Human Factors
Recommendations to Minimize Fatigue for MQ-1B Squadrons
The
primary objectives of the assignment are to analyze the current shift rotation,
design a new schedule that optimizes operational effectiveness, while
mitigating the fatigue risk and providing recommendations to the Squadron
Commander. For a squadron that conducts continuous armed, Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) sorties, the perceived pressure to
complete the mission is extremely high, and any delay in operations can be
considered a hindrance to the ability to support ground forces in combat (Kurkcu,
Erhan & Umut, 2011).
MQ-1
Operator Shift Fatigue. A
survey conducted by the Naval
Postgraduate School in 2008 highlights some of the fatigue issues that may
emanate from shift-scheduling for MQ-1 crews specifically (Tvaryanas, Platte,
Swigart, Colebank & Miller, 2008). In this study, almost 50% of the
personnel exceeded the daily sleepiness limits, which has shown to directly
present itself as negative performance and safety in operator tasking. Overall,
it was shown that given a sample shift rotation schedule there was no change
that could be made (i.e. reducing days on or off, changing duty times, or
modifying crew team periods/number of shifts) to effectively improve work
effectiveness over the sample schedule. The study identifies a possible root
cause of the chronic fatigue issue faced by many operators, which is caused by
lack of personnel.
This report builds on the lessons
learned from a study conducted by the USAF 311th Human Systems Wing
discussed below. The primary discussion points provided by this study are there
is no single optimum work schedule for UAS operators, preferred shift work
practices due to crew preference and manpower constraints is difficult to
incorporate, and that the USAF historically has significant issues when
executing good shift work scheduling processes.
Shift
Rotations and Fatigue. The United States Air Force 311th Human
Systems Wing published a report that addresses the unique remotely piloted
aircraft (RPA) operator performance associated with heavy operational periods
and utilizing crew rotations in shifts (Thompson et al., 2006). Similar to the
proposed rotation schedule in this assignment, the study had evaluated 3-month
rotating schedules, with 5 working days on and 1 off, followed by 5 working
days and 3 days off (i.e. 5W:1F:5W:3F). Fatigue and sleepiness was monitored
using the composite fatigue scale (CFS) and ActiWatch (to objectively measure
rest and activity patterns) respectively, with a UAV synthetic task environment
(STE) to measure pilot responsiveness and reaction times. Cognitive and
vigilance performance, as well as boredom and mood evaluations were
incorporated into the study to measure as many elements impacting operator
effectiveness as possible. As a result of the 5W:1F:5W:3F rotation, pilots
experienced negative changes in mood, sleep, and vigilance, with increased
levels of fatigue. The squadron had eventually adopted a 3-shift, monthly
rotation of 6 days on and 3 days off (6W:3F) to most effectively address the
risks presented in the study (i.e. mood, sleepiness, vigilance in task
completion, and fatigue).
Study Conclusions
The
sooner an operator’s fatigue can be addressed is beneficial, as the effects of
chronic fatigue can become increasingly more difficult to manage and return the
operator to a mission-ready state (Barnes & Matz, 1998). In order for the
most accurate recommendations to be made in this assignment, it is important to
evaluate a case-study with the most similar circumstances and variables
present. These two studies focus on how armed UAS users working a shift
schedule to support continuous combat operations experience fatigue, and how to
best manage the shifts to mitigate this risk and optimize mission
effectiveness. Using and incorporating the study findings as a general
guideline to adjusting the proposed shift schedule may aid in mitigating risk
areas and maximizing operator performance. Specifically, adopting the 3-shift,
monthly rotation of 6 days on and 3 days off (6W:3F), and adding additional
personnel may aid in managing risk (Tvaryanas, Platte, Swigart, Colebank &
Miller, 2008).
