TABLE V. (Continued)

Condition: Prework

office Days

Facility Score Score PB
ATL AC 13.4 vs. CF 13.4 NE
AC 13.4 vs. T 13.5 NS
cP 13.4 vs. t 13.5 NS
Flight Days
aC 1b.1 vs. cP 14.1 <0.01
ac lll vs T 12.0 NS
cP 14.1 vs. T 12.0 NS
Office Days ys- Flight Days
AC 13.4 vs. 11.1 <0.05
cP 13.4 vs 14.1 NS
T 13.5 vs. 12.0 NS
Condition: Postwork
Office Days
AC 9.6 vs. cP 9.0 NS
AC 9.6 vs. T 3.0 NS
cP 9.0 vs. T 9.0 NS
Flight Days
AC 6.5 vs. cP 7.6 NS
AC 6.5 vs. T +23 NS ’
ce 7.6 vs. T 4.3 <0.01
Office Days ys. Flight Days
AC 9.6 vs. 6.5 <0.05
cP 9.0 vs. 7.6 NS
T 9.0 vs. 4.3 <0.05

16



€ aansty

a do OV
AHOITS 3ddO LHOITA 391440 LHONTA FDId40

+ 0°O!

4O't

40°21

SN

40'e!

40r'!

4 d. 40'S!
it
t 0°91

GANIGNOD S3ILITIOWs AINV
NOILISOd M3YD AG SANTA AMYOM3Yd - 194



TABLE XIII. KGS Mean Values (mg/100mg cr) and
Significance of Differences of the Means
at the Various FIFO's

Office Work

SEA = 795.1
OKC = 663.1
LAX 625.7
ATL 615.3
ACY 560.7
BTL 353.7
MSP 312.1

sea | oxc | tax | are [ acy | prt | sp
| 4
- NS NS ns | NS *e * SEA
4
T
- |ws [xs | NS +* ial OKC
- NS NS NS NS LAX
- NS ae +e ATL
- * NS AcY
- NS BTL
- MSP
* p< 0.05
** p< 0.01



FCL SCORE
N
a

a
UJ

— Fiight Days
~—- Office Days
© Prework
@ Postwork



REFERENCES

I. Hay, G. C., C. D. House, and R. L. Sulzer. 1978. Summary
Report of 1977-1978 Task Forc? on Crew Workload. FAA Office
of Systems Engineering Managenent Report No. FAA-EM-78-15.

2. Melton, C. E., S. M. Wicks, J. T. Saldivar, Jack Morgan,
and F. P. Vance. 1968. Physiological Studies on Air Tanker
Pilots Flying Forest hire Retardant Missions. Office of
Aviation Medicine Report No. AM-68~Zé.

3. Melton, C. E., J. M. McKenzie, B. David Polis, Marlene Hoffmann,
and J. T. Saldivar, Jr. 1973. Physiological Responses in Air
Traffic Contral Personnel: Houston Intercontinental Tower.
Office of Aviation Medicine Report No. FAA-AM-73-21.

4. Melten, C. E., J. M. McKenzie, J. T. Saldivar, Jr., and
S. M. Hoffmann. 1974. Comparison of Opa Locka Tower With
Other ATC Facilities by Means of a Biochemical Stress Index.
Office of Aviation Medicine Report No. FAA-AM-74-11.

5. Pearson, R. G. and G. E. Byars. 1956. ‘The Development and
Validation of a Checklist for Measuring Subjective Fatigue.
Air University, School of Aviation Medicine, Report No.
56-115, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas.

6. Roscoe, A. H. 1979. Handling Qualities, Workload and
Heartrate. AGARDograph No. 246, pp. 83-91, Survey of
Methods to Assess Workload.

7. Storm, W. F. and John T. Merrifield. 1980. Fatigue and
Workload in Four~Man C-5A Cockpit Crews (Volant Galaxy).
U.S. Air Force School of Aercspace Medicine Report No.
SAM-TR-80-23, Brcoks Air Force Base, Texas.



Office Days
Facility Score
TAX aC 12.2
ac 12.1
cP 1u.1
Flight Days
AC 13.0
AC 13.0
cP 14.6
Office Days
AC 12.1
cP 11.1
T 14.9
Office Days
AC 10.3
AC 10.3
cP 10.1
Flight Days
AC 8.1
aC 8.1
cP 7.0

Office Days

ac
cP
T

TABLE Vv.

(Continued)

Conuition: Prework

vs.
vs.
vs.

vs.
vs.
vs.

vs,

vs.
vs.
vs.

HxAQ
Rr
=
©

44g
a
N
w

Flight Days

13.0
14.6
12.3

Condition: Postwork

vs.
vs.
vs.

vs.
vs.
vs.

vs.

29

cP 7.0
. 14.5
T 14.5
cP 7.0
T QL
T 9.1

Flight Days

on
HoH

I'v

NS
<0.01
<0.01

NS
NS
NS

NS
<0.05
NS

NS
<0.01
<0,01

NS
NS
NS

<0.01
NS
<0.01

t
i
i


FCL - POSTWORK VALUES BY CREW < OSITION

ALL FACILITIES COMBINED
15.0

14.0F ]
13.0 b T
12.0b

HW.O

10.0

9.0 <.01

8.0 r

7.0 F

5.0

-
°
T

T
OFFICE FLiGHT OFFICE FLIGHT OFFICE FLIGHT
AC cP T

Figure /

38



FATIGUE IN FLIGHT INSPECTION FIELD OFFICE (FIFO) FLIGHT CREWS

INTRODUCTION

The Federai Aviation Administration (FAA) performs regular inspection
of air navigation facilities to insure that they conform to specified
standards. These inspections are mainly made with airborne electronic
equipment carried in modified aircraft flown by crews of specialists nor-
mally composed of aircraft commanders (AC), copilots (CP), and electronics
technicians (T). Inspections of navigational aids generally fail into
two categories, terminal aad en route.

Inspection aircraft and crews are based at Flight Inspection Field
Offices (FIFO's) located in cities around the United States and some for-
eign countries. Each FIFO is responsible for inspection of terminal air
navigational aids, obstructions in tne terminal airspace, runway conditions
and other factors connected with safe air operations in its assigned geo-
graphical area, Airway (en route) inspections over the whole country are
carried out by crews based at Oklahoma City and Atlantic City. Terminal
inspections (called Basic) are flown mainly in North American Sabreliners
(NA-265's) or, less commonly, in Jet Commanders (AC-1121's). Airway
inspections (cailed SAFI) are flown in large aircraft such as the Propjet
Convair (CV-580) or Boeing 727.

