Figure 1.
Overall model quality.
Figure 1.
Overall model quality.
Figure 2.
Temporal causal model of flight crew workload settings parameters, the subjective perception of fatigue, and CRD fatigue indicators.
Figure 2.
Temporal causal model of flight crew workload settings parameters, the subjective perception of fatigue, and CRD fatigue indicators.
Figure 3.
Direct impacts on targeted indicator Ifatigue—fatigue index: (a) Links with a statistical significance value less or equal to 0.05 (strong links); (b) All the links.
Figure 3.
Direct impacts on targeted indicator Ifatigue—fatigue index: (a) Links with a statistical significance value less or equal to 0.05 (strong links); (b) All the links.
Figure 4.
Impact diagram—causes of the fatigue Index (Ifatigue).
Figure 4.
Impact diagram—causes of the fatigue Index (Ifatigue).
Figure 5.
Impact diagram—effects of the fatigue Index (Ifatigue).
Figure 5.
Impact diagram—effects of the fatigue Index (Ifatigue).
Figure 6.
Relevant correlations between workload settings and flight crew fatigue (Ifatigue).
Figure 6.
Relevant correlations between workload settings and flight crew fatigue (Ifatigue).
Figure 7.
Increasing workload settings indicator X5 in the observed dataset by 3 extra days off and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X5; (b) impact of a modified X5 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 7.
Increasing workload settings indicator X5 in the observed dataset by 3 extra days off and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X5; (b) impact of a modified X5 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 8.
Impacts of an increased workload settings indicator X5 in the observed dataset by 3 extra days off on the values of initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X5 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X5 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 8.
Impacts of an increased workload settings indicator X5 in the observed dataset by 3 extra days off on the values of initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X5 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X5 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 9.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) The case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 9.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) The case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 10.
Increasing workload settings indicator X6 in the observed dataset by 30% and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X6; (b) impact of a modified X6 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 10.
Increasing workload settings indicator X6 in the observed dataset by 30% and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X6; (b) impact of a modified X6 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 11.
Impacts of an increased workload settings indicator X6 in the observed dataset by 30% on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X6 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X6 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 11.
Impacts of an increased workload settings indicator X6 in the observed dataset by 30% on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X6 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X6 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 12.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) The case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 12.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) The case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 13.
Decreasing workload settings indicator X6 in the observed dataset by 30% and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X6; (b) impact of a modified X6 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 13.
Decreasing workload settings indicator X6 in the observed dataset by 30% and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X6; (b) impact of a modified X6 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 14.
Impacts of a decreased workload settings indicator X6 in the observed dataset by 30% on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X6 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X6 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 14.
Impacts of a decreased workload settings indicator X6 in the observed dataset by 30% on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X6 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X6 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 15.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) The case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 15.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) The case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 16.
Comparison of the case scenario Iteration 1 and Iteration 2: (a) Increasing workload settings indicator X6 and its impact on the values of the fatigue index; (b) decreasing workload settings indicator X6 and its impact on the values of the fatigue index.
Figure 16.
Comparison of the case scenario Iteration 1 and Iteration 2: (a) Increasing workload settings indicator X6 and its impact on the values of the fatigue index; (b) decreasing workload settings indicator X6 and its impact on the values of the fatigue index.
Figure 17.
Increasing workload settings indicator X7 in the observed dataset for 3 extra local nights and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X7; (b) impact of a modified X7 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 17.
Increasing workload settings indicator X7 in the observed dataset for 3 extra local nights and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X7; (b) impact of a modified X7 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 18.
Impacts of an increased workload settings indicator X7 in the observed dataset by 3 extra local nights on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X7 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X7 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 18.
Impacts of an increased workload settings indicator X7 in the observed dataset by 3 extra local nights on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X7 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X7 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 19.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) The case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 19.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) The case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 20.
Decreasing workload settings indicator X7 in the observed dataset by 1 local night and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X7; (b) impact of a modified X7 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 20.
Decreasing workload settings indicator X7 in the observed dataset by 1 local night and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X7; (b) impact of a modified X7 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 21.
Impacts of a decreased workload settings indicator X7 in the observed dataset by 1 local night on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X7 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X7 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 21.
Impacts of a decreased workload settings indicator X7 in the observed dataset by 1 local night on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X7 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X7 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 22.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) The case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 22.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) The case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 23.
Comparison of the case scenario Iteration 1 and Iteration 2: (a) Increasing workload settings indicator X7 and its impact on the values of the fatigue index; (b) decreasing workload settings indicator X7 and its impact on the values of the fatigue index.
Figure 23.
Comparison of the case scenario Iteration 1 and Iteration 2: (a) Increasing workload settings indicator X7 and its impact on the values of the fatigue index; (b) decreasing workload settings indicator X7 and its impact on the values of the fatigue index.
Figure 24.
Increasing workload settings indicator X9 in the observed dataset by 2 extra changes in the schedule and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X9; (b) impact of a modified X9 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 24.
Increasing workload settings indicator X9 in the observed dataset by 2 extra changes in the schedule and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X9; (b) impact of a modified X9 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 25.
Impacts of an increased workload settings indicator X9 in the observed dataset by 2 extra changes in the schedule on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X9 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X9 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 25.
Impacts of an increased workload settings indicator X9 in the observed dataset by 2 extra changes in the schedule on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X9 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X9 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 26.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) The case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 26.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) The case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 27.
