0232 Has Your Pilot Had Enough Sleep to Fly? The Effects of Sleep Deprivation on Mood, Fatigue and Competencies of Commercial Airline Pilots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep loss can result in substantial impairments in cognitive and behavioural performance. In an aviation context, this can cause serious threats to pilot well-being and flight safety. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effects of 24-hours sleep deprivation on mood, fatigue and competencies of commercial airline pilots. Seven participants completed two 24-hour testing sessions in the laboratory, one session with an 8-hour sleep opportunity, and the other with no sleep opportunity. Participants were required to complete a battery of mood, fatigue and pilot competency tasks (cognitive flexibility, working memory, situation awareness and hand-eye coordination) every 8 hours (0 h, 8 h, 16 h, 24 h) throughout each testing session. Following 24-hours sleep deprivation, significant declines were observed in both subjective (F(3, 18)=3.025, p<0.05) and objective (F(3, 18)=8.599, p<0.01) fatigue, cognitive flexibility (F(3, 18)=6.475, p<0.01) and hand-eye coordination (dominant hand only) (F(3, 18)=6.765, p<0.01). Total mood disturbance was found to significantly increase (F(3, 18)=3.887, p<0.05) after 24-hours continuous wakefulness. However, working memory and situation awareness were not found to be significantly negatively impacted by 24-hours sleep deprivation. Significant declines in mood, fatigue and certain commercial airline pilot competencies were evident following 24-hours sleep deprivation. Some pilot-specific task related factors such as cognitive flexibility and hand-eye coordination indicated trending declines in performance as early as 16-hours continuous wakefulness. This reduction in optimal performance levels may pose a potential threat to flight safety and as such leads to queries regarding current flight time limitations and duty hours. Further investigation utilizing more regular testing time points, employing additional pilot competencies and using more aviation-specific tasks is warranted. Irish Research Council
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".