There are seven FIFO's in the contiguous 48 states located in the
following cities: Oklahoma City (OKC), Atlanta (ATL), Atlantic City (ACY),
Battle Creek (BTL), Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP), Los Angeles (LAX), and
Seattle (SEA). Crews based at these FIFO's usually are given an inspec~
tion schedule that requires 5 d of in-flight work away from the office.
These schedules can be, and usually are, changed on short notice because
of outages or malfunctions of navigational aids that occur unexpectedly
at sites not on the original schedule. The crew is then required to replan
its itinerary and rearrange its work schedule on short notice. Work days
are normally 8 h in duration; unscheduled inspections commonly lead to
overtime work.

BTL FIFO crews usually return te home base each night and do not stay
out of the office for »xtended periods. With the exception of BTL, crews
from the other FIFO’s characteristically alternate 5 d of flight inspection
with 5 d of desk work in the FIFO.

Flight inspection formerly was done in slow, propeller-driven piston
airplanes such as the Douglas DC-3. These airplanes required considerable
time to fly from one job to the next, affording the crew a certein amount



TABLE XI. Flight Vs. Office
by Crew Position, Rest, and Work -
Level of Significance of Difference (P)

REST
Kes E NE
AC NS NS NS
cP NS NS NS
T NS NS 0.014
WORK
AC 0.040 NS NS
cP 0.034 NS NS
T NS NS NS
31



TABLE V. (Continued)

Condition: prework

Office Days

Facility Score Score PB
ACY AC 14,2 vs. cP 14.2 NS
AC 14.1 vs. T 13.0 NS
cP 14.2 vs. t 13.0 NS
Flight Days
AC 13.7 vs. cP 12.5 <0.05
AC 13.7 vs. T 12.6 NS
cP 12.5 vs. T 12.6 NS
Office Days NS.
AC 14.1 vs. 13.7 NS
cP 14.2 vs. 12.5 <0.01
T 13.0 vs. 12.6 NS
Condition: Postwork
Office Days
AC 11.9 vs. cP 11.4 NS
AC 11.9 vs. T 11.8 NS
cP 11.4 vs. Tv 11.8 NS
Flight Days
aC 9.9 vs. cP 9.3 NS
AC 9.9 vs. T 8.5 NS
cP 9.3 vs. T 8.5 NS
Office Days ws. Flight Days
AC i1.g vs. 9.9 <0.05
cP 11.4 vs. 9.3 <0.05 :
T 11.8 vs. 8.5 NS j
i
i
17



TABLE VI. (Continued)

FCL - Flight Days, Ranked by Facility

Prework: Postwork:

1. ATL = 12.40 1. ATL = 6.13
2. SEA = 12.50 2. OKC 7.83
3. = 12.63 3. BIL = 8.07
4. 12.89 4. LAX 8.20
5. 12.93 5. MSP 9.22
&. 13.07 6. ACY = 9.26
7. 13.15 7. SEA = 9.50

Level of significance of differences between facilities, prework flight days.

ATL | SEA } MSP | oKc | acy | Bin { LAX L
- NS NS NS Ns NS NS ATL
- NS NS NS ns NS SEA
- NS NS NS NS MSP
- NS NS NS oxKc
- NS NS ACY
- Ns BIL
- LAX

Level of significance of differences between facilities, postwork flight days.

ATL OKC BIL LAX MSP ACY SEA
- * * we oe ae ee ATL
- NS NS NS NS * OKC
- NS NS NS NS Br.
- NS NS NS LAX
- NS NS MSP
- NS ACY
- SEA

NS = No statistically significant difference
Pp >.01<.05
Pp >-01

a

23

5 cassie aie tes sie eae TN Bs


TABLE V. (Continued)

Condition: prework

Office Days

Facility Score Score PB
MSP AC 13.7 vs. cP 12.3 NS
AC 13.7 vs. T 13.2 NS
cP 12.3 vs. t 13.2 NS
Flight Days
AC 13.4 vs. cP 11.6 NS
AC 13.4 vs. T 12.9 NS
cP 11.6 vs. T 12.9 Ns
Office Days MS. Flight Days
AC 13.7 vs. 13.4 NS
cP 13.4 vs. 12.9 NS
T 11.6 vs. 12.9 NS
Condition: postwork
Office Days
AC 8.0 vs. cP 11.0 <0.05
AC 8.0 vs. T 10.2 NS
cP 11.0 vs. Tt 10.2 NS
Flight Days
AC 8.7 vs. cP 8.4 NS
AC 8.7 vs. T 10.6 NS
cP 8.4 vs. Tt 10.6 NS
Office Days vs. Flight Days
AC 8.0 vs. 8.7 NS
cP 11.0 vs. 8.4 Ns
T 10.2 vs. 10.6 NS



ee

Office

AC

cP

Plight

AC

cP

TABLE MII. Rest Vs. Work
by Crew Position -—
Level of Significance of Difference (P)

kes zg NE
0.006 < 0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0,001 0.012
0.004 <0.001 0.004
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.114(Ns) <0.001L <0.001
0.023 0.042 0.008
32
_



TABLE IV. FCL + All Facilities Combined

Condition: Prework

Office Days
Score Score P
AC 13.0 vs. cP 13.1 NS
AC 13.0 vs. T 13.5 NS
cP 13.1 vs. T 13.5 NS
Flight Days
AC 12.8 vs. cP 13.3 NS
AC 12.3 vs. Tt 13.5 NS
cP 13.3 vs. T 12.4 <0.05
Office Days vs. Flight Days
AC 13.0 vs. 12.8 NS
cP 13.1 vs. 13.3 NS
T 13.5 vs. 12.4 <0.05
Condition: Postwork
Office Days ‘
AC 10.6 vs. cP 10.5 NS
AC 10.6 vs. T 10.9 NS
cP 10.5 vs. T 10.9 NS
Flight Days
AC 9.0 vs. cP 8.0 <0.05
AC 9.0 vs. T 7.8 <0.05
cP 8.0 vs. T 7.8 NS
Vitice Days vs. Plight Days
AC 10.6 vs. 9.0 <0.01 :
cP 10.5 vs. 8.0 <0.01
T 10.9 vs. 7.8 <0.01
i
14



can be derived from these data. It is clear that flight work is perceived
as being more fatiguing than office work. This result is at variance with
a common statement by crewmembers that office work is more tiring than
fiight work. The conflict is probably based on confusion of work prefer-~
ence and work intensity. Thus, complaints about office work may be
described in terms of fatigue but not be really related to effort. The
most comnonly identified job element causing dissatisfaction was said

to be connected with “management. During office-based activities, of
course, contacts with management are more frequent than during flight
activities, perhaps leading to negative feelings that were summed up as

“fatigue. The FCL, however, forces the individual to examine specific
feelings related to fatigue and does not allow confusion with other
feelings.