Increasing workload settings indicator X10 in the observed dataset by 30% and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X10; (b) impact of a modified X10 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 27.
Increasing workload settings indicator X10 in the observed dataset by 30% and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X10; (b) impact of a modified X10 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 28.
Impacts of an increased workload settings indicator X10 in the observed dataset by 30% on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X10 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X10 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 28.
Impacts of an increased workload settings indicator X10 in the observed dataset by 30% on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X10 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X10 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 29.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) The case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 29.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) The case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 30.
Decreasing workload settings indicator X10 in the observed dataset by 30% and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X10; (b) impact of a modified X10 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 30.
Decreasing workload settings indicator X10 in the observed dataset by 30% and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X10; (b) impact of a modified X10 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 31.
Impacts of a decreased workload settings indicator X10 in the observed dataset by 30% on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X10 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X10 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 31.
Impacts of a decreased workload settings indicator X10 in the observed dataset by 30% on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X10 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X10 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 32.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) the case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 32.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) the case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 33.
Comparison of the case scenario Iteration 1 and Iteration 2: (a) Increasing workload settings indicator X10 and its impact on the values of the fatigue index; (b) decreasing workload settings indicator X10 and its impact on the values of the fatigue index.
Figure 33.
Comparison of the case scenario Iteration 1 and Iteration 2: (a) Increasing workload settings indicator X10 and its impact on the values of the fatigue index; (b) decreasing workload settings indicator X10 and its impact on the values of the fatigue index.
Figure 34.
Increasing workload settings indicator X15 in the observed dataset by 30% and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X15; (b) impact of a modified X15 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 34.
Increasing workload settings indicator X15 in the observed dataset by 30% and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X15; (b) impact of a modified X15 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 35.
Impacts of an increased workload settings indicator X15 in the observed dataset by 30% on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X15 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X15 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 35.
Impacts of an increased workload settings indicator X15 in the observed dataset by 30% on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X15 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X15 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 36.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) the case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 36.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) the case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 37.
Decreasing workload settings indicator X15 in the observed dataset by 30% and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X15; (b) impact of a modified X15 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 37.
Decreasing workload settings indicator X15 in the observed dataset by 30% and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X15; (b) impact of a modified X15 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 38.
Impacts of a decreased workload settings indicator X15 in the observed dataset by 30% on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X15 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X15 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 38.
Impacts of a decreased workload settings indicator X15 in the observed dataset by 30% on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X15 on Bin (scenario case); (b) impact of a modified X15 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 39.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) the case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 39.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) the case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 40.
Comparison of the case scenario Iteration 1 and Iteration 2: (a) Increasing workload settings indicator X15 and its impact on the values of the fatigue index; (b) Decreasing workload settings indicator X15 and its impact on the values of the fatigue index.
Figure 40.
Comparison of the case scenario Iteration 1 and Iteration 2: (a) Increasing workload settings indicator X15 and its impact on the values of the fatigue index; (b) Decreasing workload settings indicator X15 and its impact on the values of the fatigue index.
Figure 41.
Increasing workload settings indicator X16 in the observed dataset by 3 extra days on the shift and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X16; (b) impact of a modified X16 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 41.
Increasing workload settings indicator X16 in the observed dataset by 3 extra days on the shift and its impact on the values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue): (a) A modified workload settings indicator X16; (b) impact of a modified X16 on Ifatigue (case scenario).
Figure 42.
Impacts of an increased workload settings indicator X16 in the observed dataset by 3 extra days on the shift on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X16 on Bin (scenario case); (b) Impact of a modified X16 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 42.
Impacts of an increased workload settings indicator X16 in the observed dataset by 3 extra days on the shift on the values of the initial ballast (Bin) and final ballast (Bfin): (a) Impact of a modified X16 on Bin (scenario case); (b) Impact of a modified X16 on Bfin (case scenario).
Figure 43.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) The case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Figure 43.
Comparison of the case scenario values: (a) The original forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue) vs. the case scenario forecast values of the fatigue index (Ifatigue’); (b) The case scenario values of the final ballast (Bfin’) vs. the case scenario values of the initial ballast (Bin’).
Table 1.
Elements of workload settings—independent variables.
Table 1.
Elements of workload settings—independent variables.
Independent Variables—Groups of Workload Settings | Label | Name | Description |
---|
Time of day | X1 | Time of day | Local time of test execution at the beginning of the shift (Check In—CI) and at the end of the shift (Check Out—CO) |
Start or end of the shift | X2 | Start or end of the shift (Check In/Check Out—CI/CO) | Start of the shift or Check In—CI, or end of the shift or Check Out—CO |
Days off | X3 | Number of days off in the previous 7 days | Number of days off in the previous 7 days, at the beginning of the shift (CI) or at the end of the shift (CO) |
X4 | Number of days off in the previous 28 days | Number of days off in the previous 28 days, at the beginning of the shift (CI) or at the end of the shift (CO) |
X5 | Number of individual days off in the previous 28 days | Number of individual days off in the previous 28 days, at the beginning of the shift (CI) or at the end of the shift (CO) |
Rest | X6 | Rest length | Rest length before flying duty, at the start of a shift (CI), or at the end of a shift (CO) |
X7 | Local night in daily rest | Whether the rest before flight duty includes a local night |
X8 | Number of local nights in the 48 h before flight duty | How many local nights include rest 48 h before flight duty |
X9 | Changes in the schedule | Changes in the schedule of crews in the previous 7 days by more than 1 h |
Cumulative workload | X10 | Sectors in the previous 7 days | Number of sectors (flights) completed in the previous 7 days |
X11 | Sectors in the previous 28 days | Number of sectors (flights) performed in the previous 28 days |
X12 | Flight time in the previous 7 days | Total flight time (includes only flight time, not aircraft dispatch acceptance time) in the previous 7 days |
X13 | Flight time in the previous 28 days | Total flight time (includes flight time only, not the time of aircraft ground handling) in the previous 28 days |
X14 | Duty time in the previous 7 days | Total duty time (includes all time on duty—from CI to CO and duties on the ground) in the previous 7 days |
X15 | Duty time in the previous 28 days | Total duty time (includes all time on duty—from CI to CO and duties on the ground) in the previous 28 days |
Individual flight duty | X16 | Multi-day shifts | Multi-day shifts |
Table 2.
