeronautics and

Space are contained in Title 14 o the Code o FederalRegulations (CFR). CFR 121.467 and 135.273 oTitle 14, were established in August, 1994, to providefight attendant duty period limitations and rest require-ments. For the purpose o this report, only the regulationspertaining to atigue will be discussed. Specically, onAugust 15, 1994, the FAA issued a regulation that, orthe rst time, set the length o duty and rest requirementsor airline fight attendants. Delays due to litigation re-sulted in postponement in implementing the CFRs untilFebruary 1996.

Overall, the FAA regulatory authority applies when an

aircrat is in operation, which is dened as the time whenthe aircrat is rst boarded by a crew member, prepara-tory to a fight, to when the last crew member leaves theaircrat ater completion o the fight, including stopson the ground during which at least one crew memberremains on the aircrat (National Research Council Boardon Environmental Studies and Toxicology, 2002).

The current regulations (121.467 and 135.273)require that fight attendants receive a minimum restperiod o nine consecutive hours ollowing a scheduledduty period o 14 hours or less. This rest period maybe reduced to eight hours i the subsequent rest periodis at least 10 consecutive hours. Following a scheduledduty period o greater than 14 hours, but no more than

20 hours, a minimum rest period o 12 hours must beprovided. This may be reduced to 10 hours i the subse-quent rest period is at least 14 consecutive hours. I therest period is reduced to 10 hours, the fight attendantmay not be scheduled or a duty period o greater than 14hours during the 24-hour period commencing ater thebeginning o the reduced rest period. Flight attendantsmay not be scheduled or duty i they have not had atleast the minimum rest requirement. Furthermore, fightattendants must be relieved rom duty or at least 24 hoursduring any seven consecutive calendar days.

A 14-hour duty period may be extended up to 20 hours

i the carrier schedules additional fight attendant(s) to theminimum complement required. One additional fightattendant is required above the minimum complementto extend the scheduled duty hours to 16 hours. I twoadditional fight attendants are scheduled, the duty hoursmay be extended to 18 hours; and i three additional fightattendants are scheduled, the duty hours may be extendedto no more than 20 hours. For example, i the minimumfight attendant complement required or a B757-200 isour, and ve fight attendants are scheduled or duty, thescheduled duty period may be extended to a maximum o16 hours. Table 1 below summarizes the CFRs require-

ments as related to fight attendant schedules.The CFRs do not regulate the total number o hours a

month a fight attendant is authorized to work, althoughthis is usually dened in collective bargaining agreements.The CFRs also do not ocus on the actual hours o sleepobtained between fights, or the timing o the duty periods(in relation to the bodys internal clock) despite the actthat these actors are generally considered to be moreimportant than absolute time on task.

Table 1: Summarized Flight Attendant (FA) Rest Periods According to the CFRsScheduled Duty

Period

Normal Minimum

Rest Period

Reduced Rest

Period

Subsequent Rest

Period

Number of FAs

Required

14 hours or less 9 hours 8 hours 10 hours Minimum

14-16 hours 12 hours 10 hours 14 hours Minimum +1

16-18 hours 12 hours 10 hours 14 hours Minimum +2

*18-20 hours 12 hours 10 hours 14 hours Minimum +3

*Applies only to duty periods with one or more flights that land or take off outside the 48 contiguous States and theDistrict of Columbia.

Note: Generally, off-duty time begins no less than 15 minutes after the aircraft pulls into the gate and continues untilone hour prior to a flight attendants next departure.


14/70

4

sECTION 2: U.s. FlIgHT

ATTENdANTs

Chapter IV. Fiht Attenant Reponibiitie

1. GeneralA study and extensive task analysis o fight attendant

duties was conducted by Damos Aviation under contractwith the Association o Proessional Flight Attendants(personal communication, Patt Gibbs, March 4, 2005)however, this inormation was not available and couldnot be included in this report. A discussion based on aliterature review is provided below.

As cited in the National Research Council Boardon Environmental Studies and Toxicology (2002), thenumber o fights and the raction o seats occupied (loadactor) has risen, and seats are more densely packed, par-ticularly in economy class. Between 1986 and 1999, theload actor or U.S. carriers serving domestic and oreign

locations increased by about 13% and 21%, respectively.And rom 1986 to 1998, the average U.S. domestic triplength increased rom 767 miles to 813 miles, and theaverage oreign trip length increased rom 2,570 milesto 3, 074 miles (AIA, 2000). Flight stages have steadilyincreased since 1950, particularly on international fightswith nonstop fights o 12-14 hours now being common-place (Hunt & Space, 1994). In terms o fight workload,CFR 121.391 species that at least one fight attendantis required in an aircrat with a seating capacity o 9-50passengers, two fight attendants or 51-100 passengers,and one additional fight attendant is required or eachunit o 50 extra seats.

Flight attendants responsibilities, including workloadduties and their respective changes (especially increases dueto 9/11), can be traced or several decades. For example,on international fights beore World War II, workloadduties lasted rom 16-24 hours, depending upon weather.The fight attendants were required to check passports,prepare ormulas or inants, care or children, pass outreading and writing material, make up berths or 16passengers, serve up to three complete meals, and washdishes i additional meals were necessitated by weather

delays. Thereore, it was not uncommon or a fight at-tendant to work up to 25 hours without sleep (Alter &Mohler, 1980). Examination o current fight attendantsduties reveals that their workload incorporates multipletasks, consisting o considerable walking, bending over,heavy liting and pushing, and dealing with a variety ostressul situations in the cabin. Further, fight attendantsduties encompass pre-fight, fight, and post-fight tasks(For a ull description o fight attendant duties, see Ap-pendix 1). On average, a fight attendant arrives one to

two hours beore fight and then, among other activities,is responsible or:

durin pre-fiht: checking company e-mail, at-tending a pre-fight brieng, checking all emergencyand other equipment, monitoring passenger access andseating, assisting with the stowing o luggage, armingdoors, and lling out and providing the fight crew with

relevant paperwork.durin routine fiht: attending to passenger saetyand comort. Flight attendants provide saety instructions;enorce saety rules; prepare and serve ood and drinks;distribute pillows, blankets and magazines; work audioand video equipment; collect trays, glasses, newspapers andthe like; answer passenger questions; and communicateas needed with the fight crew.

durin non-routine fiht: depending on theemergency, fight attendants must notiy the cockpito malunctioning equipment or emergency situations,deal with ill or disruptive passengers, operate rst-aid

or other medical equipment, distribute medication,operate emergency equipment, instruct passengers onemergency landings, direct the evacuation o passengers,and the like.

durin pot-fiht: disarming doors, deplaningpassengers, checking and tidying the cabin, reportingcabin discrepancies to the fight deck crewmembers, andreporting to operations or company e-mail and otherinstructions.