Fatigue must be viewed as a sensation in consciousness that can be
engendered by a variety of circumstances. Regardicss of its cause, the
sensation of fatigue tells of an impending task overload and warns that
compensatory measures will be taken toe deal with the overload. The most
commons of these compensations is load sheddiug; a fatigued individual
ranks tasks to be accomplished according to their importance and sheds
those of low priority. He ma, also refuse to accept new inputs (addi-
tional tasks) or devote less time to each of thetasks at hand. In short,
an encroachment has been made on his reserve capacity for assumption of
other tasks.

Work/rest cycles have been established more or less through expe-
rience to provide adequate time off from work so that recovery from
fatigue is complete between work periods. This time off is ordinarily
2h for every 1 h worked. The data collected in this study show a dif-
ference in regard to accumulation of fatigue between office and flight
work. FIFO crews as a group report prewerk fztigue levels to be vir-
tually unchanged from day to day during office work; however, there is
a day-by-day increase in prework fatigue during flight work essentially
paralleling reported postwork fatigue. This indicates that there is
complete recovery during the rest period from f-vigue associated with
flight days. Carryover fatigue may also result, of course, from off-
duty activities. No definite statement can be made in that regard from
the observations made during this study. There was adequate attention
given by the FIFO crews to getting enough sleep, but quality of sleep
was not recorded. A common statement was made by crewmembers that a
different bed every night was not conducive to good rest.

The “end spurt" or “end effort" phenomenon is apparent in these
data. The expectation of imminent release from duty commonly is reflected
in an improvement in performance; in this case it is reflected in a reduc—
tion of reported fatigue.

With regard to fatigue at different crew pesitions, all three show
significantly greater fatigue after flight than after office work, whereas



TABLE X. Mean Heart Rate, Ranked by Facility
(beats per min.)

Office Work

1. ACY = 71
2. BIL = 75
3. MSP = 80
4. SEA = 80
5. LAX = 81
6. OKC = &2
7. ATL = 84

Significance of Difference Between Facilities.

acy | srt | Msp | SEA | LAX | OKC } ATL
- ss + a +e *s an ACY
- * ee * a ae Brn
- NS NS NS NS MSP
- [Ns NS NS SEA
- Ns NS LAX
- (us OKC
- ATL



TABLE IX.

Office Work

Facility Score

ATL AC 84
aC 84
CP 7s

Flight Days
AC 89
AC 89
cP 79
In _ Office
AC 84
cP 75
T 93

Office Work

Fac: ty

ACY AC 7
AC 71
cP 69

Flight Days
BC 80
AC 80
cP 74
In_ Office
AC 71
cP 69
T 72

vs.
vs.
vs.

vs.
vs.
vs.

vs.
vs.
vs.

vs.
vs.
vs.

Mean Heart Rate (Continued)
Comparison by crew position at each FIFO

Score
cP 75
T 93
T 93
cP 79
T 91
Tv 91

89
79
91
cP 69
T 72
T 72
cP 74
Tv 73
T 73

Flight Days

80
74
73

bo

<.05
<.05
<.01

<.01
NS
<.0L

NS
NS
NS

NS
NS
NS



specimen. The other specimen consisted of all urine voided (pooled)
during the workday. Specimens were frozen in an ice chest containing
dry ice and were transferred to a freezer when they arrived at CAMT at
the end of the data collection period. Urine analysis consisted of
determinations of 17-ketogenic steroids (KGS) as an indicator of adrenal
cortical activity, epinephrine (E) as an indicator of adrenal medullary
activity and norepinephrine (NE) as an indicator of sympathetic nervous
System activity. These three metabolic measurements comprise a battery
of tests that provide coverage of stress arising from different condi-
tions.

The data presented in this report ere derived from measuremenis of
fatigue, HR, and urine biochemistry, together with some nonquantitative
subjective observations made by the biomedical crewmembers.

RESULTS

1. Fatigue checklist: The 10 items on the FCL are scored in such
a way that the numerical ratings are inversely related to fatigue; i.e.,
the lower the score the greater the fatigue. Table IV and Figures 2-4
show a comparison of grouped fatigue data for atl FIFO's among the chree
crewmembers as related to different working conditions. Generally,
there are no significant differences in fatigue levels among crewmembers
when they report for duty regardless of type of work, office or flight,
with the exception that technicians are more fatigued than copilots
{p< 0.05). There are no significant differences among crewmembers
fatigue levels after office work, whereas CP's and T's report signifi-
cantly greater fatigue after flight than do AC's. Table V shows similar
data for each FIFO. OKC and LAX show more postwork significant differ-
ences between office and flight days than do the other FIFO's.

Table VI shows mean prework and postwork fatigue levels (office and
flight days) for each FIFO with levels of statistical significance of
the differences in the means indicated in the charts. SEA shows the
greatest prework fatig~ on office days, differing significantly from
ACY, OKC, ATL, and BTL. The other FIFO's do not differ significantly.

On office days postwork fatigue is greatest at ATL with ATL, MSP, and
BIL differing significantly from the other FIFO's. Prework fatigue is
net significantly different among the FIFO's on flight days. ATi crew-
members report significantly greater mean fatigue levels than do crewmem-—
bers at all the other FIFO's after work on flight days. OKC crewmembers
only show a significantly greater mean fatigue level than do SEA crew-
members. All crewmembers reported greater fatigue postwork than prework.
“able YLL shows tae difference (increase) in fatigue from the prework to
postwork condition. In this chart the larger numbers indicate a greater
difference.

