Assessing Flight Crew Fatigue under Extra Augmented Crew Schedule Using a Multimodality Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the question of how to reduce the risk of viral infection for international airline pilots without increasing the risk of fatigue was a novel and urgent theoretical and practical problem, which had never been encountered in the world civil aviation industry. A new scheduling method implemented by the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) is the extra augmented crew (EAC) schedule, which avoids crew layover in another country on international flights by extending the maximum duty time and adding two additional crew members to such long-haul flights. In this study, a multi-day flight crew fatigue assessment was conducted to evaluate the impact of EAC flight. We recruited 71 pilots as participants, and their fatigue during EAC flights was measured using a multimodality approach integrating a subjective fatigue report, a psychomotor vigilance task, sleep monitoring, and biomathematical model predictions. The results showed that the subjective fatigue level increased during duty time compared to off-duty time, but still with acceptable levels of under 7, as measured by the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale; objective secondary task performance, as measured by the classic psychomotor vigilance task, showed no differences; pilots were able to get around 6 h of sleep, although they slept less during duty time compared to off-duty time. Model fitting using the FAID biomathematical model of fatigue confirmed that the EAC scheduling was compliant with the FAID tolerance level 91.3% of the time. The results suggest that the EAC flight created some moderate level of increased fatigue but no severe fatigue to cross-continent long-haul flight crews. This research can inform current and future scheduling and fatigue risk control during the pandemic or for future time-sensitive periods.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".