As indicated above, fight attendants are required toperorm a number o physically demanding tasks. Many

fight attendants report that they spend most o theirfight time on their eet. But they are also challengedemotionally, e.g., by requirements to perorm multipletasks on a tight schedule, and by being the POC that allpassengers look to or inormation, help, and support.In short, one o the stressors o fight attendants is thatthey are always on.

But surely the greatest challenges are related to ensuringsaety and especially responding to a non-routine situ-ation. It is here that the abilities, skills, and training othe fight attendants are most challenged and where onewould expect the eects o other stressors such as atigueand circadian dysunction to have the greatest impact.

Historically, the number o fight attendants in ser-vice has greatly increased and the diversity o the fightattendant population has signicantly broadened. Butthis has changed recently with contractual reductions ofight attendant/passenger ratios to the CFR foor in the1990s. Thereore, the eects o workload and atigueupon fight attendants in the current workorce shouldtake into account age and sex dierences, and personal


15/70

5

issues, such as amily responsibilities, as well as otheractors such as the impact o cabin qualities (noise andair quality) physical responses (dehydration and sinuscongestion), and fight and duty times.

2. Flight attendant responsibilities, atigue and theissue o post 9/11

Although scientic studies documenting fight at-tendant workload post 9/11 are not available, there areanecdotal reports indicating that the workload or fightattendants has increased. For example, prior to 9/11passenger disruption was reported to be the number onecomplaint submitted by fight attendants to the AviationSaety Reporting System [ASRS], (Connell, Mellone, &Morrison, 2000). According to that study, one-ourth opassenger disruptions resulted in a cockpit crewmemberleaving the cockpit to help resolve the situation. Sincerecent security regulations require cockpit crews to secureand remain in the cockpit, the fight attendants have to

deal with problem passengers without help rom thecockpit crew.

It can also be presumed that at a minimum securityduties would include closer inspection o passengers asthey board, greater vigilance and monitoring o passengerbehavior during fight, and a sweep o the aircrat cabinbeore and ater each fight leg. It has also been suggestedthat the behavior o fight attendants vis--vis passengershas changed since 9/11. Flight attendants are showingmore concern or and attention to meeting passengerneeds. Passengers are arriving at the aircrat more harriedand annoyed than previously, and the fight attendants

appear to be trying to compensate. Although helpul tothe passengers, this added attention places additionalworkload on the fight attendants.

While these examples make it apparent that an increasein fight attendant workload has probably occurred,these particular issues were not specically addressed inthis study.

Chapter V. Backroun literature on Fiht Atten-ant Fatiue

1. Literature ReviewThe literature review concerning fight attendant

atigue and associated relevant actors incorporatesinormation rom scientic publications, includingexperimental studies and survey reports. It additionallyincludes inormation rom other articles, websites, andsources. In reporting this literature we have made an eortto evaluate the validity and reliability o the inormationpresented, and to include only those that appear to bethe most objective, unbiased, and relevant.

It should be remembered that, rom a scientic per-spective, the atigue literature has certain limits. Theselimits are not unique to the atigue area but are generalacross domains. Experimental studies tend to be limitedby small numbers o participants and oten includenon-representative subjects (i.e., some studies were notconducted with fight attendants). Also, questionnaires

and surveys may be limited by sel-selected respondentsor by low response rates. Media or website reports tendto be anecdotal, and reports rom many sources lackpeer review. However, taken together, these studiesprovide a considerable base o inormation that cannotbe obtained any other way. By selective screening, thesedata can broaden our understanding o, and approachto, managing fight attendant atigue.

Sleep loss eectsIn a study o progressive sleep loss eects over an

extended period, adult participants receiving less than

eight hours time in bed each evening, demonstratedneurobehavioral perormance decits, i.e., lapses in at-tention on a simple reaction time test (Van Dongen etal., 2003). The perormance decits seen rom chronicsleep restriction o six hours per night over an extendedperiod was equivalent to perormance decits seen atertwo nights o complete sleep deprivation. This studyalso showed that chronic sleep restriction resulted in asignicant increase in subjective sleepiness. In a survey o3412 fight attendants (Smolensky et al., 1982) atiguewas ound to be ve to 7 times higher in fight attendantswho slept poorly, elt emotional pressures, and worked

multiple day trips. Accumulated sleep loss becomes asleep debt towards the end o a workweek, leading toincreased sleepiness (Roehrs, Carskadon, Dement, &Roth, 2000).

Fatigue can be measured objectively by assessing physi-ological levels o sleepiness (e.g., electroencephalogram(EEG); simple reaction time tasks) or subjectively withquestionnaires. Subjective levels o sleepiness may bemasked by actors such as environmental stimulation,physical activity, or caeine, thus making it dicultto estimate ones sleepiness or alertness level. Althoughphysiological levels o sleepiness tend to co-vary withsubjective levels o sleepiness (Van Dongen & Dinges,2000), research has demonstrated that individuals cannotbe relied upon to sel-detect neurobehavioral impairmentdue to atigue (Leproult, Colecchia, Berardi, Stickhold,Kosslyn, & Van Cauter, 2003). Some physiological andcognitive changes that may occur as a result o atigueinclude microsleeps (brie intrusions o EEG indicatorso sleep greater than 5 sec), lapses in attention (reactiontimes greater than 500 milliseconds), slowed reaction time,


16/70

6

increase in errors, short-term memory impairment, lacko situational awareness, and impaired decision making(Caldwell, 2005).