Overview of CRD fatigue indicators.
Table 2.
Overview of CRD fatigue indicators.
Name of CRD Fatigue Indicator | Label | Short Description | Meaning |
---|
Number of errors | Nerr | Number of errors—the accuracy of mental processing | Lower value—higher accuracy |
Total time | Ttot | Mental processing speed—total time for solving a test | Lower value—a higher level of efficiency |
Minimum test-solving time | Tmin | Mental processing speed—the shortest task-solving times | Lower value—a higher level of efficiency |
Maximum test-solving time | Tmax | Mental processing speed—the longest task-solving times | Lower value—a higher level of efficiency |
Total ballast | Btot | Total lost time due to fluctuations in the speed of solving similar tasks | Lower value—greater stability |
Initial ballast | Bin | Working speed or initial ballast | Lower value—greater stability |
Final ballast | Bfin | Fatigue or final ballast | Lower value—greater stability |
Fatigue index | Ifatigue | The quotient of Bfin and Bin (Bfin/Bin) | Values greater than 1 indicate fatigue |
Table 3.
Elements of subjective self-assessment scales—independent and dependent variables.
Table 3.
Elements of subjective self-assessment scales—independent and dependent variables.
Independent and Dependent Variables—Subjective Self-Assessments | Label | Name | Description |
---|
Subjective self-assessments | S1 | Emotional state | Subjective self-assessment of the emotional state (scale from 1 to 10) |
S2 | Energy level | Subjective self-assessment of the energy level (scale from 1 to 10) |
S3 | Self-confidence | Subjective self-assessment of the self-confidence (scale from 1 to 10) |
S4 | Anxiety level | Subjective self-assessment of the anxiety level (scale from 1 to 10) |
Table 4.
Example of the subjective self-assessment scale of energy level.
Table 4.
Example of the subjective self-assessment scale of energy level.
Rank | Description of Energy Level |
---|
1 | I am completely exhausted, unable to do the least effort. |
2 | I’m terribly tired, incapable of any activity. |
3 | I am very tired, without energy, immobile. |
4 | I’m pretty tired, apathetic, wishing a good night sleep. |
5 | I do not have enough energy, I get tired easily. |
6 | I feel quite fresh. |
7 | I’m fresh and I have a lot of energy. |
8 | I have a lot of energy, I feel the need for action. |
9 | I have great energy and a strong need for action. |
10 | I feel great energy for which there are no imperceptible obstacles. |
Table 5.
Variables of the observed dataset (collected data) of flight crew workload settings, subjective self-assessments, and CRD fatigue indicators.
Table 5.
Variables of the observed dataset (collected data) of flight crew workload settings, subjective self-assessments, and CRD fatigue indicators.
Label | Name | Role |
---|
X1 | Time of day | Independent variable (input) |
X2 | Start or end of the shift (Check In/Check Out—CI/CO) | Independent variable (input) |
X3 | Number of days off in the previous 7 days | Independent variable (input) |
X4 | Number of days off in the previous 28 days | Independent variable (input) |
X5 | Number of individual days off in the previous 28 days | Independent variable (input) |
X6 | Rest length | Independent variable (input) |
X7 | Local night in daily rest | Independent variable (input) |
X8 | Number of local nights in the 48 h before flight duty | Independent variable (input) |
X9 | Changes in the schedule | Independent variable (input) |
X10 | Sectors in the previous 7 days | Independent variable (input) |
X11 | Sectors in the previous 28 days | Independent variable (input) |
X12 | Flight time in the previous 7 days | Independent variable (input) |
X13 | Flight time in the previous 28 days | Independent variable (input) |
X14 | Duty time in the previous 7 days | Independent variable (input) |
X15 | Duty time in the previous 28 days | Independent variable (input) |
X16 | Multi-day shifts | Independent variable (input) |
S1 | Self-assessment of the emotional state | Independent and dependent variable (input/target, i.e., both) |
S2 | Self-assessment of the energy level | Independent and dependent variable (input/target, i.e., both) |
S3 | Self-assessment of self-confidence | Independent and dependent variable (input/target, i.e., both) |
S4 | Self-assessment of the anxiety level | Independent and dependent variable (input/target, i.e., both) |
Nerr | Number of errors | Independent and dependent variable (input/target, i.e., both) 1 |
Ttot | Total time | Independent and dependent variable (input/target, i.e., both) 1 |
Tmin | Minimum time | Independent and dependent variable (input/target, i.e., both) 1 |
Tmax | Maximum time | Independent and dependent variable (input/target, i.e., both) 1 |
Btot | Total ballast | Independent and dependent variable (input/target, i.e., both) 1 |
Bin | Initial ballast | Independent and dependent variable (input/target, i.e., both) 1 |
Bfin | Final ballast | Independent and dependent variable (input/target, i.e., both) 1 |
Ifatigue | Fatigue index | Independent and dependent variable (input/target, i.e., both) 1 |
Table 6.
