Proposed standards for fatigue management for air traffic service personnel (CD 2303AS)

We sought feedback between 17 May and 30 June 2023 on a proposal to establish standards for fatigue management for air traffic services (ATS) personnel.

We proposed changes to the Part 172 Manual of Standards (MOS) that would require an ATS provider to use a fatigue risk management system (FRMS). The standards for the FRMS would be consistent with the standards specified in Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention, but would include practical operating procedures and administering requirements based on existing standards within Civil Aviation Order 48.1 that apply to flight crew.

We also proposed complementary changes to the Part 65 MOS, which would set conditions on licence holders to the effect they must not begin to perform an ATS function if, due to fatigue, the holder is, or is likely to be, unfit to perform a task that the holder must perform for that function. Again, the proposed requirements were consistent with the requirements that already apply to pilots.

About this consultation

Airservices Australia (AA) - the national ATS provider - has used an FRMS since 2003. However, there has been no underpinning legislation, so AA's action was a voluntary undertaking.

Effective from 5 November 2020, ICAO amended Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention with new standards requiring States to have legislation for managing fatigue in the provision of air traffic control services. At the time the new ICAO standards came into effect, AA wrote to CASA expressing its intent to continue using an FRMS into the future and agreed to, as necessary, amend its FRMS to address any differences with the Annex 11 standards.

While AA's voluntary compliance would satisfy immediate safety requirements, the arrangement is not sufficient to demonstrate that Australia is meeting its international obligations to have adequate legislation. As a signature to the Convention on Civil Aviation, Australia has an obligation to adopt ICAO standards unless there is a compelling reason against such an adoption. Also, the lack of legislative authority limited CASA's ability to effectively regulate the provider's FRMS.

We consider fatigue among aviation personnel is a critical safety consideration and therefore considered it appropriate to introduce appropriate legislation. Summary of proposed change (SPC) 2303AS therefore asked two questions of respondents "Do you think the proposed fatigue management requirements in the proposed amendments to Part 172 will work as intended" and "Do you think the proposed fatigue management requirements in the proposed amendments to Part 65 will work as intended".

We received 17 responses - the majority of which were from Air Traffic Controllers expressing personal views - one response from a Part 121 air operator and one response from Airservices Australia.

Three respondents consented to having their feedback published, while the remaining requested their submissions remain confidential.

Summary of feedback

Proposal 1: Changes to the Part 172 MOS

Seven respondents agreed with the first proposal, with all providing feedback or recommendations for change. A summary of the feedback from those agreeing is as follows:

• The requirement for FRMS should be extended to technical support personnel - those covered under Part 171 of CASR
• The requirements for practical operating procedures should differentiate between the requirements for day shift work and night shift work
• Data gathered for the FRMS should be accessible to employees
• There needs to be assurances about the science used when developing an FRMS
• An FRMS must have a simple if possible automated process to log scheduled and actual work
• There are gaps in the provider's existing FRMS and it will be critical for CASA to routinely review the provider's FRMS and scrutinise risk assessment reports
• It should not be necessary for a provider to have a standalone FRMS manual, but instead it should be possible for the policy, procedure and documentation for an FRMS to be addressed or embedded with other forms of a provider's policy procedure and documentation.
• Maximum and minimum values for the practical operating procedures should not be hard limited and instead should allow variation
• As AA has had an FRMS for many years, it should not be necessary for the provider to undergo trial implementation approval
• It is essential for CASA to take a more active role in overseeing the ATS provider's FRMS as the existing system is not fit for purpose, has no easy reporting channels, does not provider for consultation for changes and currently unsatisfactory responses from CASA to confidential reporting.
• We need for CASA to assume oversight of FRMS as the non-regulated system has not been fit for purpose.

Six respondents disagreed with the first proposal. However, all but two respondents provided free text feedback that indicated satisfaction with the proposed standards or reflected concern or dissatisfaction with AA's implementation of FRMS.

A summary of this feedback is as follows:

• The requirement for an FRMS should be clearly laid out and should not be subject to change as a result of enterprise agreements
• A licensed controller should be able to measure their own fatigue as this is individual and not able to be reflected by standardised assessment.
  • Overtime is preventing the system from operating even more frequently at reduced capacity.
• The provider's current FRMS is flawed or not fit for purpose.
• The proposal to identify 'operational person' complicates matters and is not compliant with ICAO standards.
  • Standards should simply refer to 'air traffic controllers'
• The intent behind the change is sound.
• The ATS provider's governance of its FRMS is suspect.

Four respondents either didn’t provide feedback on the first proposal or indicated they were undecided or that the matter was outside their area of expertise. However, 3 of these respondents provided feedback and this is summarised as follows:

• AA should always proactively move to ICAO's standards
• The fatigue management standards for ATS personnel should be expanded to also include Part 171 (Aeronautical Telecommunications) personnel.
• Respondent had an unsatisfactory experience when dealing with CASA on the approval of a Part 133/138 helicopter operator's FRMS
  • CASA experts did not properly contextualise safety policy and fatigue science to suit the scale and complexity of an operator's operations or made incorrect assumptions
  • CASA did not recognise that the provider's existing, fit for purpose, FRMS did not provide a reasonable basis for an Appendix 7 FRMS
  • Respondent is concerned that ATS provider's will have a similar negative experience.