Several studies have documented the degree that sleeploss is associated with perormance decrements equivalentto the consumption o the legal limit o alcohol (0.05%-0.1% blood alcohol levels; Dawson & Reid, 1997;

Lamond & Dawson, 1999; Williamson, 2000). Wake-ulness prolonged by as little as three hours can produceperormance decrements (Arnedt et al., 2001), while theconsequences o even one to two hours o nightly sleeploss over a week may result in decrements in daytimeunction leading to human error, accidents, and cata-strophic events (Mitler et al., 1988; Powell et al., 2001).Monk (1980) showed that layover sleep or aircrew oninternational fight schedules was disrupted and truncatedto durations below their sleep times at home.

Workload

In terms o fight workload, 14 CFR 121.391 speciesat least one fight attendant is required in aircrat withseating capacity o 9-50 passengers, two fight attendantsor 51-100 passengers, with an additional fight attendantrequired or each unit o 50 extra seats. The only otherset o specications obtained or fight attendant comple-ment was rom the Australian fight regulations, whichpertain to fight attendant complement on charter andpublic transport aircrat. These regulations provide that afight attendant is required or 15-36 passengers; aircratcarrying 36-216 passengers shall carry a fight attendantor each unit o 36 passengers; aircrat with more than

216 passengers shall have not ewer than one fight at-tendant or each foor level exit in any cabin with twoaisles (or more inormation on the Australian Civil AirRegulations, please reer to www.aph.gov.au/senate/com-mittee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/civilavia-tion_nz/submissions/sub2.doc).

In recent years, there have been many changes incommercial aviation that have aected duty cycles andworkload. Meanwhile, the scientic understanding othe impact o work hours, sleep, and circadian actorshas advanced considerably as well. One o the presentconcerns is that the associated regulations designed tomanage fight crew atigue have not kept pace with thesechanges (Caldwell, 2005).

In a number o studies the amount o walking thatoccurs during duty hours has been shown to be relatedto workload intensity and duration. Fatigue was at-tributed to workload by 58% o fight attendants in astudy conducted by Smolensky et al. (1982). In a recentstudy by Morley-Kirk and Griths (2003), generally,high workload demands were reported by 83% o fight

attendants. On-duty walking distance was reported tobe greater than their o-duty walking distance and wassignicantly correlated with length o the duty day, theend-o-duty stress level, and reported atigue. In anotherworkload-related study with 118 emale fight attendants(Hagihara, Tarumi, & Nobutomo, 2001), the numbero walking steps was measured with pedometers during

international fights. The total average number o stepstaken per fight attendant during fights o an approximateduration o 10.6 hours was 10,742.8, or 14.0 steps/min.Another study ound length o duty day had signicanteects on end-o-duty sleepiness and upon atigue levelsin both international and domestic fight attendants, andalso on end-o-duty stress or domestic fight attendants(Galipault, 1980).

Several researchers also report that or internationalfight attendants, end-o-duty atigue is proportional tothe percentage o cabin occupancy (Galipault, 1980). Eachcabin-type served, had an impact on cabin crew well-being

and atigue. For example, task loads are especially high inthe economy class and was associated with lower well-be-ing than business cabin (Morley-Kirk & Griths, 2003).Vejvoda et al. (2000) evaluated physiological and workloadstress in 44 fight attendants during transmeridian fightsworking in rst, business, and economy cabin classes.They ound that the fight attendants working in economyclass had higher blood pressure levels, and incidences oheart rates greater than 120 beats/min, compared withthe fight attendants working the other two classes. Flightattendants working in business class also showed heartrate increases greater than those working rst class. Those

working in economy class had signicantly shorter sleepperiods during the transmeridian fights, suggesting thattheir work periods limited the opportunity to nap. Also,the relatively higher physiological and subjective workstress measures reported by the fight attendants work-ing economy class were attributed to higher workloaddemands (Vejvoda et al., 2000).

Flight duration and typeSeveral studies have examined the question o the

amount o time a fight attendant has to be on dutybeore atigue sets in. In one study (Simonson, 1984)the majority o fight attendants set the atigue rangeas between six and 10 hours. However, 21% were notatigued until completing 11-15 hours o duty. In a sec-ond study (Galipault, 1980) the duty length that fightattendants thought induced tiredness ranged rom ourhours (10%), to ve - six hours (51.1%) up to seven- nine hours (27.6%). This study also ound that shortduration fights with beverage or snack service producelarge increases in end-o-duty atigue.


17/70

7

International vs. Domestic. Flight attendants on in-ternational routes are more likely to be older and havehigher tenure than fight attendants on domestic routes.MacDonald, Deddens, Grajewski, Whelan, and Hurrell(2003) ound that international fight attendants reportedlower ratings o atigue eects than domestic fight atten-dants. The domestics experienced very high correlations

o atigue with age, start and end-o-duty stress, sleepinessand pulse rate. Job strain and atigue was signicantlyhigher among domestic fight attendants, who had higherjob demands. It is interesting to note that in this study,the international fight attendants reported less stressand sleepiness than domestic fight attendants despitereporting nearly twice as many average hours o commutetimes. International fight attendants are provided with arest opportunity during the cruise portion o the fight.Even though any sleep achieved may be less than optimal(turbulence, noise, crowded conditions), it is nonethelessmore restorative than no sleep at all. Older fight attendants

on domestic fights were ound to have greater atigueeects resulting rom multiple fight legs than youngerfight attendants (MacDonald et al., 2003).

A survey o 211 emale fight attendants assigned tononstop international fights (Ono, Watanabe, Kaneko,Matsumoto, & Miyao, 1991) revealed that atigue com-plaints increased ater the second meal service (seven- tenhours ater takeo). Among the dierent fights, dier-ences in atigue levels were attributed to length o thefight, the time zone dierences, and the possibility oradequate rest during the layover. In domestic operations,increased atigue was associated primarily with elapsed

working hours, landing requency, and the number oconsecutive duty days.

