"I don't understand why they've been reluctant to properly address the role of fatigue in a number of accident reports."

Given their history, and their general antagonism with the FAA and the airlines, I doubt they're concerned with pushback from those folks.

But this disjointed report, where fatigue isn't listed as a contributing factor, but clearly is noted in the report, represents where the NTSB finds the science of sleep and may be too conservative (esp in board member Sumwalt) in how it factors in the effects of fatigue. He noted a number of benchmarks from a study conducted for the NTSB, and noted that only one benchmark was met. Maybe he's misinterpreting the study (although no staffer corrected him if he did), but it appears that the NTSB is being particularly conservative in this area. Is it because not enough studies have been done? Science is slow, one study is generally not considered definitive and needs to be followed up with similar studies to ensure what one study shows is consistent. The media likes to tout breakthroughs all the time, but it takes years for initial results to be validate. A lot of the time, those breakthroughs couldn't be reproduced.

However, even if we can't fully understand the science of sleep, it would be prudent to have better sleep policies for pilots. Because even without further studies, we all know that better rest is how pilots can effectively keep fatigue at bay.

Reply