Fit statistics for the top causal models of each target indicator in the observed dataset.
Table 6.
Fit statistics for the top causal models of each target indicator in the observed dataset.
Model for Target | Model Quality |
---|
RMSE | RMSPE | AIC | BIC | R-Squared |
---|
S1 | 0.54 | 0.05 | –125.33 | 106.94 | 0.87 |
S4 | 0.60 | 0.05 | –99.73 | 132.54 | 0.85 |
S2 | 0.52 | 0.05 | –135.07 | 97.20 | 0.81 |
S3 | 0.64 | 0.06 | –79.23 | 153.04 | 0.80 |
Ttot | 23,659.43 | 0.63 | 2653.75 | 2886.02 | 0.80 |
Btot | 26,037.96 | 2.08 | 2678.66 | 2910.93 | 0.77 |
Bfin | 12,395.61 | 1.80 | 2485.68 | 2717.95 | 0.77 |
Nerr | 1.58 | 0.44 | 154.83 | 387.10 | 0.76 |
Bin | 15,056.92 | 3.24 | 2536.25 | 2768.52 | 0.76 |
Tmax | 5197.53 | 2.92 | 2259.70 | 2491.97 | 0.73 |
Ifatigue | 0.47 | 0.32 | −158.64 | 73.63 | 0.71 |
Tmin | 280.03 | 0.58 | 1500.23 | 1732.50 | 0.70 |
Table 7.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Table 7.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X5′ | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 1.46 2 | 2.03 2 | 1.80 2 | 1.19 2 | 0.76 2 | 1.13 2 | 1.11 2 | 1.20 2 | 0.71 2 | 0.96 2 | 0.39 2 | 1.05 2 | 0.68 2 | 1.54 2 | 0.25 2 |
Table 8.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Table 8.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X5′ | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 1.46 2 | 2.03 2 | 1.80 2 | 1.19 2 | 0.76 2 | 1.13 2 | 1.11 2 | 1.20 2 | 0.71 2 | 0.96 2 | 0.39 2 | 1.05 2 | 0.68 2 | 1.54 2 | 0.25 2 |
Bin | 64,774 | 9336 | 2148 | 11,861 | 14,602 | 42,932 | 7404 | 2990 | 3277 1 | 4960 1 | −29,895 1 | 4638 1 | 8476 1 | 23,989 1 | −25,659 1 |
Bin’ | 29,177 2 | −13,365 2 | −6320 2 | −14,816 2 | −14,292 2 | –22,925 2 | –33,044 2 | 11,169 2 | −6396 2 | 26,090 2 | 62,024 2 | 30,497 2 | 68,166 2 | 23,734 2 | 66,491 2 |
Bfin | 84,942 | 8250 | 2672 | 14,909 | 16,413 | 38,306 | 8260 | 3651 | 4771 1 | –3052 1 | −24,765 1 | –12,462 1 | 8485 1 | 17,777 1 | −8640 1 |
Bfin’ | 52,746 2 | −6311 2 | 23,883 2 | 32,905 2 | 17,225 2 | 14,168 2 | 28,690 2 | 35,494 2 | 11,778 2 | 14,448 2 | 8490 2 | −10,030 2 | −38,619 2 | −30,379 2 | −21,996 2 |
Table 9.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Table 9.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X6 | 13.32 | 13.32 | 13.32 | 13.05 | 13.05 | 13.05 | 13.05 | 13.05 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X6′ | 17.31 | 17.31 | 17.31 | 16.97 | 16.97 | 16.97 | 16.97 | 16.97 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 1.21 2 | 1.49 2 | 1.45 2 | 0.98 2 | 0.62 2 | 1.54 2 | 1.06 2 | 1.47 2 | 1.38 2 | 2.28 2 | 0.78 2 | 1.32 2 | 1.62 2 | 3.10 2 | 2.01 2 |
Table 10.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Table 10.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X6 | 13.32 | 13.32 | 13.32 | 13.05 | 13.05 | 13.05 | 13.05 | 13.05 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X6′ | 17.31 | 17.31 | 17.31 | 16.97 | 16.97 | 16.97 | 16.97 | 16.97 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 1.21 2 | 1.49 2 | 1.45 2 | 0.98 2 | 0.62 2 | 1.54 2 | 1.06 2 | 1.47 2 | 1.38 2 | 2.28 2 | 0.78 2 | 1.32 2 | 1.62 2 | 3.10 2 | 2.01 2 |
Bin | 64,774 | 9336 | 2148 | 11,861 | 14,602 | 42,932 | 7404 | 2990 | 3277 1 | 4960 1 | −29,895 1 | 4638 1 | 8476 1 | 23,989 1 | −25,659 1 |
Bin’ | 47,219 2 | 3156 2 | 9436 2 | 7648 2 | 25,920 2 | 7710 2 | 4869 2 | 31,744 2 | −27,142 2 | −42,570 2 | −11,107 2 | −619 2 | 54,743 2 | −30,700 2 | −22,171 2 |
Bfin | 84,942 | 8250 | 2672 | 14,909 | 16,413 | 38,306 | 8260 | 3651 | 4771 1 | −3052 1 | −24,765 1 | −12,462 1 | 8485 1 | 17,777 1 | −8640 1 |
Bfin’ | 60,120 2 | 8395 2 | 16,727 2 | 20,936 2 | 19,052 2 | 14,006 2 | 14,699 2 | 25,777 2 | 16,571 2 | −16,253 2 | −31,652 2 | −6056 2 | 8344 2 | −3344 2 | −13,146 2 |
Table 11.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Table 11.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X6 | 13.32 | 13.32 | 13.32 | 13.05 | 13.05 | 13.05 | 13.05 | 13.05 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X6′ | 9.32 | 9.32 | 9.32 | 9.14 | 9.14 | 9.14 | 9.14 | 9.14 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 1.24 2 | 1.51 2 | 1.49 2 | 1.00 2 | 0.65 2 | 1.56 2 | 1.07 2 | 1.48 2 | 1.39 2 | 2.26 2 | 0.73 2 | 1.28 2 | 1.56 2 | 3.07 2 | 1.96 2 |
