Pilot Fatigue – A Study on the Effectiveness of Flight & Duty Time Regulations for Professional Pilots in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report summarizes the findings of a study conducted in 2016-2017, which analyzed the effectiveness of flight and duty time (FDT) regulations for professional pilots in Canada. With air carriers operating across the world, twentyfour hours a day, 365 days a year, pilots must fly day and night, while being responsible for the lives of their passengers and aircrew. Consequently, federal regulations in Canada govern the maximum FDT a pilot may fly an aircraft (flight time), and be on duty at his or her workplace (duty time). While many Members States of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) have recently modernised their FDT regulations, Canada’s regulatory approach to mitigate pilot fatigue has not been updated since 1996. This study focused on Canadian operators conducting commercial operations under Part VII of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) as 702, 703, 704 and 705 operators. It analyzed whether federal laws adequately regulate pilot fatigue and if there are some gaps within the CARs. Because the CARs regulate FDT differently depending on the category of operator, this study also considered potential safety trends with respect to pilot fatigue in various categories of carriers; the effects of standby duty and being awake for extended periods of time; and whether lessexperienced pilots are more vulnerable to pilot fatigue in comparison with more experienced pilots. Five key informants, who worked as professional pilots in Canada, were interviewed in the course of this study to substantiate certain hypotheses. Following these interviews, this report was produced. It focuses on five aspects of FDT regulations in order to understand their positive or adverse impact on pilot fatigue: (1) work schedules; (2) pilot remuneration; (3) fatigue and stress; (4) company safety culture and work environment; and (5) industry issues.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".