Long Haul vs. Short Haul. A survey o 190 fight at-tendants (Nagda & Koontz, 2003) showed that tirednessand lack o energy were higher in response to long haul(52.8%, 22.8%, respectively) than short haul (31.7%,12.7%) and ground control (35.0%, 9.0%). The mostcommon physiological symptom associated with long-haul fying is sleep disturbances, including dicultyalling asleep, spontaneous night awakenings, and earlymorning awakenings (Samel & Wegmann, 1989). Anumber o studies o fight attendants have ound thatatigue symptoms associated with actors such as dis-ruption o circadian rhythm are exacerbated by longerfight durations. Nagda and Koontz (2003) ound thatthe requency o symptoms related to circadian rhythmsincreased with longer fights, rapid changes in time zones,and early morning or late night fights. Haugli et al (1994)reported that the largest percentage dierences betweenlong (LH) and short hauls (SH) occurred in the sleepand mood problems, with sleep problems in 27.7% (SH)versus 61.6% (LH), atigue in 52.9% (SH) versus 74.1%

(LH), easily tired in 29.5% (SH) versus 42.3% (LH), andirritability in 23.6% (SH) versus 43.1% (LH).

Boeing and Airbus have established new ultra long-range aircrat capable o fying extended non-stop fightssuch as 18 hours and 30 minute fights rom Los Angelesto Singapore. These ultra long fights will clearly increasethe potential or decreased alertness and perormance

eciency in the fight attendants assigned to duty onthese routes (Mallis, Colletti, Brandt, Oyung, & DeR-oshia, 2005).

Shit work. An examination o fight attendant schedulesreveals that in many ways, fight attendants ace atigueactors similar to those encountered by industrial shitworkers. Shit work is dened as any non-standard workschedule (e.g., evening or night shits, rotating shits, splitshits, and extended duty hours) in which most o thehours worked are outside the period between 0800 and1600. In shit workers, night work is oten perormed ator near the trough or minimum o the circadian rhythms

in perormance and alertness, and the sleep-wake cycle isoten desynchronized rom the external day-night cycleand rom the prevailing social interaction cycle (Holley,Sundaram, & Wood, 2003). Shit work results in a stateo almost permanently conficting synchronizers, andthereore re-adaptation during shit work may be slowerand less complete than ater time zone fights (Samel &Wegmann, 1989). A major ramication o shit workis sleepiness and unintentional sleep (kerstedt, 1995a,1995b).

Mental perormance changes rom 10 to 30% overa 24-hour period and ollows the circadian cycle (Klein

& Wegmann, 1980). However, some eld studies haveshown considerably larger shits associated with atiguerelated to continuous duty, with oscillations rom meanperormance up to 100% (Klein & Wegmann, 1980). Inexamining subjects who had consumed the legal limit oalcohol (0.1% blood alcohol), Dawson and Reid (1997)ound 11.6% shits in mental perormance, while Lamondand Dawson (1999) ound a range o 14% to 49% inthe same measure. It is apparent that perormance decre-ments equivalent to consuming the legal limit o alcoholoccur with circadian disruption in eld operations - evenwithout the loss o sleep.

In general, operating near the trough o the circa-dian cycle has been associated with a signicantly highincidence o accidents. For example, single vehicle autoaccidents present a major peak rom midnight to 0700,especially between 0100-0400, with a small secondarypeak between 1300-1600. The peak time or singlevehicle truck accidents is between 0100- 0700. Anotherstudy ound similar results with a major peak in errorsoccurring between 0200-0400 and a minor peak between1400-1600 (Mitler et al., 1988). Additionally, shit work


18/70

8

schedules have been ound to disrupt physiological cir-cadian rhythms, disturb sleep-wake cycles, contributeto physical and psychological problems, as well as socialand domestic problems (Barton, 1994).

Flight attendants, like other shit workers, suer romdesynchronized circadian rhythms along with associatedsleep disruptions and perormance decrements. Unlike

the usual shit worker, fight attendants are oten in newenvironments, attempting to sleep in unamiliar beds,and generally away rom their at-home routines.

Transmeridian fightsIn the aviation operational environment, sleep cannot

be taken at the time o the usual or optimal circadian phasedue to the mismatch between the internal circadian clockand external synchronizers, and due to night fights andirregular duty hours. This mismatch results in increasedatigue, sleepiness, acute and accumulative sleep loss, andperormance decrements (Graeber, Dement, Nicholson,

Sasaki, & Wegmann, 1986; Klein & Wegmann, 1980;Samel & Wegmann, 1989; Winget et al., 1984). Sleepproblems are exacerbated when aircrews have to operatemultiple transmeridian fights in close succession (Sasaki,Kurosaki, Spinweber, Graeber, & Takahashi, 1993).

Rapid time-zone transitions result in a phase shitbetween the circadian rhythms o an individual as he/sheembarks on a trip and the external environmental syn-chronizers o the destination environment. A phase shitmeans that a reerence point (rhythm phase or timingo an environmental synchronizer) has been advanced ordelayed in time, while the rhythm period length remains

constant. The resulting disruption o circadian rhythmic-ity has been described as jet-lag, rhythm desynchroni-zation, dysrhythmia, or desynchronosis (Winget et al.,1984). A study o long distance travelers (Criglington,1998) using a major U.S. carrier and major internationalairline, ound that 94% suered jet-lag symptoms and45% considered their symptoms severely bothersome. Thejet-lag symptoms included tiredness over the rst ve daysater arrival (90%), interrupted sleep ater arrival (93%),and lack o motivation and energy (94%). In a dierentstudy (Vejvoda et al., 2000), jet-lag symptoms were re-ported by 80% o fight attendants with 22% reportingsevere symptoms. The most dicult fights were continu-ous short-haul fights. Coping mechanisms were oteninappropriate and included use o alcohol or anxiolyticdrugs to induce sleep (Sharma & Shrivastava, 2004). Anearlier survey including 3412 fight attendants, linked acombination o excessive atigue and mental exhaustionto sleep problems in 63.1% o this sample. Over 71% eltatigued during fights at least three - our times duringa 30-day span and only 9.1% elt no atigue. Time zone

travel also resulted in moderate to severe sleep problemsin 78.1% o respondents (Smolensky et al., 1982).