Table 12.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Table 12.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed values | Forecasted values |
---|
X6 | 13.32 | 13.32 | 13.32 | 13.05 | 13.05 | 13.05 | 13.05 | 13.05 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X6′ | 9.32 | 9.32 | 9.32 | 9.14 | 9.14 | 9.14 | 9.14 | 9.14 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 1.24 2 | 1.51 2 | 1.49 2 | 1.00 2 | 0.65 2 | 1.56 2 | 1.07 2 | 1.48 2 | 1.39 2 | 2.26 2 | 0.73 2 | 1.28 2 | 1.56 2 | 3.07 2 | 1.96 2 |
Bin | 64,774 | 9336 | 2148 | 11,861 | 14,602 | 42,932 | 7404 | 2990 | 3277 1 | 4960 1 | −29,895 1 | 4638 1 | 8476 1 | 23,989 1 | −25,659 1 |
Bin’ | 46,966 2 | 1724 2 | 7764 2 | 5816 2 | 22,981 2 | 3559 2 | 718 2 | 26,998 2 | −27,100 2 | −40,715 2 | −7665 2 | 4905 2 | 61,241 2 | −23,244 2 | −12,721 2 |
Bfin | 84,942 | 8250 | 2672 | 14,909 | 16,413 | 38,306 | 8260 | 3651 | 4771 1 | −3052 1 | −24,765 1 | −12,462 1 | 8485 1 | 17,777 1 | −8640 1 |
Bfin’ | 59,937 2 | 7487 2 | 15,685 2 | 20,148 2 | 17,966 2 | 12,511 2 | 13,228 2 | 24,388 2 | 15,631 2 | −16,425 2 | −30,489 2 | −4538 2 | 9327 2 | −2336 2 | −10,517 2 |
Table 13.
Case scenario results for Fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Table 13.
Case scenario results for Fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X7′ | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 3.81 2 | 5.04 2 | 7.38 2 | 6.50 2 | 5.28 2 | 5.79 2 | 7.51 2 | 9.38 2 | 14.64 2 | 10.15 2 | 7.18 2 | 9.07 2 | 5.81 2 | 8.82 2 | 12.40 2 |
Table 14.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Table 14.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X7′ | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 3.81 2 | 5.04 2 | 7.38 2 | 6.50 2 | 5.28 2 | 5.79 2 | 7.51 2 | 9.38 2 | 14.64 2 | 10.15 2 | 7.18 2 | 9.07 2 | 5.81 2 | 8.82 2 | 12.40 2 |
Bin | 64,774 | 9336 | 2148 | 11,861 | 14,602 | 42,932 | 7404 | 2990 | 3277 1 | 4960 1 | −29,895 1 | 4638 1 | 8476 1 | 23,989 1 | −25,659 1 |
Bin’ | 72,696 2 | 36,194 2 | 63,098 2 | 148,456 2 | 182,972 2 | 192,454 2 | 245,395 2 | 309,951 2 | −115,659 2 | −66,328 2 | −120,406 2 | −73,851 2 | −134,908 2 | −133,430 2 | −186,009 2 |
Bfin | 84,942 | 8250 | 2672 | 14,909 | 16,413 | 38,306 | 8260 | 3651 | 4771 1 | −3052 1 | −24,765 1 | −12,462 1 | 8485 1 | 17,777 1 | −8640 1 |
Bfin’ | 136,952 2 | 81,888 2 | 106,569 2 | 167,401 2 | 166,468 2 | 151,386 2 | 162,473 2 | 247,703 2 | 120,089 2 | −18,249 2 | 44,970 2 | 194,242 2 | 246,330 2 | 306,845 2 | 411,432 2 |
Table 15.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Table 15.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X7′ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 0.40 2 | 0.37 2 | −0.53 2 | −0.93 2 | −0.87 2 | 0.21 2 | −0.97 2 | −0.92 2 | −3.36 2 | −0.64 2 | −1.57 2 | −0.14 2 | −0.27 2 | 0.91 2 | −2.56 2 |
Table 16.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Table 16.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X7′ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 0.40 2 | 0.37 2 | −0.53 2 | −0.93 2 | −0.87 2 | 0.21 2 | −0.97 2 | −0.92 2 | −3.36 2 | −0.64 2 | −1.57 2 | −0.14 2 | −0.27 2 | 0.91 2 | −2.56 2 |
Bin | 64,774 | 9336 | 2148 | 11,861 | 14,602 | 42,932 | 7404 | 2990 | 3277 1 | 4960 1 | −29,895 1 | 4638 1 | 8476 1 | 23,989 1 | −25,659 1 |
Bin’ | 44,187 2 | −4230 2 | −12,617 2 | −36,796 2 | −27,989 2 | −53,445 2 | −77,985 2 | −73,548 2 | 19,089 2 | −4743 2 | 49,956 2 | −13,487 2 | 105,581 2 | 5343 2 | 122,539 2 |
Bfin | 84,942 | 8250 | 2672 | 14,909 | 16,413 | 38,306 | 8260 | 3651 | 4771 1 | −3052 1 | −24,765 1 | −12,462 1 | 8485 1 | 17,777 1 | −8640 1 |
Bfin’ | 39,988 2 | −11,390 2 | −17,551 2 | −31,670 2 | −30,532 2 | −26,844 2 | −38,872 2 | −50,984 2 | −16,153 2 | 147 2 | −41,391 2 | −70,273 2 | −89,406 2 | −109,609 2 | −133,500 2 |
Table 17.
