FAA Approval of Controlled Rest?
 

I wonder what it would take to get the FAA onboard with approving controlled rest https://pilotjobcentral.com/controll...t-deck-report/

I'm not optimistic. FAA is of course sensitive to political winds, and I can only imagine the kind of grandstanding soundbites which some of our sub-100-IQ congress-critters would employ to make hay out of a proposal like that. I doubt the FAA would even dare to test the waters, it would almost have to be proposed and mandated by congress itself (like the 1500 hour rule).

Yes, I know other countries allow it.

Off Topic: Sister-in-law true story while working as a Res agent for an airline. Could not placate customer who berated her and asked if her airline only hired imbeciles. She replied, "well we need jobs also" , customer hung up.
They need jobs also:rolleyes:

A sleep cycle of 3-4 hours is required to achieve any measurable value in rest. Despite anecdotal outdated thoughts to the contrary, cat naps don't help, and may actually impair an operator more. He or she might "feel" refreshed, but that does not equate to a tangible, scientific benefit, and the production of chemicals in the system during that time may be detrimental to safety rather than enhance it.

NASA reached a different conclusion.

https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/1990/90-090.txt

No, NASA didn't.

The Ames very limited minor study, involving only ten crews, divided in two, on four flights, is small population, statistically limited, and does not represent the position of NASA.

It's quite common for crews on long haul flights to close their eyes for a few minutes, sometimes much longer. Many of those doing the long legs in supplemental work lack the protections afforded by Part 117, and take sleep where they can.

Sleep science in the last few years has changed substantially from what it was. For many years, the concept of "cat naps" was considered valid; this has been proven to not be the case. A complete sleep cycle, which is necessary for all phases of sleep to be covered, takes 3-4 hours. Sleep which does not encompass a complete cycle may actually contribute to a sleep debt, much in the same way that food without nutrition might fill a stomach, but does not fill the need that the body has for nutrition. Likewise, one might close one's eyes, but does not get the rest needed during that time. More the illusion of rest, as a belly fully of popcorn might relieve hunger, but do nothing to nourish.

As someone who has worked professionally in an organization where pushing physiological boundaries was part and parcel, I can attest that there is a noticeable positive psychological benefit to naps when you can get them. Especially if you're feeling deprived.

The psych benefit probably enhances performance. Lot to be said for the power of the mind.

A good 727 S/O was able to consume a meal between the outer and middle markers, then squeeze in a nap before touchdown. :D

Just because your eyes are open does not mean that you are awake.

Joe

And this is the thrust of the belief. Anecdotal.

What is needed is an exhaustive study that doesn't fly in the face of current sleep science.

It's one thing to say that ten crews felt a bit better and performed a bit better, but statistically speaking, that could be skewed for any number of reasons: the test subject population is far too small the the study far too limited.

Sleep science today is built on exhaustive (pun in tended) studies with a lot more than just an ECG and the notion that the crews performed better.

Concrete research needs to be performed to match that and at a minimum make valid determinations, not anecdotal, of the physical benefit derived. "Other airlines do it." Isn't science.

I've spent a lot of years pushing the boundaries, too...a lot of years pushing into places that I couldn't have imagined and some that wouldn't be believable in a fiction novel, and I've spent a lot of years squeezing in sleep where ever I could. I've had a lot of 72 hour days over the years and I'll say that today red bull, multiple red bulls, don't raise my pulse any more. I'm a sleep scientist's poster child the same way that a crack ***** is the darling of the emergency ward. I just slept through four hours of fire alarm testing, if that says anything.

Sleep science has been an interest, and I've followed it and the changes that have occurred in it. There are 70 million adults in the US who are sleep-deprived and most don't know it, and far more that get inadequate sleep. Those that get inadequate sleep cannot make it up with a cat nap or "power nap."

Those that do get adequate sleep may benefit from a few minutes of shut-eye enroute...but ONLY if getting adequate sleep. If getting inadequate sleep (meaning at a minimum two or more complete sleep cycles), a cat nap won't do a damn thing to address a sleep deficit of sleep debt; it may give the illusion, but it won't provide an actual benefit.

The real key, outside cat naps, is to focus on sleep, and circadian disruption. Only once adequate sleep is addressed on an ongoing basis (chronic debt settled) then and only then can a valid examination of inflight controlled rest be addressed scientifically. Until that point, there's no way to separate the perceived benefits from a healthy subject, especially if the control is adequately rested and not sleep deprived.

Much of the work that needs to be done can't be done in flight because it does involve deprived individuals in subject groups...and a lot of that work is known already...which includes the fact that power naps won't fix sleep debt. They're a hollow, ineffective substitute for a sleep cycle, when the subject has not received adequate rest.

If I were going to have a tombstone (which I won't), it would be a toss up for an epitaph between that, and "I should have had the blue pill."