Figures 5-10 show daily FCL data graphically at each FIFO, except
BTL. Such a graph could not be drawn for BTL because crews did not work



of en route time. With introduction of the executive jet airplane into
the flight inspection s\stem. flving time }etween jo’s was re‘uced and
insvection procedures could +e carried out more rapidly than before.
Work density per workdav was t's increased. ‘hese factors,

plus ever-increasing traffic density at major air terminals,led to alle-
gations by FIFO flight crews of excessive work-connected fatigue and
stress. The acting Director of the (then) Flight Standards Service fcr-
Mally requested (FAA Form 9550-1, No. AFS-500~78-2) that biomedical
studies be carried out by the Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) to quan-
titate and identify the causes of work-related stress and fatigue. A
preliminary report of most of the data was submitted to the Federal Air
Surgeon for transmittal to the Office of Flight Operations in April 1930.
The present report contains the previously submitted data plus data on
urinary excretion of stress indicator hormones.

METHODS

Studies related to FIFO crew fatigue have been carried out at all
seven FIFO's in the Continental U.S. The same biomedical crew collected
all the data according to a uniform procedure; i.e., one researcher
(J. T. Saidivar) made all the office-based observations while the other
researcher (S. M. Wicks, a commercial pilot) collected all the in-flight
data. Generally, cach FIFO crewmember participated in both phases of
the study.

All subjects were male. ‘rable 1 shows participation by crewmembers
at the seven FIFO's. Table II shows flight days and office days of cata
collection. Table III shows participant days at several FIFO's and indi-
cates that not every subject participated every day of the study. For
this reason, data from individuals are not presented; grouped data are
shown in subsequent tables.

As an indication of workload, ambulatory electrocardiograms (ECG)
were recorded from all subjects throughout every day of their participation.
Three adhesive ECG chest electrodes were attached to the subjects each
morning. Two active electrodes were placed across the long axis of the
heart and an indifferent electrode was placed on the lower right lateral
chest wall. The ECG was recorded on a battery-operated portable tape
recorder (Avionics Electrocardiocorder) carried in a pouch with a shoulder
strap. Tapes were later played back at CAMI for heart rate (HR) deter-
minations.

A fatigue checklist (FCL)(3) was completed by each subject before and
after each workday (Fig. 1).

Two urine specimens were collected from each subject every day of his
participation. One specimen consisted of urine formed during the sleep
period and collected on arising. This specimen is the baseline or reference



TABLE V. FCL - Comparison of Crew Positions by FIFO

Office Days

Facility Score
OKC AC 13.5
AC 13.5
cP 13.0

Flight Days

AC 13.3
AC 13.3
cP 13.7

Office Days

AC 13.5
cP 15.0
T 12.5

aC 11.6

cP 11.6

CP 12.2
Flight Days

AC 9.8

AC 9.8

cP 6.9

Office Days

AC 11.6
cP 12.2
T 10.4

Condition: Prework

Score
vs. cP 15.0
vs. T 12.5
vs. T 12.5
vs. cP 13.7
vs. T 11.7
vs. T 11.7
Ys: Flight Days
vs. 13.3
vs. 13.7
vs. 11.7
Condition: Postwork
vs. cP 12.2
vs. T 10.4
vs. T 10.4
vs. cP 6.9
vs. T 7.0
vs. T 7.0
ws- Flight Days
vs. 9.8
vs 6.9
"Ss. 7.0

15

I

NS
NS
<0.05

NS
NS
NS

NS
NS
NS

NS
NS
NS

<0.05
<0.01
NS

NS
<0.01
<0.01

:
i
i



4. Miscellaneous observations: The impression of the biomedical
crew was that FIFO crews are compcsed of highly competent, intelligent,
and dedicated men. The impression was further made that the FIFO crews,
in spite of good effort, were often frustrated in their attempts to
accomplish their assigned workloads. Expressed frustrating factors
were lack of coordination with ground personnel, lack of ccoperation
by ground personnel, aircraft and electronic outages, and lack of man-
agerial understanding of these frustrating factors.

Sixty-eight percent of the crewmembers participating in this study
used alcohol as a relaxant at the end of the workday. This was apparently
more commonly true after flight work than after office work. Drinking
away from bars--e.g., in hotel rooms--was not observed or known to have
eccurred. All crewmembers who drank were meticulous about observing the
"8-hour rule." No crewmember was ever observed to drink co the point of
iatoxication or to be "hung over" in the morning.

DISCUSSTON
"Stress" and "fatigue" are more or less interchangeable terms.
Chronic or excessive fatigue can be called "stress"; however, the divid-
ing line between nunexcessive and excessive fatigue is indefinite. Both
"stress" and “fatigue” are terms that defy definitions that are not mere
tautologies; there are no units of measurement for either condition.

To the physiologist, fatigue classically means the decrement in phys-
ical performance that is a consequence of prolonged effort. Generally,
fatigue means exhaustion of energy~yielding metabolic substrates or
accumulation of some substance that inhibits cellular interactions.
Depletion of acetylcholine at the motor endplate, for example, can account
for muscular fatigue, though there may be other causes, also. In short,
physical fatigue may be explained physiologically and biochemically.
Emotional or mental fatigue is another phenomenon entirely, though there
may be somewhat similar sensations accompanying both physical and mental
fatigue.

Fatigue is bound up with ancther concept--workload. Workload may
be defined objectively in terms of the imposed load (input) or work
accomplishment (output). It may be subjectively defined as the person's
perception of loading.

Studies indicate that the piloting task corresponds to light physical
work (2) similar to office work or other sedentary activities. This con~
clusion is based on measurements of energy censumption. Other studies
have focused on the pilot performance aspect of imposed load and have
relied on the pilot's subjective appraisal of workload (1).