Risk Areas and Mission Impact
From a human factors perspective, the
consultant shares and supports the Squadron Commander’s concerns regarding the
reports of extreme fatigue and sleep at the squadron. Addressing the risk of
fatigue as the result of sustained heavy flight operations is critical in
ensuring squadron mission success. Sustained operations where operators are not
getting sufficient sleep and the resultant fatigue will impact mission
operations, and can reduce operator effectiveness and possibly result in human
error leading to a disastrous flight mishap (Tvaryanas,
Platte, Swigart, Colebank & Miller, 2008). Over 60% of UAS mishaps
reported occur due to human error, with the MQ-1 responsible for 32 mishaps
every 100,000 flight hours (Kurkcu, Erhan & Umut, 2011). If care is not taken to account for human
factors variables present in long periods of sustained UAS operations, it could
directly impact the mission effectiveness of the MQ-1 responsible for providing
continuous ISR (Thompson et al., 2006).
Current/Projected Shift Rotation Schedule Concerns
There are some specific concerns with the
current schedule (shown in Figure 1 below) and potential problem areas. The number
of days on and off per week may not be adequate in promoting optimum rest
periods, as circadian rhythm for night crews may be harder to adjust given
small amounts of time off. The small time off (i.e. 2 days), may also be enough
to significantly alter the crew or individual’s ability to maintain sleep and
not be subject to increased susceptibility to fatigue/sleepiness upon returning
to flight duties (Kurkcu, Erhan & Umut, 2011). If not carefully
managed, this can evolve into serious sleep disorders and others such as
shift-work disorder (SWD), where the economic costs of untreated SWD are likely
high (Culpepper, 2010).
Additionally,
“persistent nocturnal activity due to night work reportedly limits or abolishes
the normal nocturnal reductions in blood pressure and decreases heart rate
variability” (Culpepper, 2010). Managing the fatigue risk area is not just a
short-term problem, and can have serious long-term effects on UAS operators
which will hinder their ability to serve. Effectively
training each crew on self-reporting of fatigue and use of CRM skills to feel
confident in self-reporting flight ability, while acquiring adequate numbers of
relief personnel to aid in sharing the flight load are also concerns when
exploring a long-term shift schedule.
Figure 1. Original UAS operator shift rotation schedule
for November. Retrieved from ASCI 638 Assignment 5.4 information page.
Advantages of the Current Schedule and
Recommendations
Sufficient
Time Off. Arguably having
2 days off after a long 6-day work period is sufficient, however increasing the
time off to 3 as per the USAF study may prove more beneficial for long-term
operator health. This instance with 3 days off may show even more benefits when
using a fourth team to share the load. This way, adequate margin can be built
in should other operators get sick or be required to attend to other duties
(i.e. family commitments).
Day
to Night Schedule. Having two days to fully acclimatize to a different
shift may be beneficial to adjusting the UAS crew team to working in different
time periods. However, it may be particularly advantageous to the crew to
increase the duration to 3 days, and keep the “swing” shift in between day and
night transitions, and vice versa. Maintaining a schedule that has a flow of
Day-Swing-Night rotations can allow crew members to anticipate and plan their
sleep schedule ahead of time. Subsequently, it is hopeful that the command can
minimize the effects from lost sleep due to circadian rhythm adjustments by
having this flow and maximizing the time between working periods as described
earlier.
Duty
Times. The duty times are
more than likely sufficient, as they mirror many 8-hour duty days used in
similar studies. For air traffic controllers (ATC) working similar duty days, a
study by the FAA was shown that there were no differences in stress when
altering the time slots from a 0800-1600, to a 1400-2200 rotation (Schroeder,
Nesthus & Rocco, 2008).
Disadvantages of the Current Schedule and
Recommendations
No
Margin for Last-Minute Schedule Changes. No flexibility or margin for other circumstances
that may present themselves to individual combat crew team members (i.e.
pregnancies, car accidents, medical appointments, sick days, etc.).
Deployed from Home. Realizing that the personnel involved in
combat operations, but not in the combat zone themselves, is certainly an area
to consider when developing an operational flight schedule. Accounting for the
fact that UAS operators are subject to the influences of daily life and home
requirements is essential. Accommodating for those personnel with families and
additional responsibilities beyond that of the mission is critical to
maintaining high levels of morale and minimizing stress. If an operator or
maintainer feels unable to engage in home life activities, such as vacations,
due to a very regimented schedule with limited personnel, then this can
adversely affect performance as time increases (Tvaryanas, Platte, Swigart,
Colebank & Miller, 2008).