It should be remembered that perormance deteriora-tion can result rom circadian rhythm disturbances and notsolely rom sleep loss. Moreover, the circadian minimumin alertness and perormance sometimes occurs in fight,at which point the chances o perormance error are high

(Holley et al., 2003).Number o zone changes. The degree o deterioration insleep duration and quality and in perormance eciencyis dependent upon the number o time zones crossed.Fatigue levels increase to critical levels during 9-timezone fights ater eight hours o fight time (Samel et al.,1995.) However, perormance deterioration may occur inresponse to only a one-hour time change (Monk, 1980).Sleep quality and recovery is also dependent upon thenumber o time zones crossed. The response to crossing10 times zones was ound to be signicantly worse interms o sleep quality, adaptation, and days needed or

recovery than crossing seven time zones (Suvanto &Ilmarinen, 1987c). Sleep quality, perceived adjustmentand perceived recovery times were all longer ater 10time zone changes and eastward fights than ater seventime zone changes heading westward (Suvanto, Partinen,Harma, & Illmarinen, 1990).

Transmeridian fights across nine time zones with short(50 hour) layovers resulted in reduced sleep eciencyduring the layover, which was characterized as too shortand disturbed by awakenings. Recovery sleep during ourpost-fight days was characterized by diculties wakingup and eelings o not being rereshed rom sleep (Lowden

& kerstedt, 1998). In a study o aircrew (including 35fight attendants) sleep on an eight time-zone trip fightrom Stockholm to Tokyo with a short (51 hour) layover, itwas ound that the outbound fight day was characterizedby 21 hours o wakeulness, during which sleepiness waselevated. Sleep lengths did not vary signicantly but sleepeciency was signicantly reduced on both nights abroadand during the rst recovery sleep. Night sleep abroad wasreduced in sleep quality, contained more awakenings, andwas characterized as less calm and rereshing. On the rstree day in Japan, the subjects showed severely reducedalertness during a quarter o the day. Periods with severesleepiness were more common on the homeward fight(Lowden & kerstedt, 1999).

Eastbound vs. westbound fights. Fatigue eects havebeen ound to be dependent on fight direction. East-bound fights result in signicantly more atigue thanwestbound fights. Resynchronization is 50% aster ol-lowing westbound fights, with a rate o 88 min/day orwestbound, and 56 min/day or eastbound fights. Forexample, the psychomotor perormance rhythm requires


19/70

9

three days to achieve 95% adaptation ater westwardfight, but requires eight days ater return rom eastwardfights (Klein & Wegmann, 1980). Eastward transportwas characterized by signicantly worse sleep quality,adaptation, and recovery time than westbound fights,(Suvanto & Ilmarinen, 1987b). An increase in subjec-tive atigue during the second part o eastbound fight

has been ound to coincide with the observed circadiantrough and period o increasing sleep deprivation (Samel& Wegmann, 1989). Lowden and kerstedt (1999) haveound westward fights to be associated with extended wake spans during layover, increased sleepiness, andslow recovery on return home. Eastward fight was as-sociated with longer sleep latencies, worse sleep quality,more diculty arising, and more severe sleepiness duringtime awake.

The east vs. west eects o 4-day, round-trip trans-meridan fights across 10 time zones (Helsinki to LosAngeles, return fight Seattle to Helsinki) on the salivary

melatonin and cortisol levels in 35 emale fight atten-dants has shown that the resynchronization rate o thesehormones ater westward, outgoing fights was aster thanthe resynchronization rate ater eastward return fights(Harma, Laitinen, Partinen, & Suvanto, 1993). Kleinand Wegmann (1980) ound that resynchronizationtimes to vary rom 1.7-6.0 days (westward) to 2.9-11.3days (eastward).

The impact o the direction o fight is compoundedby day/night relationships. Samel et al. (1995) reportthat westbound fights are typically scheduled as dayfights, while eastbound fights are more typically night

fights. Nighttime fights have been associated withgreater sleep loss and sleep disturbance than day fights(Gander, Gregory, Miller, Graeber, Connell, & Rosekind,1998; Samel, Wegmann, & Vejvoda, 1997). In a studyin which 24 fight attendants kept sleep logs, sleep losswas related to the number o night fights, but not totime zone changes (Preston, Ruell-Smith, & Sutton-Mattocks, 1973).

Recovery duration. The rates o resynchronization odierent circadian rhythms lead to transient internaldissociation, in which the normal phase relationshipsbetween rhythms are disrupted, resulting in sleep dis-turbances (Winget et al., 1984). It oten takes at least 1- 2 adaptation nights beore sleep onset and eciencyis similar to sleep in a amiliar environment (Caldwell,1997). The rate o rhythm phase shit is most rapid duringthe rst 24 hours and decreases exponentially thereater(Winget, Bond, Rosenblatt, Hetherington, Higgins,& DeRoshia, 1975). Recovery rom 4-day fights hasbeen ound to average our days (Harma, Suvanto, &Partinen, 1994).

Seasonal eects. Seasonal eects on circadian rhythmadaptability to transmeridian fight were evaluated in 21fight attendants during Helsinki-Los Angeles - Seattle-Helsinki fights in both summer and winter. Salivarymelatonin and cortisol levels were measured at two-hourintervals or ve days beore, during, and ater the 4-daytrip. Circadian rhythm phase shits in the summer group

were signicantly greater than the winter group. Ater theeastward fight, the phase shits in the summer group weresignicantly smaller than the winter group. In summer,when there is more environmental light during morningsand evenings, circadian rhythm adaptation was aster aterboth eastward and westward fights. Late sleeping timesincreased the exposure to the phase-delaying evening lightater the westward fight. Ater eastward fights, mostsubjects were still asleep in the morning, and thereorenot exposed to the phase-advancing eect o morninglight (Harma, Laitinen, Partinen, & Suvanto, 1993).