Case scenario results for Fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Table 17.
Case scenario results for Fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X9′ | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 0.37 2 | 1.40 2 | 0.90 2 | 0.10 2 | −0.49 2 | 1.63 2 | −0.13 2 | 1.37 2 | −1.42 2 | 2.18 2 | −1.16 2 | 2.65 2 | 0.34 2 | 3.18 2 | −0.36 2 |
Table 18.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Table 18.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X9′ | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 0.37 2 | 1.40 2 | 0.90 2 | 0.10 2 | −0.49 2 | 1.63 2 | −0.13 2 | 1.37 2 | −1.42 2 | 2.18 2 | −1.16 2 | 2.65 2 | 0.34 2 | 3.18 2 | −0.36 2 |
Bin | 64,774 | 9336 | 2148 | 11,861 | 14,602 | 42,932 | 7404 | 2990 | 3277 1 | 4960 1 | −29,895 1 | 4638 1 | 8476 1 | 23,989 1 | −25,659 1 |
Bin’ | 87,181 2 | 35,465 2 | 20,573 2 | 41,099 2 | 80,677 2 | 48,325 2 | 59,103 2 | 15,319 2 | −3299 2 | −78,746 2 | −68, 692 2 | −200,575 2 | −45,130 2 | −235,275 2 | −74,604 2 |
Bfin | 84,942 | 8250 | 2672 | 14,909 | 16,413 | 38,306 | 8260 | 3651 | 4771 1 | −3052 1 | −24,765 1 | −12,462 1 | 8485 1 | 17,777 1 | −8640 1 |
Bfin’ | 86,400 2 | 39,258 2 | 7374 2 | 29,523 2 | 40,714 2 | 29,197 2 | 756 2 | 27,921 2 | 19,794 2 | −32,766 2 | −85,421 2 | −73,648 2 | −65,677 2 | −116,096 2 | −145,900 2 |
Table 19.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Table 19.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X10 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X10′ | 16.90 | 16.90 | 16.90 | 11.70 | 11.70 | 11.70 | 11.70 | 11.70 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 1.01 2 | 1.26 2 | 0.82 2 | 0.54 2 | 0.71 2 | 1.36 2 | 1.04 2 | 1.60 2 | 1.14 2 | 2.42 2 | 0.45 2 | 1.91 2 | 2.12 2 | 3.05 2 | 1.60 2 |
Table 20.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Table 20.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X10 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X10′ | 16.90 | 16.90 | 16.90 | 11.70 | 11.70 | 11.70 | 11.70 | 11.70 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 1.01 2 | 1.26 2 | 0.82 2 | 0.54 2 | 0.71 2 | 1.36 2 | 1.04 2 | 1.60 2 | 1.14 2 | 2.42 2 | 0.45 2 | 1.91 2 | 2.12 2 | 3.05 2 | 1.60 2 |
Bin | 64,774 | 9336 | 2148 | 11,861 | 14,602 | 42,932 | 7404 | 2990 | 3277 1 | 4960 1 | −29,895 1 | 4638 1 | 8476 1 | 23,989 1 | −25,659 1 |
Bin’ | 47,021 2 | −7360 2 | −6892 2 | −9958 2 | −982 2 | −26,981 2 | −35,240 2 | −26,829 2 | −41,752 2 | −55,402 2 | −12,269 2 | 13,637 2 | 51,716 2 | −31,629 2 | −494 2 |
Bfin | 84,942 | 8250 | 2672 | 14,909 | 16,413 | 38,306 | 8260 | 3651 | 4771 1 | −3052 1 | −24,765 1 | −12,462 1 | 8485 1 | 17,777 1 | −8640 1 |
Bfin’ | 63,455 2 | 1089 2 | −1604 2 | 4681 2 | 11,810 2 | −1130 2 | 4646 2 | 23,217 2 | 14,832 2 | −19,875 2 | −26,806 2 | 26,719 2 | 17,094 2 | 13,534 2 | 1274 2 |
Table 21.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Table 21.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X10 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X10′ | 9.10 | 9.10 | 9.10 | 6.30 | 6.30 | 6.30 | 6.30 | 6.30 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 1.65 2 | 1.86 2 | 1.62 2 | 1.04 2 | 0.83 2 | 1.54 2 | 1.39 2 | 1.57 2 | 1. 04 2 | 2.50 2 | 0.74 2 | 1.58 2 | 1.98 2 | 3.04 2 | 1.61 2 |
Table 22.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Table 22.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X10 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X10′ | 9.10 | 9.10 | 9.10 | 6.30 | 6.30 | 6.30 | 6.30 | 6.30 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 1.65 2 | 1.86 2 | 1.62 2 | 1.04 2 | 0.83 2 | 1.54 2 | 1.39 2 | 1.57 2 | 1. 04 2 | 2.50 2 | 0.74 2 | 1.58 2 | 1.98 2 | 3.04 2 | 1.61 2 |
Bin | 64,774 | 9336 | 2148 | 11,861 | 14,602 | 42,932 | 7404 | 2990 | 3277 1 | 4960 1 | −29,895 1 | 4638 1 | 8476 1 | 23,989 1 | −25,659 1 |