Proposed Changes
Figure 2 below has some of the changes
incorporated from the above discussions, with changes made to reflect:
(1) 3 days off to model the USAF 2006 study
results, and allow maximum time off to effectively maximize time off. This may
also allow for greater flexibility in crew changes due to the holiday season
approaching in November and December. Incentivizing the operators without plans
or families to assume those duty days during the holidays may aid in boosting
morale as well.
(2) While the 6W:3F 3-shift schedule may be
used as a guideline from the USAF study, it is beneficial to add more personnel
to the flight duty list. 4 teams may not be enough to affect a decrease in
fatigue, so accounting for the primary recommendation of the NPS study by
adding a fifth team will allow for more time off and more distribution of
flight activities (Tvaryanas, Platte, Swigart, Colebank & Miller, 2008). A
fifth team has been added to act as a relief team, where the duties of the
relief team will rotate amongst other crews every month. This allows for some
creative measures to allow for last-minute fill-ins due to sickness, family
obligations, and other factors that come from living at home. The relief crew
concept may also serve as a means of incentive, so that crews can have a chance
to “relax” after working a 6W:3F duty cycle for 4 weeks.
Figure 2. Proposed shift schedule for MQ-1 Squadron based
on topics covered in the assignment.
Other
Points of Discussion
Utilizing the theoretical model in Figure 3 below, a team
can use this as a means to develop or enhance their understanding of shift work
and the human elements that may be presented as risk areas. Many of the
schedule schemes discussed thus far do not take into account operator/crew
preferences and extenuating circumstances, therefore as an organization evolves
it may become prevalent to use this model as a helpful tool in assessing
individual readiness. Encouraging operators to report work
schedule impact to life activities such as inadequate time with a spouse or
other family members/significant others is also a tool that planners can use as
a method to gather feedback (Tvaryanas,
Platte, Swigart, Colebank & Miller, 2008).
Figure 3. Theoretical model of the effects of work
schedules on health and safety. Retrieved from A Resurvey of Shift Work-Related Fatigue in
MQ-1 Predator Unmanned Aircraft System Crewmembers. Copyright 2008, Defense Technical Information Center.
References
Barnes,
M. J., & Matz, M. F. (1998). Crew simulations for unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) applications: sustained effects, shift factors, interface issues, and
crew size. Proceedings of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society, 42(1), 143-147. doi: 10.1177/154193129804200132
Culpepper, L. (2010, January).
The social and economic
burden of shift-work disorder. The
Journal of Family Practice, 59(1), 3-24.
Kurkcu,
C., Erhan, H., & Umut, S. (2011, February 11). Human Factors Concerning
Unmanned Aircraft Systems in Future Operations. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems: Dordrecht, 65,10.1007/s10846-011-9592-2
Shroeder, D.,
Nesthus, T. E., & Rocco, P. D. (2008, June 19). Sleep/Wake Cycles and Performance of ATC Operators. FAA
Fatigue Management Symposium: Partnerships for Solutions; Vienna, VA.
Thompson, W. T., Lopez, N., Hickey, P.,
DaLuz, C., Caldwell, J. L., & Tvaryanas, A. P. (2006, January). Effects of Shift Work and Sustained
Operations: Operator Performance in Remotely Piloted Aircraft (OP-REPAIR).
Defense Technical Information Center, Report Number ADA443145. Retrieved from
http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA443145
Tvaryanas, A. P., Platte, W., Swigart, C.,
Colebank, J., & Miller, N. L. (2008, March). A Resurvey of Shift Work-Related Fatigue in MQ-1 Predator Unmanned
Aircraft System Crewmembers. Defense Technical Information Center, Report
Number ADA477976. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA477976
[lE1]I
felt it was pretty important to find a military UAS study that focused
specifically on what the assignment was asking. This way I could narrow my
focus on what specific improvements I can provide to the baseline schedule.
I’ve added this section to the assignment as a sort of “literature review”,
please let me know if you have any issues!
No comments:
Post a Comment