The FCL used in this study is an inst-ument designed to provide
quantitation of the subjective sensation of fatigue. Some generalizations



TABLE V. (Continued)

Condition: Prework

Office Days

Facility Score Score Pp
SEA AC 11.3 vs. cP 11.7 NS
AC 11.3 vs. T 13.0 NS
cP 11.7 vs. T 13.0 NS
Flight Days
AC 13.8 vs. cD 12.5 NS
ac 13.8 vs. T 12.1 NS
cP 12.5 vs. Tv 12.1 NS
Office Days we. Flight Days
AC 11.3 vs. 13.8 NS
cP 11.7 vs. 12.5 NS
T 13.0 vs. 12.1 NS
Condition: Postwork
Office Days
AC 11.7 vs. cP 9.7 NS
AC 11.7 vs. T 10.5 NS
c 9.7 vs. Tt 10.5 NS
Flight Days
AC 11.0 vs. cP 9.5 NS
AC 11.0 vs. T 9.9 NS
cP 9.5 vs. T 9,0 NS
Office Days Flight Days
AC 1.7 vs. 11.0 NS
cP 9.7 vs. 9.5 NS
Tt i0.5 vs. 9.0 NS

21



Co ot i ae 1981



FCL-LAX

Sc
13r
iF
uJ _
«2
°
oO FF
o
a 7PF
oO
c+
5
a — Flight Days
3L —- Office Days
© Prework
~ ®@ Postwork
te
i i. 1 i i

Days | 2 3 4 5



The flight task (or, indeed, any other task) involves the reception
of data by several sense organs--visual, auditory, kinesthetic, touch,
etc. These inputs are integrate¢c in the brain with data in the brain's
memory bank (experience). From this integration, present status is
appraised and estimates --1 projections are made. Based on these com-
putations, decisions are made regarding alcernatives 2nd an action
results (output). The speed with which this processing can occur is
largely determined by the level of arousal of higher brain centers. A
neural sv tem in the brain stem, the Reticular Activat ng System, "sets"
the level of arousal of these higher centers. As the speed of processing
of data is increased, at least to some extent, work capacity is increased.
An accompaniment of this increased brain arousal and work capacity is a
general body response to mubilize other systems--endocrine, vascular,
muscular, etc. These increased responses are largely mediated by the
sympathetic nervous system that is responsible for raising blooc pressure
and increasing HR. Thus, the single simple measure of HR provides impor-
tant insights into the workload that a pilet perceives.

The data show that ACY and BTL crewmembers have significantly lower
mean HR on office days and flight days than do crews at other FIFO's.
Whether or not this finding is reflective of objective workloads at those
facilities compared with others cannot be determined from the data col-
lected by the biomedical crew.

Urinary excretion of SIH show that FIFO crewmembers did not experience
a high level of stress in either work situation compared with other groups
of FAA workers. This is most evident with regard to adrenocorticosteroid
excretion; FIFO crewmembers! level of excretion of KCS was generally about
half that of Air Traffic Control Specialists' (ATCS's) and about the same
as experimental subjects in the laboratory. This finding is interpreted
to mean that FIFO crews do not experience a high level of chronic stress
such as that seen in some ATCS groups (3). On the other hand, FIO crew-
members show acute stress in their excretion of catecholamines that is com—
parable to that shown by other worker groups. It has been shown in earlier
work in this laboratory that & oxcretion is related to workload (4); FIFO
crewnembers show E excretion that is slightly greater than most other
groups of workers. NE excretion is also related to workioad but is influ-
enced by physical activity to a greeter extent -han is KGS or E excretion.
NE is also greater in FIFO crewmembers than it is in cther groups (Table
XIV), indicating that the flight inspection task entails a significant
amount of physical work. It cannot be decided from these data, however,
what part of the job entails the greatest amount of physical effort. The
small difference in excretion of catecholamines tetween flight and work
would lead one to conclude that flight work per se is not the principal

stressor.



there are no ~ignificant differences among the crewmembers before work
of either ty;2. On office days there are no statistically significant
differences among the different crew positions, either prework or post-
work. On flight days there are likewise no statistically signifizant
differences between crew positions before work; however, CP's and T's
show significantly more postwork fatigue than do AC's. There is no
ready explanation for this finding; it dees not imply that AC's do less
work than other crewmembers. All FIFO's show greater crew fatigue
levels after work than before work, and the prework-postwork difference
is uniformly greater for flight days than for cffice deys. ‘here are
some statistically significant differences among the FIFO's; however,
further measurements aad observations would be necessary to identify
the causes for the differences. It must always be borne in mind that
research conducced on volunteer subjects possibly has an inherent bias
that is not present in randomly selected subjects.

The FCL used in this study was developed by the U.S. Aur Force
School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM), at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas,
for evaluation of flight crew fatigue. Crew responses have been sys-
tematically resated to sleep loss, extended duty periods, circadian
rhythms, environmenral stresses, rest and recovery from stresses (5).
In their experience, scores of 11 to 8 represent modetate fatigue and
scores below 8, severe fatigue.

For ail facilities combined (Table IV), crews are apparently well
rested when they report for work with all FCL values being above 12.
After work, all crewmembers report moderate fatigue with T's reporting
slightly greater fatigue than AC's and CP's.

At the individual FIFG's, OKC, ATL, BTL, and LAX crewmembers showed
severe postflight fatigue (Table V), with T's and CP's principally
affected. When all crewmembers are grouped at the individual FIFO's,
OKC and ATL crews show severe fatigue by the USAFSAM criteria.

It would be profitable to know the causes for differences in fatigue
levels at different crew positions and at different FIFO's., Quantization
of workload might be helpful in that regard.

Many studies have been conducted (see references 1 and 4 for bibli-
ographies of pilot workload) in attempts to establish a single valid
measure of pilot workload. However, a generally accepted definition of
workload is presently not even in existence. Rescoe (4) has devoted a
great deal of effort toward validation of HR as the best single measure
of a pilot's perception of workload. When consideration is given to the
fact that more sophisticated and comprehensive appraisals of workload
are likely to interfere with the pilot's ability to fly the airplane,

HR probably is the best single measure of workload that is presently
available.



FCL SCORE

FCL -ATL

Om.
—-O

=
T — Flight Days
- --— Office Days
LL O Prework
a @ Postwork

1 L 7 ! }
Days | 2 3 4 5

Figure 6



In_Office

Facility

LAX AC

AC
AC
cP

In
ac

cP
T

In Office

Facility

SEA AC

TABLE IX. Mean Heart Rate

Comparison by crew position at eacn FIFO

(Continued)

Score

75 vs. cP 76
75 vs. T 94
76 vs. T 94
78 vs. cP 85
78 vs. T 90
85 vs. T 90

Office vs. Flight Days
75 78
76 85
94 90
79 vs. cP 81
79 vs. T 80
81 vs. T 80
89 vs. cP 87
89 vs. T 88
ag vs. T 88
Office vs. Flight Days

79 89
81 87
80 83

28

<.05
<.05
NS

NS
<.05
NS

NS
NS
NS

<.01
<.05
<.05



FCL-SEA

Ibe
a
I3-
Wer
rt
a SF
°
[®) —
n
a ?Pr
re)
i a
5 =
-  —Flight Days
3L —-- Office Days
© Prework
@ Postwork
| =
l 1 1! ! J
Days | 2 3 4 5

Figure i0

44



EE SEITE

In Office

TABLE IX.

