AMC1 ORO.FTL.120(b)(4) Fatigue risk management (FRM)

• ED Decision 2015/005/R found in: Air Operations (965/2012) Part-ARO Part-ORO Part-CAT Part-SPA Part-NCC Part-NCO Part-SPO (Sep 2023)

AMC1 ORO.FTL.120(b)(4) Fatigue risk management (FRM) ED Decision 2015/005/R CAT OPERATORS IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS The operator should develop and maintain three documented processes for fatigue hazard identification: (a) Predictive The predictive process should identify fatigue hazards by examining crew scheduling and taking into account factors known to affect sleep and fatigue and their effects on performance. Methods of examination may include, but are not limited to: (1) operator or industry operational experience and data collected on similar types of operations; (2) evidence-based scheduling practices; and (3) bio-mathematical models. (b) Proactive The proactive process should identify fatigue hazards within current flight operations. Methods of examination may include, but are not limited to: (1) self-reporting of fatigue risks; (2) crew fatigue surveys; (3) relevant flight and cabin crew performance data; (4) available safety databases and scientific studies; and (5) analysis of planned versus actual time worked. (c) Reactive The reactive process should identify the contribution of fatigue hazards to reports and events associated with potential negative safety consequences in order to determine how the impact of fatigue could have been minimised. At a minimum, the process may be triggered by any of the following: (1) fatigue reports; (2) confidential reports; (3) audit reports; (4) incidents; or (5) flight data monitoring (FDM) events. AMC1 ORO.FTL.120(b)(4) Fatigue risk management (FRM) ED Decision 2015/005/R CAT OPERATORS IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS The operator should develop and maintain three documented processes for fatigue hazard identification: (a) Predictive The predictive process should identify fatigue hazards by examining crew scheduling and taking into account factors known to affect sleep and fatigue and their effects on performance. Methods of examination may include, but are not limited to: (1) operator or industry operational experience and data collected on similar types of operations; (2) evidence-based scheduling practices; and (3) bio-mathematical models. (b) Proactive The proactive process should identify fatigue hazards within current flight operations. Methods of examination may include, but are not limited to: (1) self-reporting of fatigue risks; (2) crew fatigue surveys; (3) relevant flight and cabin crew performance data; (4) available safety databases and scientific studies; and (5) analysis of planned versus actual time worked. (c) Reactive The reactive process should identify the contribution of fatigue hazards to reports and events associated with potential negative safety consequences in order to determine how the impact of fatigue could have been minimised. At a minimum, the process may be triggered by any of the following: (1) fatigue reports; (2) confidential reports; (3) audit reports; (4) incidents; or (5) flight data monitoring (FDM) events. ##### AMC1 ORO.FTL.120(b)(4) Fatigue risk management (FRM) *ED Decision 2015/005/R* **CAT OPERATORS IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS** The operator should develop and maintain three documented processes for fatigue hazard identification: (a) Predictive The predictive process should identify fatigue hazards by examining crew scheduling and taking into account factors known to affect sleep and fatigue and their effects on performance. Methods of examination may include, but are not limited to: (1) operator or industry operational experience and data collected on similar types of operations; (2) evidence-based scheduling practices; and (3) bio-mathematical models. (b) Proactive The proactive process should identify fatigue hazards within current flight operations. Methods of examination may include, but are not limited to: (1) self-reporting of fatigue risks; (2) crew fatigue surveys; (3) relevant flight and cabin crew performance data; (4) available safety databases and scientific studies; and (5) analysis of planned versus actual time worked. (c) Reactive The reactive process should identify the contribution of fatigue hazards to reports and events associated with potential negative safety consequences in order to determine how the impact of fatigue could have been minimised. At a minimum, the process may be triggered by any of the following: (1) fatigue reports; (2) confidential reports; (3) audit reports; (4) incidents; or (5) flight data monitoring (FDM) events.