Individual variability. Characteristics predictive o ad-

aptation rates include circadian actors such as stability andamplitude; personal actors, such as age, motivation andpersonality; and environmental actors, such as Zeitgeberstrength (Winget et al., 1984). Discovery that sleep onsetand duration depend upon circadian body temperaturephase provides a physiological basis or the perormancedeterioration observed in response to circadian rhythmdesynchronization (Czeisler, Weitzman, Moore-Ede, &Knauer, 1980).

Additional actorsThis review has concentrated on those actors aecting

atigue that are most closely associated with the CFRs,i.e., duration and intensity o work, timing o work andrest, and time zone shits. However, it is important toremember that these are not the only actors impactingo-duty sleep quality and fight-duty perormance. Onemust also consider the impact o aircrat actors such asthe aircrat model and conguration, deck arrangements,humidity and air quality; airline actors such as workpractices and general culture, as well as individual actorssuch as age, gender, general health, experience, and thehighly variable personal/domestic situation includingcommuting requirements.

One area that is commonly reported as interactingwith, and exacerbating issues o atigue relates to mealsand nutrition. End-o-duty atigue has been associatedwith ailure to eat dinner and not eating high proteinood. There is some evidence that domestic fight atten-dants have less opportunity to eat during fight legs thaninternational fight attendants, and that fight attendantson regional fights oten cannot leave the aircrat betweensegments, resulting in their missing meals. Reports ooccasions when fight attendants arrive at the hotel too


20/70

10

late or leave the hotel too early to eat are not uncommon,even though it has been reported that the consump-tion o ood is known to reduce end-o duty sleepiness,stress, and atigue among international fight attendants(Galipault, 1980).

As described here, work/rest schedules and knowledgeo time zone impacts can provide a level o understanding

o atigue, but multiple other variables also contribute tothe atigue experience.

2. Extrapolation o pilot dataThe preponderance o atigue research relating to fight

activities in airline crews has involved predominantly malecockpit crews as refected in the bibliographies o severalreviews o aviation atigue (Holley, Winget, DeRoshia,Heinold, Edgar, & Kinney, 1981; Holley et al., 2003;Winget et al., 1984). CFRs or pilots and fight atten-dants are somewhat dicult to compare, since the CFRsapplicable to pilots tend to emphasize fight time while

fight attendant regulations emphasize duty time. Thereis a provision in the Handbook Bulletin (HBAT95-16)that provides that fight attendants may be scheduled ac-cording to the same rules as pilots. However, in general,CFR-specic-fight-times or pilots tend to be consider-ably shorter than CFR-specic-duty-times or fight at-tendants, while the subsequent rest periods are roughlycomparable. The population, working environment, andspecic activities o fight attendants are considerably di-erent rom those o cockpit crews. Pilots generally engagein low physical but moderately demanding navigational,monitoring , and communications activities and periods

o intense concentration, high mental workload, closeattention to detail, and critical decision making. Cabincrews, in contrast, are physically active during most othe fight time, work in a noisy environment, and oper-ate at a high level o social engagement. However, theeects o atigue, circadian disruption, and scheduling aresuciently similar that some ndings rom pilot studiescan be applied to the fight attendant inquiry.

In a major survey o aircrew, cabin crews reportedsignicantly more health problems but no signicantdierences occurred in sleep and mood variables (Haugliet al., 1994). In a study comparing male fight attendantsand cockpit crews during the same 8-time zone trans-meridian fight, the only dierences ound were that pilotsreported more awakenings during sleep on the recoverydays (Lowden & kerstedt, 1999).

A eld study o pilot atigue on short haul fights exam-ined sleep patterns beore, during, and ater 3- or 4-daycommercial short-haul trip patterns. The mean duty timewas 10.6 hours with an average o 4 hours 30 minutesfight time, 5.5 fight segments and a total o 12 hours30 minutes rest periods. On trip nights, subjects took

longer to all asleep, slept less, woke earlier, and reportedlighter, poorer sleep quality with more awakenings thanon pre-trip nights. During layovers, subjective atigueand negative aect were higher, and positive aect andactivation lower than during pre-trip, fight, or post-trip(Gander, Graeber, Foushee, Lauber, & Connell, 1994).Another eld study, relating to long-haul operations (10.3

hours duty period; 24.8 hours layover, two sleep periodaverages), looked primarily at how pilots organize theirsleep during layovers. This study revealed that the circadiansystem had a greater infuence on the timing and dura-tion o rst sleeps than second sleeps, while there was apreerence or sleeping during the local night. For bothrst and second sleeps, sleep durations were longer whensubjects ell asleep earlier with respect to the minimum othe circadian temperature cycle. The primary conclusiono this study was that the actual time available or sleepduring layovers is less than the scheduled rest period dueto time zone/circadian rhythm desynchrony. (Gander,

Graeber, Connell, & Gregory, 1991).Using a NASA B747-400 ull delity fight simulator,

a decrease in behavioral alertness was demonstrated dur-ing six-hour nighttime fights between Seattle, WA andHonolulu, HI. One o the purposes o this study was toexamine the dierences in break opportunities in fightas the dependent variable, as well as to assess some com-mon physiological measures. A total o 28 experiencedpilots o which 14 served in the experimental conditionparticipated ater having been awake between 18 20hours. Statistically signicant reductions in behavioralalertness, as seen by lapses in attention and increased

response time, were seen over the course o the fights.Participants also reported becoming sleepier across thenight. Overall, both subjective and objective measureso sleepiness increased as a unction o fight length andcircadian actors (Mallis, Neri, Oyung, Colletti, Nguyen,& Dinges, 2001; 2002; Neri, Oyung, Colletti, Mallis,Tam, & Dinges, 2003).

Fatigue has also been identied as a challenge in lon-ger-haul aviation fights. In a eld study by Rosekind etal., (1994), physiological alertness and perormance datawere collected during commercial trans-pacic fightsranging rom 6.9 9.7 hours in duration. Data revealedthat pilots experienced a signicant number o microsleepevents during the fights. Seventy-percent o the pilotsexperienced at least one microsleep during the last 90minutes, which is the landing phase o the fight.