Mean Heart Rate

(Continued)

Comparison by crew position at each FIFO

Facility Score

BIL ac 73
AC 73
cP 82

Fli Days
AC 80
AC 80
cP 88
In Office
AC 73
cP 82
T 72

In Office

Facility

MSP AC 75
AC 75
cP 79

Flight Days
AC 88
AC 88
cP 88
in Cffice
AC 75
cP 79
T 83

vs.
vs.
vs.

vs.
vs.
vs.

vs.
vs.
vs.

vs.
vs.
vs.

27

Score
cP 82
T 72
T 72
cP 88
T 74
T 74

Flight Days

80
38
74
cP 79
T 83
T 83
cP 88
T 83
T 89
Flight Days
88
88
89

ro

<.01
NS
<.01

NS
NS
<.01

NS
NS
NS

NS
NS
NS

NS
NS
NS

<.01
<.05
NS



the 5-d pattern. Figure 11 shows the same data for all FIFO’s combined.
These graphs show generally (i) that flight work is more fatiguing than
office work and (ii) that there is a day-by-day progressive increase in
fatigue associated with flight work, whereas that is not the case with
office work. Interestingly, four of the six FIFO's show an “end-spurt"
phenomenon-~a reduction in reported fatigue the last workday of the week.
On the whole (Fig. 11) office work was judged to be less fatiguing than
flight work.

2. Heart rate: Mean HR's for each crewmember (all facilities
combined) on office and flight days and a comparison of office and flight
days are chow in Table VIIT and Figure 12. Similar data are show for
each FIFO in Table IX. Mean WR for each facility (all crew positions
combined) and the level of significance of the differences between facil-
ities are shown in Table X. ACY and BTL crews show significantly lower
HR's than crews From other FIFO's with aCY also being significantiy tower
than BTL. OKC crews show the highest mean HR (89 teats per minute,
flight work), With regard to office work, ACY and BTL crews again show
Significantly lower HR's than other FIFO crews with ATL crews showing
the Atghest HR. On flight days ACY crews show significantly lower mean
HR than crews at all other FIFO's; BTL is significantly lower than OKC,
SEA, ond ¥SP.

For ali FIFO's combined, AC's and CP's have significantly lower HR's
than T's during office work. On flight days AC's show significantly
higher HR's than do CP's. AC's and CPts do not differ significantly
from T's. AC's and CP's have significantiy iower HR's during office
work as compared to flight work; there ig no significant difference in
mean HR for T's during the two work conditions. Mean 4R's in flighe
are higher for all crewmembers (separately and combined) than are HR's
doring office work, the differences are significant for AC's and CP's.

3. Urine biochemistry: The battery of urinary stress indicator
hormones (SIH) showed only one point of statistically significant dif-
ference for the resting condition between office and flight duties, that
being for elevated NE excretion by T's, AC's and CP's showed significant
elevation of KGS excretion during flight work as compared to office work
(fable XI}.

Regardless of the type of work (office or flight) being done, there
was uniformly a significant increase in SIH's from rest to work (Table
XII). The exceptions to this generality were shown by CP's doing flight
work.

Crewmembers at the different FIFO's did not show signiffcant dif-
ferences in levels of SIH's except for KGS excretion during office work
(Table XIII). SEA, CKC, and ATL crewmembers showed a significantly
greater excretion of KGS thar did MSP and BTL. ACY crews’ excretion of
KGS significantly exceeded KGS excretion by BIL crews.

4&

i
3
4



TABLE V. (Continued)

Condition: Prework

Office Days

Facility Score Score P
BIL AC 12.5 vs. cP 12.7 NS
AC 12.5 vs. vT 14.3 <0.05,
cP 12.7 vs. T 14.3 NS
Flight Days
AC 11.8 vs. cP 14.1 <0.02
AC 11.8 vs. T 13.4 <0.05
cP 14.1 vs. T 13.4 NS
Office Days vs. Flight Days
AC 12.5 vs. 11.8 NS
cP 12.7 vs. 14.1 NS
T 14.3 vs. 13.4 NS
Condition: Postwork
Office Days
AC 10.5 vs. cP 9.2 NS
AC 10.5 vs. T 9.8 NS
cP 9.2 vs. T 9.8 NS
Flight Days
BC 10.2 vs. cP T.4 <0.05
ac 10.2 vs. T 6.0 <0.01
cP 7.4 vs. T 6.0 NS
Office Days vs.
AC 10.5 vs. 10.2 NS
cP 9.2 vs. 7.4 NS
T 9.8 vs. 6.0 <0.05

18



SUBJECT FATIGUE CHECKLIST

DATE, NAME

TIME _. TYPE OF AIRCRAFT FLOWN TODAY

INSTRUCTIONS: MAKE 1, AND ONLY 1 ( ) FOR EACH OF THE TEN ITEMS.
THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT HOW YOU FEEL RIGHT NOW.

LTEM # BETTER THAN SaME AS | WORSE THAN STATEMENT.
_i VERY LIVELY
2 : EXTREYELY TIRED
3 i QUITE FRESH
_ 4 SLIGETLY POOPED
5. ! EXTREMELY PEPPY
7
6 | SOMEWHAT FRESH
t \ PETERED OUT
8 | VERY REFRESHED
9 | | FAIRLY WELL POOPED
10 i READY TO DROP
‘REMARYS -

Figure 1. Subject Fatigue Checklist-



FCL- DIFFERENCES IN OFFICE AND
3.0 FLIGHT DAYS BY CREW POSITION
. [ ALL FACILITIES COMBINED

r T
6.0

7.0

6.0

40 -

.S

-2.0 4 4 +
OFFICE FLIGHT OFFICE FLIGHT OFFICE FLIGHT

AC cP T

Figure 2

36



TABLE VIL. FCL - Difference in Prework and Postwork
Levels, Ranked by Faciiity

Office Days Flight Days

1. LAX 1. SEA = 3.00
2. SEA 2. 3.55
3. OKC 3. 3.63
4. ACY 4. 4.76
5. MSP 5. 4.85
6. BIL 6. 5.00
7. ATL 7. 6.27

tax | sea | oxc | acy | mse | are | art
- | ns_ | Ns Ns * * * TAX
- NS Ns | NS * Ns SEA
- NS | NS NS Ns oKe
- NS NS NS ACY
- ns [ns | ssp :
- NS BIL
- ATL

Level of significance of differences between facilities, flight days.