Proposal 2: Changes to the Part 65 MOS

Seven respondents agreed with the second proposal, with 3 providing feedback or recommendations for change. A summary of the feedback from those agreeing is as follows:

• There needs to be a mechanism for operational personnel to provide direct feedback to CASA
• The respondent's feedback against the changes to the Part 172 MOS apply equally to the changes to the Part 65 MOS
• The changes [as proposed] are necessary to align Part 65 with the changes to Part 172.

Six respondents disagreed with the second proposal, with four providing feedback or recommendations for change. A summary of the feedback from those disagreeing is as follows:

• The requirement for an FRMS should be clearly laid out and should not be subject to change because of enterprise agreements
• The respondent's feedback against the changes to the Part 172 MOS apply equally to the changes to the Part 65 MOS
• The proposal to identify 'operational person' complicates matters and is not compliant with ICAO standards.
  • Standards should simply refer to 'air traffic controllers'
• Concerned that the ATS providers has used incomplete data to justify using less people on console.
  • Concerned that the provider would not provide robust data while justifying their FRMS proposal.
  • Asserts that none of the people who collect and interpret the data have qualifications in data collection or data analysis.
  • However, the proposed changes themselves seem sound.

Four respondents either didn’t provide feedback on the second proposal or indicated they were undecided or the matter was outside their area of expertise. However, 2 of these respondents provided feedback and this is summarised as follows:

• Cannot comment on the pros or cons of the proposal,
  • But can say that if a topic is not contained within CASR/MOS it is subject to the whim of the provider - this is not a policy position that Australia should be proud of.
• 'My concern is more in the support of Part 172 rather than Part 65'.
• The fatigue management standards for ATS personnel should be expanded to also include Part 171 (Aeronautical Telecommunications) personnel.
• The respondent summarised an unsatisfactory experience when dealing with CASA on the approval of a Part 133/138 helicopter operator's FRMS
  • CASA experts did not properly contextualise safety policy and fatigue science to suit the scale and complexity of an operator's operations or made incorrect assumptions
  • CASA did not recognise that the provider's existing, fit for purpose, FRMS did not provide a reasonable basis for an Appendix 7 FRMS
  • Respondent is concerned that ATS provider will have a similar negative experience.

General feedback

Twelve respondents provided general feedback on the proposed changes. This is summarised as follows:

• ICAO expects member States to adopt the 2020 amendments, striving for the world's best practices should be the position Australia adopts.
• The ATS provider’s technical staff may have significant work hour and travel obligations that can lead to fatigue of these personnel. I encourage the inclusion of FRMS while the Part 171 Reg and MOS are being updated.
• Minimum required time off between shifts must be clearly mandated. At least 12 hours in all circumstances
• If ATC are responsible for their own fatigue management, then taking our feedback on FRMS trials and implementation should also be included.
• Previous changes to FRMS have resulted in more fatiguing rosters, because fatigue data was seemingly misrepresented, misunderstood, incomplete, or lacked a proper scientific process.
• These proposed changes will likely impact my ability to conduct overtime shifts which I enjoy and enables my airspace to remain at full capacity.
• Cementing the current FRMS will not protect controllers but entrench a poor tool that is fundamentally unfit for purpose.
• "What frequency are reviews of operational FMRS going to occur?
• What industry standard is CASA utilising when approving proposed FMRS from service providers?
• Ultimately this seems like a positive move towards reducing operational risk
• Airservices have historically used FRMS as an excuse to punish staff for not ceding rostering restrictions contained in employment agreements.
  • This has created an imbalance where staff find it difficult to manage work/life balance due to rosters yet when required for additional duty Airservices sign off on bogus risk mitigators to supress the problem.
• The proposed changes seems sound. Mandated breaks and maximum time plugged in are much better than ASA offers us now.
• Unknown how a regulated FRMS would integrate with an Enterprise Agreement system providing similar protections.
  • A regulated FRMS appears to be CASA and Employer developed/approved, not necessarily with employee input.
• The proposed changes aim to address the significant flaws in AsA's current FRMS and improve fatigue management for ATS personnel.
• Our experience with a flight crew FRMS shows that implementation requires considerable resourcing, data gathering, review and ongoing focus.
  • An FRMS for the ATS provider must be implemented in a way that is considerate of provider’s current resourcing challenges.
  • It is important to understand the impact that compliance and importantly, the process of becoming compliant, may have on aviation industry. 
  • The change management process will be particularly important to ensure continuity of Air Traffic Services are maintained throughout implementation."

We thoroughly reviewed the responses and feedback to this consultation, and the following summarises our response and intended course of action.