Bin’ | 57,095 2 | 18,642 2 | 27,230 2 | 35,051 2 | 58,877 2 | 44,631 2 | 40,893 2 | 80,825 2 | −36,160 2 | −35,523 2 | 11,128 2 | 35,111 2 | 63,452 2 | −9346 2 | 4544 2 |
Bfin | 84,942 | 8250 | 2672 | 14,909 | 16,413 | 38,306 | 8260 | 3651 | 4771 1 | −3052 1 | −24,765 1 | −12,462 1 | 8485 1 | 17,777 1 | −8640 1 |
Bfin’ | 69,937 2 | 24,773 2 | 29,861 2 | 31,642 2 | 38,020 2 | 25,270 2 | 22,885 2 | 32,628 2 | 16,431 2 | −3690 2 | −21,967 2 | 37,704 2 | 41,189 2 | 42,385 2 | 24,445 2 |
Table 23.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Table 23.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X15 | 100.02 | 100.02 | 100.02 | 144.80 | 144.80 | 144.80 | 144.80 | 144.80 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X15′ | 130.02 | 130.02 | 130.02 | 188.24 | 188.24 | 188.24 | 188.24 | 188.24 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 1.28 2 | 1.71 2 | 1.66 2 | 1.19 2 | 0.99 2 | 1.74 2 | 1.74 2 | 2.13 2 | 2.47 2 | 3.02 2 | 1.60 2 | 2.03 2 | 1.92 2 | 3.34 2 | 2.55 2 |
Table 24.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Table 24.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X15 | 100.02 | 100.02 | 100.02 | 144.80 | 144.80 | 144.80 | 144.80 | 144.80 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X15′ | 130.02 | 130.02 | 130.02 | 188.24 | 188.24 | 188.24 | 188.24 | 188.24 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 1.28 2 | 1.71 2 | 1.66 2 | 1.19 2 | 0.99 2 | 1.74 2 | 1.74 2 | 2.13 2 | 2.47 2 | 3.02 2 | 1.60 2 | 2.03 2 | 1.92 2 | 3.34 2 | 2.55 2 |
Bin | 64,774 | 9336 | 2148 | 11,861 | 14,602 | 42,932 | 7404 | 2990 | 3277 1 | 4960 1 | −29,895 1 | 4638 1 | 8476 1 | 23,989 1 | −25,659 1 |
Bin’ | 58,623 2 | 12,805 2 | 10,210 2 | 28,882 2 | 54,300 2 | 47,992 2 | 53,940 2 | 94,813 2 | −6410 2 | 15,159 2 | 48,058 2 | 67,581 2 | 131,776 2 | 83,409 2 | 81,371 2 |
Bfin | 84,942 | 8250 | 2672 | 14,909 | 16,413 | 38,306 | 8260 | 3651 | 4771 1 | −3052 1 | −24,765 1 | −12,462 1 | 8485 1 | 17,777 1 | −8640 1 |
Bfin’ | 63,601 2 | 13,946 2 | 7355 2 | 20,854 2 | 25,878 2 | 29,865 2 | 29,719 2 | 40,185 2 | 49,701 2 | 14,378 2 | 14,767 2 | 74,441 2 | 129,760 2 | 143,032 2 | 125,120 2 |
Table 25.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Table 25.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X15 | 100.02 | 100.02 | 100.02 | 144.80 | 144.80 | 144.80 | 144.80 | 144.80 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X15′ | 70.01 | 70.01 | 70.01 | 101.36 | 101.36 | 101.36 | 101.36 | 101.36 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 1.29 2 | 1.26 2 | 1.41 2 | 0.40 2 | 0.22 2 | 1.30 2 | 0.73 2 | 0.88 2 | 0.42 2 | 1.16 2 | 0.11 2 | 0.63 2 | 1.17 2 | 2.73 2 | 1.46 2 |
Table 26.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Table 26.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X15 | 100.02 | 100.02 | 100.02 | 144.80 | 144.80 | 144.80 | 144.80 | 144.80 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X15′ | 70.01 | 70.01 | 70.01 | 101.36 | 101.36 | 101.36 | 101.36 | 101.36 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 1.29 2 | 1.26 2 | 1.41 2 | 0.40 2 | 0.22 2 | 1.30 2 | 0.73 2 | 0.88 2 | 0.42 2 | 1.16 2 | 0.11 2 | 0.63 2 | 1.17 2 | 2.73 2 | 1.46 2 |
Bin | 64,774 | 9336 | 2148 | 11,861 | 14,602 | 42,932 | 7404 | 2990 | 3277 1 | 4960 1 | −29,895 1 | 4638 1 | 8476 1 | 23,989 1 | −25,659 1 |
Bin’ | 54,110 2 | 5805 2 | −383 2 | 27 2 | 3800 2 | −13,675 2 | −37,461 2 | −22,934 2 | −57,048 2 | −85,668 2 | −81,817 2 | −73,143 2 | −41,077 2 | −126,192 2 | −125,589 2 |
Bfin | 84,942 | 8250 | 2672 | 14,909 | 16,413 | 38,306 | 8260 | 3651 | 4771 1 | −3052 1 | −24,765 1 | −12,462 1 | 8485 1 | 17,777 1 | −8640 1 |
Bfin’ | 74,163 2 | 14,191 2 | 16,988 2 | 8718 2 | 13,882 2 | 12,022 2 | 8942 2 | 9386 2 | −13,330 2 | −66,599 2 | −100,595 2 | −86,328 2 | −86,169 2 | −107,341 2 | −140,325 2 |
Table 27.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Table 27.