SEA | MSP ACY OKC LAX BIL ATL
- NS NS NS Ns +e MSP
- Ns Ns NS +e ACY :
- NS NS NS OKC 7
- NS NS LAX
- NS BIL
- ATL

NS = No statistically significant difference
= p>.Ol <.05
#* = p<.01

*
H

24



Figure i.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

LIST OF FIGURES

Subject Fatigue Checklist

FCL - Differences in Office and Flight Days by Crew
Position
All Facilities Conbined

FCL ~ Prework Values by Crew Position
All Facilities Combined

FCL - Postwork Values by Crew Position
All Facilities Combined

FCL ~ OKC
FCL ~ ATL
FCL - ACY
FCL - MSP
FCL - LAX
FCL - SEA

All Crew Members,
All Facilities Combined

Heart Rate ~ Office and Flight by Crew Position
All Facilities Combined

iv

37

38

39
40
4L
42
43
44
45

46



15-
1
te oe
# of
°
oO FF
o
oa TP
oO
ce OUr+#é
5 bee
Flight Days
-- Office Days
5 © Prework
@ Postwork
rT l i 1 J



lL
I3-
te
uJ
a 9
°
oO ~—
2)
a 7P
oO
u ok
5 —
s — Fiight Days
3h ~~ Office Days
© Prework
T ® Postwork
iL :
H 1 1 j
Days | 2 3 5


TABLE I. Participation by Crewmembers at the Several FIFO's

EIFO Be ce =z

OKLAHOMA CITY (OKC) 2 2 2
ATLANTA (ATL) 2 2 2
ATLANTIC CITY (acy) 2 2 2
BATTLE CREEK (BTL) 2 2 2
MINNEAPOLIS (MSP) 2 2 2
LOS ANGELES (LAX) 2 2 2
SEATTLE (SEA) 1 a 3
TOTAL 13 13 15

i

It



TABLE IIT. Man-Days of Participation by Facility

FACILITY SUBJECT NO. OFFICF FLIGHT
OKC 1 5 5
2 5 5
3 4 s
4 6 9 (4 SAFI flights included)
5 6 9 (4 SAFI flights included)
6 3 9 (4 SAFI flights included)
ATL 1 iS) 5
2 5 5
3 5 5
4 3 5
5 4 5
6 5 5
ACY 1 5 5
2 5 5
3 5 5
4 3 5
5 5 5
€ 5 4
BIL 1 5 5
2 4 4
3 5 5
4 4 4
5 3 5
6 4 5
MSP z 6 4
2 6 4
3 5 5
4 6 4
5 2 5
6 i 5
LAX 1 7 3
2 8 2
3 3 4
4 5 5
5 3 5
6 7 4
SEA i 6 4
2 6 4
3 3 7
4 3 5
5 10 -



TABLE !.

TABLE IT.

TABLE III.

TABLE Iv.

TABLE V.

TABLE VI.

TABLE VIL.

TABLE VIII.

TABLE IX.

TABLE X.

TABLE XI.

TABLE Xil.

TABLE XIII.

TABLE XIV.

LIST OF TABLES

Participation by Crewmembers et the Several FIFO's

Man-Days of Participation Out of Possible 205 Days--
Whole Study

Man-Days of Participation by Facility
FCL - Ail Facilities Combined

FCL ~ Comparison of Crew Positions by FIFO

FCL Office Days, Ranked by Facility

FCL - Difference in Prework and Postwork Levels,
Ranked by Facility

Mean Heart Rate
Comparison by crew position, all facilities combined

Mean Heart Rate
Ccmparison by crew position at each FIFO

Mean Heart Rate, Ranked by Facility (beats per min.)

Flight Vs. Office by Crew Position, Rest, and Work -
Level of Significance of Difference (P)

Rest Vs. Work by Crew Position - Level of Significance
of Difference (P)

KCS Mean Values (mg/100mg cr) and Significance of
Differences of the Means at the Various FIFO's

Comparison of SIH Excretion by FIFO Crewmembers With
Other Groups

Accession For =

NTIS GRA |
DTIC TAB an
Unannounced im]
Justification______

13

14

15

25

25

29

31



TABLE XIV. Comparison of SIH Excretion by
FIFO Crewmembers With Other Groups

wt/100 mg creatinine
KGS (mg) E vg NE ug
y
Rest Work Rest Work Rest Work
FIFO CREWMEMBERS i
{
Office 367.13 ‘ $62.22 0.65 1.72 2.96 5.01
Flight 389.62 567.62 0.86 1.90 3.68 5.10
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
TAH 863.48 1532.90 0.27 1.59 2.44 3.82
OPF 553.00 1005.30 6.50 1.85 2.80 4.91
Academy Instructors 443,72 921.71 0.91 2.32 2.41 3.91
All ATCSs Shelia 954.29 7 1.14 -- 3.58
EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS
Mental 685.0 636.0 1.23 1.69 3.94 3.67
Physical 685.0 + 613.0 1.23 1.57 3.94 3.93
AERONAUTICAL CENTER 417.33 777.44 0.52 1.51 1.44 3.80
EMPLOYEES (NOT ATCSs)
|
i i \

34



TABLE Vi. FCL - Office Days, Ranked by Facility

Postwork:
= 12.10 1. ATL = 9.19
= 12.73 2. MSP = 9.84
13.04 3. BTL 9.88
13.35 4. SEA 10.60
13.44 5. OKC 11.41
13.70 6. LAX 11.60
13.79 7. ACY = 11.71

Level sf signifi

ance of differences between facilities, prework.

SEA LAX MSP BIL ATL i OKC acy
- NS NS * * i +e #e SEA
- NS NS NS NS NS LAX
- NS NS NS NS MSP
- NS NS NS BIL
- LS NS ATL
- NS OKC
- ACY

Level of significance of differences between facilities, postwork.