Concerning the feedback that subsection 4.08(1) should have separate maximum/minimum values for day shifts and overnight shifts, we are confident that the proposed requirement covers all types of work shifts. The maximum and minimum values required by section 4.08 of the proposed standards must be relevant for any time that a ATS function is performed. Accordingly, the section requires values to be based on scientific principles and knowledge (including well-established knowledge about circadian rhythms and the effects of night shift work), and to be subject to safety assurance and amendment processes as necessary. CASA is satisfied that the existing wording of section 4.08 is adequate to cover all situations (night and day) where ATS functions are performed. We also require the ATS provider to obtain approval before making significant changes to the FRMS including changes to maximum and minimum benchmark values.

Regarding the feedback about employees having access to FRMS data, we believe this is adequately addressed via section 4.07 of the proposed standards, which requires ATS providers to include mechanisms for ongoing involvement in fatigue risk management of management, operational personnel, and all other relevant personnel."

CASA does not believe it is appropriate to leave it to the individual to assess and manage their own fatigue. The proposed standards have complementary obligations on individual staff and provider for managed overtime. However, we are of the view that it is essential for the ATS provider to manage work practices and rostering to ensure that fatigue does not cause unacceptable risk to aviation safety. The proposed standards are consistent with existing Australian standards for other types of aviation personnel personal as well as standards specified by the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Concerning the feedback about a negative experience when engaging with CASA’s fatigue panel, we informed that panel. While it is not appropriate to respond about individual circumstances, each application for an FRMS approval is an opportunity to improve processes and procedures. We have successfully assessed several applications for FRMS approval since the new CAO 28.1 came into effect, and we would use the experience thus gained to ensure a fair and appropriate assessment of an ATS provider's application.

We have confirmed that the proposed standards are set in a way that allows FRMS policy, procedure and documentation to be embedded within or to be addressed by other forms of provider policy, procedure and documentation. This is also a clear requirement in paragraph 4.06(2)(b) for a provider’s FRMS to be integrated with the provider’s FRMS. However, CASA would expect whatever method used to address the requirements of an FRMS to distinctly mention its relevance and application to FRMS.

Regarding the feedback that standards should not specify outer or absolute limits, we agree that a maximum or minimum values within section 4.08 should be for benchmark or strategic planning and that the values would not represent outer or absolute limits. Accordingly, we have amended the proposed standards so that there is provision for variation from specified values, including the necessary actions required in the event of deviation.

We disagree that Airservices should be exempt from the trial process. The trial period provides an opportunity for Airservices to fine-tune and demonstrate that its Annex 11-compliant FRMS is operating effectively within a regulated environment. A trial period also allows shortcomings to be revealed and corrected without the need or compulsion for non-compliance action - which would be CASA's only option if Airservices has a final FRMS implementation approval. Accordingly, we intend to proceed with the original proposal.

We also recognise that implementing a requirement for a provider's FRMS to be approved (either as a trial or final implementation) at the onset of the new standards would cause Airservices to be immediately in breach of the standards. For this reason, we have amended the standards to the effect that the requirement for an FRMS has immediate effect however the requirement for approval is deferred until 1 September 2024. This provides lead time for Airservices to apply for a trial implementation approval."

Regarding the feedback about having a mechanism for operational staff to provide direct feedback to CASA. This mechanism already exists, either directly to CASA – including anonymously – using this web page https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/contact-us/report-concerns-about-aviation-safety or via the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s REPCON system. Information so provided would inform CASA's engagement with the ATS provider on the relevant matter.

Regarding the feedback that the standards should simply refer to controllers instead of operational personnel, we chose that term to provide something that would apply to both air traffic controllers and flight service officers. The latter continue to be employed for ATS functions.

Regarding the feedback that CASA must routinely review the provider’s FRMS and scrutinise the risk assessment reports, we intend to conduct safety reviews based on assessed risk in accordance with existing CASA procedures. These risk levels are initially established and then reassessed at regular intervals. The proposed standards will require the ATS provider to operate under a trial FRMS for at least one year. At the conclusion of this time and only once the ATS provider has demonstrated the effective operation of its FRMS will CASA grant a full FRMS approval. Thereafter, reports and incidents relating to FRMS will drive CASA's review intervals.

We believe employee involvement in fatigue management matters is adequately addressed via section 4.07 of the proposed standards, which requires ATS providers to include mechanisms for ongoing involvement in fatigue risk management of management, operational personnel, and all other relevant personnel.

Regarding the feedback about including personnel involved in the provision of aeronautical telecommunications (Part 171 of CASR), we have asked the relevant CASA subject matter expert to consider this as part of the Post implementation review of that Part.

Next steps

Considering that the proposals are based on ICAO requirements and existing CASA standards for an FRMS and the overall positive response to the feedback, we believe it is appropriate to proceed with the proposed fatigue management standards.

Accordingly, we will finalise the changes to the Part 65 MOS and the Part 172 MOS proposed in this consultation but with small changes as identified in our response to the feedback.