Appendix 2 contains a table listing a number o cat-egories and variables associated with atigue.

3. Other Surveys A web-based survey conducted post 9/11, assessed

the atigue o fight attendants working or a major U.S.


21/70

11

airline (Sherry & Philbrick, 2004). This web-based surveyrevealed pervasive atigue on a number o dimensions us-ing multiple measures with the authors concluding thatthe studied cohort was clearly one o the most atiguedpopulations we have studied. The data rom this study(the average amount o sleep reported was 6.4 hours, anamount known to cause atigue problems, particularly

i continued over a number o days) are signicant andrevealing, although limited in generalizability since allrespondents were employees o a single company.

Another large survey eort (n=4676) conducted bythe Employee Assistance Program o a U.S. airline alsoassessed fight attendant well-being post 9/11. This surveyreported primarily on negative mental health symptoms,such as increased anxiety and a state o eeling depressed,but this can have atigue-related consequences (Corey,Galvin, Cohen, Bekelman, Healy, & Edberg, 2005).

sECTION 3: INCIdENT/ACCIdENT

REVIEw

Chapter VI. source o Inoration on Fiht At-tenant Fatiue

This chapter reviews inormation gained rom ananalysis o reports rom the ASRS database regardingfight attendants. This chapter also included an examina-tion o the NTSB accident database. The Perilog suiteo data mining tools was used to retrieve and organizecontextually relevant data rom the database. (For moreinormation on Perilog, see McGreevy [2005]). Thereis a comparatively small ASRS report base rom fight

attendants and, even using Perilog, only twenty-ourreports were identied, with one report coming romthe NTSB database.

1. ASRS incident reportsThe NASA Aviation Saety Reporting System (ASRS)

was searched or reports specic to cabin crew atigue.This search revealed 17 reports between 1999 and thepresent, which were based on the ollowing terms: sleepdeprived, tired, atigue, exhausted, long hours, rest de-prived, circadian, back side o the clock, schedule problem,duty schedule, fight duty time, and continuous dutyovernight (CDO). It is important to keep in mind thatfight attendants submit reports to the ASRS voluntarily,and thus the reports do not accurately refect the actualnumber o occurrences or each type o event. Thereore,reports are subject to sel-reporting bias (i.e., not all cabincrews are equally aware o the ASRS or equally willingto report incidents or events). These reports do not al-low an assessment o how oten these events occur. Thevalue o these reports lies in the reporter explaining whathappened and whyit happened.

The ollowing seventeen reports are oered as mostdirectly related to the CFRs scheduling issue. In general,they refect diculty in completing critical tasks, lack ocondence in handling unusual situations, ear or pas-senger and fight attendant saety, and general symptomso atigue. These reports are reerred to by their ASRSAccess Numbers and have been condensed to draw at-

tention to the relevant inormation:ACN 614712 Flight attendant advises that routineassignment o maximum duty days coupled with mini-mum rest periods results in unacceptable deteriorationin perormance o saety related duties. Flight attendantdid not eel sae with layover minimum guidelines oeight hours coupled with 10-14 hours on duty. Further,she reported previously alling asleep on her jump seatduring taxi in and out o gates. I orget the easiest tasks,including arming my doors or takeo and giving saetybriengs to passengers on an exit row. Flight attendantreported being too atigued to look or suspicious behavior

as required or security.ACN 605017 A diversion due to a medical emergency

resulted in the fight attendants being short on rest. Anumber o passenger situations arose causing the fightto be delayed. There was an additional diversion or anunscheduled landing and a delay deboarding at the naldestination. The fight attendant called crew tracking toreport their illegality and was advised to call rom thehotel or a new sign-in time. Once at the hotel, the fightattendant called crew tracking and was given a new signin time. The fight attendant reported being too atiguedto realize that they were not given legal rest time. Flight

attendant reported that they should have been given a 10-hour minimum rest break ater a 14 hours and 30 minutesday (fight attendant actually was on duty or 16 hours).Instead, they were given eight hours and 27 minutes onpaper, which the fight attendant estimated to consist ove hours o sleep. The fight attendant did not realizeshe was still illegal until the next day during a 12-hourfight. The fight attendant ended up on duty or 28 hoursduring a 36-hour trip. This was a night fight.

ACN 601176 Flight attendant reported that a layoverwas cut too short due to a delay leaving the previous day.During the next duty period, the fight attendant did noteel condent dealing with a passenger situation ater nothaving obtained enough sleep.

ACN 598805 A departure delay and a diversion toan entirely dierent airport due to a mechanical problemresulted in a late arrival at the destination. These delaysresulted in minimum rest along with the inability toacquire ood or the crew, which was cited by the fightattendant as a saety hazard. Reported duty time was 14hours and 59 minutes. By the time the fight attendantarrived at the hotel room, seven hours remained beore


22/70

12

the return fight. The fight attendant reported that theonly ood provided was cake at the hotel. One fight at-tendant elt the eects o the situation and was not ableto return to duty the next day. We were exhausted dueto the lack o layover time to sleep. The reporting fightattendant elt saety was compromised.

ACN 592062 The fight was diverted to another

airport as a precaution. The fight attendants were requiredto stay onboard with the passengers or two hours and14 minutes beore preparing or the second departure.The fight attendant reported calling crew tracking toquestion legalities o return fight home. Tracking statedthat as long as we werent scheduled or rescheduled tobe on duty over 14 hours, that we were legal. Reportedduty time was 15 hours and 38 minutes on a night fight.The fight attendant complained o atigue and no restbreak opportunity.

ACN 590450 The fight attendant reported obtain-ing only seven hours and 30 minutes o sleep on each

overnight ollowed by duty days exceeding 13 hours.Flight attendant reports needing more behind the doortime.

ACN 522844 The fight attendant reported losso control o passengers on board a diverted airlinersitting on the ramp. During the fight, fight attendantsencountered passenger illness (requiring medical atten-tion), passenger misconduct (thet o airplane fashlight),weather, and ood service problems (low on supplies).Crews were on duty or 17 hours and 30 minutes. Thiswas a night fight.