ATL MSE BIL SEA Oxc | LAX ACY
- Ns NS NS ae baled ** ATL
- NS NS * * {** MSP
- NS ae ied * BIL
- NS NS NS SEA
- NS Ns | OKC
- ws LAX
- ACY

NS = No statistically significant difference
* =p <0.05
** =p <0.01

22



Technical Report Documentation Page

H

2 Government Accession No. 3, Recipient's Catalog No.

AD-ALO67EL

T.

4. Title and Subnitle

[EATIGUE IN FLIGHT INSPECTION FIELD
OFFICE (FIFO) FLIGHT CREWS | ~

_C. Ew Melton/ J. M./McKenzief —

f j

i zz S. M./Wicks,—amd J. T./Saldivar } |
| 9 Performing Organ gagten Name and Address = 110 Work Uni No (TRAIS, i
: FAACivil Aeromedical Institute I i
i P.O. Box 25082 {11 Contract or Grant No. |
1 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125

{ ia 13. Type of Report ond Period Covered

| 12, Sponsering Agency Name ond Address KL va f j
Office of Aviation Medicine ef4 ff

!

i

Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW. Ta. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington, D.C. 20591

15. Supplementary Notes

. is report was prepared under task AM-C~80-PHY-121

~

16. Abstract ’Studies related to FIFO aircrew scress and fatigue were carried out at
seven FIFO's in the Continental U.S. Forty-one men served as subjects and all crew
positions were represented. Each crewmember was studied during flight activities and
during office-based activities. Generally, crews were in travel status during flight
inspection activities and away from the office for 5 d. Crewmembers completed fatigue
checklists before and after each duty on every workday. Urine specimens were collect-
led that represented the night sleep period and the work period; they were analyzed for
17-ketogenic steroids, epinephrine, and norepinephrine, and values were expressed as
lweight per hundred milligrams of urinary creatinine. Ambulatory electrocardiograms
were recorded for determination of heart rate (HR) during work.

‘The data indicate that office work is distinctly less fatiguing than flight work.
This finding is supported by the HR data thac indicate a lower workload in the office
than in flight. The statement is commonly made by crewmembers that office work is
Imore fatiguing than flight work. It is probable that such statements are based on
work preference rather than work level. Some crewmembers at Oklahoma City, Atlanta,
Los Angeles, and Battle Creek show severe fatigue associated with flight work.

Rest-to-work differences in stress indicator hormone excretion indicate arousal
connected with both flight and office work. FIFO crewmembers appear to experience
less chronic stress than do other groups of FAA workers; acute stress associated with
on-the-job factors, however, appears to be si‘ghtly greater in FIFO crewmembers than

lin these other groups. In no case, however, oes stress appear to be outside that H

mormally connected with work. S
17. Key Wards 18. Distribution Stotement
Aircrew fatigue, Workload, Stress, Pocument is available to the public
Urinary hormone excretion through the National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 2. Security Clossif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22, Price
Unclassified Unclassified 46
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page cuthorized

i/ii ”



ALL CREW MEMBERS,
ALL FACILITIES COMBINED

iS;
I3r
a
a
{o)
oO oe
o
a?r
rs)
LL =
5 =
= —Flight Days
3b -- Office Days
© Prework
_ @ Postwork
! =
an 1 1 1 J

Days i 2 3 4 5

Figure 11

45



TABLE X. Mean Heart Rate (Continued)
(beat~ pes min.}

Plight hork

By Facility

1. ACY = 76
2. BIL = 82
3. LAX = 84
4. ATL = 6
5. MSP = 88
6. SEA = 88
7. OKC = 89

Level of Difference between facilities.

ACY BTL LAX j ATL i MSP SEA OKC
- * *e ae #K ae ee ACY
- NS NS *e * +e BIL
- NS NS NS NS LAX
- NS NS NS ATL .
- NS NS MSP
- NS SEA
} - OKC

NS = No statistically significant difference
* =p >.01 < .05
** = p <.01

&
&



FCL SCORE

FCL -OKC

Sr

I3r

te

7 ..
L
5k
L — Flight Days
3L —— Office Days
O Prework
I @ Postwork
Lk
L I J J it J
Days | 2 3 4 5



TABLE VIII. Mean Heart Rate
Comparison by crew position, all racilities combined

Office Work

Score Score PB
AC W vs. cP 76 NS
AC 77 vs. T 82 <.02
cP 76 vs. T 82 <.01
Flight Days
AC 86 vs. cP 82 <.05
AC 86 vs. T 85 NS
cP G2 vs. ? 8s NS
In Office ys- Flight Days
AC 77 86 <.01
cP 76 82 <.01
T 82 85 NS
TABLE IX. Mean Heart Rate
Comparison by crew position at each FIFO
Office Work
Facility
OKC AC 85 vs. cP 74 <.01
AC 85 vs. T 85 NE
CP 72 vs. T 85 <.03
Flight Days
AC 98 vs. cP 80 <.01
AC 98 vs. T 85 NS
cP 80 vs. T 85 <.01
In Office ys. Flight Days
ac 85 98 <.01
cP 75 70 NS
T 85 86 NS
25



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The data indicate that office work is distinctly less fatiguing
than flight work, This finding is supported by the HR data that indi-
cate a lower workload in the office than in flight. The statement is
commonly made by crewmembers that office work is more fatiguing than
flight work. it is probable that such statements are based on work
preference rather than work level in that the FCL shows flight work to
be more fatiguing than cffice work. Criteria developed by the U.S.
Air Force show that most crewmembers experience moderate fatigue asso-
ciated with flight work; some crewmembers at OKC, ATL, LAK, and BTL
show severe fatigue associated with flight work.

Rest-to-work differences in SIH excretion indicat » arousal con-
nected with both flight and office work. FIFO crewmembers appear to
experience less chronic stress then do other groups of FAA workers;
acute stress associated with on-the-job factors, however, appears to
be slightly greater in FIFO crewmembers than in these other groups.
In no case, however, does stress appear to be outside that normaliy
connected with work.



HEART RATE - OFFICE AND FLIGHT
BY CREW POSITION
ALL FACILITIES COMBINED

1]

loo-

at

<.0l NS

60-

HEART RATE
x
)

a i

GFFICE FLIGHT OFFICE FLIGHT OFFICE FLIGHT

AC CP T

q

|

Figure 12 }
iP

46

Cana eae Ey Oe eee


TABLE II. Man-Days of Participation Out of
Possible 205 Days--Whole Study

OFFICE FLIGHT

200 (98%) 199 (97%)

12