Case scenario results for the fatigue index (Ifatigue’).
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X16 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X16′ | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 0.12 2 | 0.77 2 | 1.97 2 | 1.04 2 | 2.10 2 | 0.58 2 | 1.01 2 | 1.22 2 | 2.74 2 | 1.71 2 | 2.89 2 | 1.93 2 | 2.84 2 | 2.40 2 | 3.12 2 |
Table 28.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Table 28.
Comparison of all case scenario results.
Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---|
Observed Values | Forecasted Values |
---|
X16 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
X16′ | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Ifatigue | 1.31 | 0.88 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.12 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.22 | 1.13 1 | 1.11 1 | 1.71 1 | 1.59 1 | 2.13 1 | 1.89 1 | 2.10 1 |
Ifatigue’ | 0.12 2 | 0.77 2 | 1.97 2 | 1.04 2 | 2.10 2 | 0.58 2 | 1.01 2 | 1.22 2 | 2.74 2 | 1.71 2 | 2.89 2 | 1.93 2 | 2.84 2 | 2.40 2 | 3.12 2 |
Bin | 64,774 | 9336 | 2148 | 11,861 | 14,602 | 42,932 | 7404 | 2990 | 3277 1 | 4960 1 | −29,895 1 | 4638 1 | 8476 1 | 23,989 1 | −25,659 1 |
Bin’ | 45,660 2 | 2792 2 | 55,736 2 | 48,314 2 | 15,067 2 | −1921 2 | −22,851 2 | 756 2 | −58,537 2 | −61,686 2 | −141,993 2 | −84,822 2 | −145,946 2 | −92,746 2 | −150,069 2 |
Bfin | 84,942 | 8250 | 2672 | 14,909 | 16,413 | 38,306 | 8260 | 3651 | 4771 1 | −3052 1 | −24,765 1 | −12,462 1 | 8485 1 | 17,777 1 | −8640 1 |
Bfin’ | 60,635 2 | −23,290 2 | 15,832 2 | 40,640 2 | 536 2 | −31,541 2 | −63,445 2 | −78,187 2 | −66,089 2 | −48,404 2 | −39,856 2 | −52,874 2 | −100,000 2 | −87,854 2 | −45,263 2 |
Table 29.
Summary of results and conclusions.
Table 29.
Summary of results and conclusions.
Examined Workload Settings Indicator—Label/Name | Implemented Modification | Fatigue Index—Results | Conclusion |
---|
X5—Number of individual days off in the previous 28 days | Increased by 3 extra days off (X5 + 3) | Decrease | More individual days off in the previous 28 days implies a lower level of fatigue. |
X6—Rest length | Increased for 30% (X6 × 1.3) | Inconclusive | Rest length shows no significant impact on the appearance of fatigue. |
X6—Rest length | Decreased for 30% (X6 × 0.7) | Inconclusive |
X7—Local night in daily rest | Increased by 3 extra local nights (X7 + 3) | Increase | Having a local night implies an increased level of fatigue. 1 |
X7—Local night in daily rest | Decreased by 1 extra local night (X7 − 3) | Decrease |
X9—Changes in the schedule | Increased by 2 extra changes in the schedule (X9 + 2) | Inconclusive | The number of changes in the schedule shows no significant impact on the appearance of fatigue. |
X10—Sectors in the previous 7 days | Increased for 30% (X10 × 1.3) | Inconclusive | The number of sectors in the previous 7 days shows no significant impact on the appearance of fatigue. |
X10—Sectors in the previous 7 days | Decreased for 30% (X10 × 0.7) | Inconclusive |
X15—Duty time in the previous 28 days | Increased for 30% (X15 × 1.3) | Increase | Less duty time in the previous 28 days implies a lower level of fatigue. |
X15—Duty time in the previous 28 days | Decreased for 30% (X15 × 0.7) | Decrease |
X16—Multi-day shifts | Increased by 3 extra days on the shift (X16 + 3) | Increase | Shorter multi-day shifts imply a lower level of fatigue. |