ACN 510411 The fight attendant reported fying

nine days straight without a calendar day o but waslegal by 6 minutes. Flight attendant complained o be-ing intimidated to fy. Though legal, she cited extremeatigue as being detrimental to her ability to perorm herduties on aircrat.

ACN 459500 A passenger had a seizure, which ledto a divert landing so the passenger could be removed.While reueling, there was a uel spill, which caused pas-sengers and fight attendants to get sick rom the umes.The fight attendants received minimum rest ater theincident. Crew only had eight hours rest and had towork the next day. I think rest should have been longerater such a stressul situation.

ACN 448619 A uel leak on the fight caused theplane to return to the airport where the fight was can-celled. The pilots went illegal, but the cabin crew werenot. Flight attendants reported bare minimum rest, whichcaused atigue.

ACN 441257 The auxiliary door light came onduring fight, so the plane returned to the airport ormaintenance. The fight attendant reported that they hadto land heavy. Flight attendants realized they were illegal

ater they were airborne. My eeling is they had enoughto do without also having to establish their legality. Iwas not happy to hear that dispatch asked the captainto ignore the situation and continue on.

ACN 110833 The cabin crew were overworked andatigued as a consequence o bad weather in Houston,which resulted in a 45-min delay, ollowed by a diver-

sion to Austin, a hold on the ground or 1 hr 25 min, anaircrat change and return to Houston, and an additionaldiversion to Dallas. In Dallas, the captain requested thecabin crew be replaced due to mental and physical atigue.The cabin crew had been on duty or 14 hours. The fightattendant called scheduling and told them that due toexhaustion and atigue, they could not unction in anyemergency and must be replaced. The cabin crew werereplaced but then suspended or seven days or makingan unauthorized decision or the saety o the passengersand crew.

ACN 330380 The cabin crew nished with 10 hrs

12 minutes fight time and 18 hrs 45 minutes on dutydue to an abandoned approach to Atlanta due to windshear, diversion to Chattanooga, reueling on to Atlanta,another diversion to Rockord, Il, with nal arrival atChicago, where the cabin crew arrived exhausted. Theywere then sent to the hotel or a short night and tookthe fight out the next morning.

ACN 387700 A fight delay resulted in insucientcabin crew rest since their rest period was less than ninehours.

ACN 400339 A takeo delay due to an engineproblem resulted in the fight attendants fying illegally

since the delay resulted in excess duty hours.ACN 476689 The cabin crew ready or deadheading

had to replace in the last minute a crew that already wentillegal. Two o the latter crew were to deadhead but yetwere reassigned to work as part o the currently assignedcrew. Reporting fight attendant was made the purser,even though she was not qualied. Situation created wastotally chaotic resulting in door one not being mannedduring take-o, nor was a crew brieng held.

ACN 544180 Ater a lengthy sit on the taxiway atDallas-Fort Worth, the fight attendants went illegal as perthe CFRs regarding length o duty day, and additionallyhad to cope with an intoxicated passenger.

2. NTSB accident reportIn one accident fight attendant atigue has been

identied as a contributing actor (NTSB ID No.CHI95IA215). The American Eagle Flight 4127 operatedby Simmons Airlines (ATR-72 aircrat) was a regularlyscheduled fight rom Chicagos OHare Internationalairport to South Bend, Indiana. Shortly ater takeorom OHare International Airport, the cabin entry


23/70

13

door separated rom the airplane. Flight 4127 returnedto OHare International Airport and landed. The No.1 fight attendant sustained minor injuries. No otheroccupants were injured. The cause o the incident wasthe ailure o the No. 1 fight attendant to close the atentry door. She stated that she did not have any troubleclosing the boarding door. Even though she could hear

air coming through the door, she stated that she did notthink o calling the cockpit when she heard the soundo the door leak beore it separated, because the aircratwas under sterile cockpit conditions. When queried as tounder what conditions she would call the cockpit whensterile, she responded that she would in case o re ora problem passenger. The fight attendant had been onduty about 14 hours and 30 minutes on the day o theincident with only ve hours o sleep the previous nightdue to her fight schedule.

sECTION 4: CREw sCHEdUlINg

ANAlYsIs

Chapter VII. Exape o Cabin Cre scheue

1. Examples o various airline schedule practicesIn an eort to investigate to what extent the fight

attendant atigue issue might be related to schedulingpractices, our carriers application o the regulationsor hours o service were randomly selected as examples.It is not known rom such a small sampling i these arerepresentative and consistent across all carriers, however,the literature suggests that schedules are highly variable.

It should be remembered that the CFRs are limits rom which each carrier derives their particular schedulingpractices, respective o bargaining unit agreements.

With this in mind, the ollowing are examples oscheduling practices or hours o service or two domesticand two regional carriers as retrieved rom their respec-tive websites. This inormation is provided or a generalunderstanding o fight attendant duty and rest limitationsbased on the current CFRs as understood by the airlinesand as agreed to through collective bargaining.

Example 1: Airline A (Domestic):Hour o serviceThe overall schedule, according to Airline A requires

that fight attendants fying domestically have a monthlyschedule maximum o 80 hours. At the discretion o thefight attendant, the workload may be increased up to 85hours or make-up assignments. Duty commences no lessthan one hour (30 minutes i deadheading) beore the

scheduled departure and ends no less than 15 minutesater arrival. The scheduled on-duty maximum per dutyperiod is 12 hours and 30 minutes. From the report timeto block-in, the actual on-duty maximum is 14 hours.

a) 30-hour in 7 ay iitation: A fight attendantmay not be scheduled or more than 30 hours o actualfight time in any seven consecutive days. This limitationmay be exceeded by the fight attendant, provided thatthe fight attendant was not scheduledto do so.

b) 24-hour o in 7 ay iitation (24-in-7): Afight attendant must be relieved rom duty or at least 24hours (o-duty) in any seven consecutive days. This may

occur at home base or as part o a layover. The 24-in-7 isa ederal regulation and may not be waived by the fightattendant or by management.

c) 8-hour in 24-hour iitation:A fight

faa fa fatigue 2007

Documents