Background on fatigue

Fatigue affects an individual’s ability to do their job effectively and safely. Apart from impairing individual performance, fatigue also effects health and wellbeing.¹ There is a common misconception that fatigue "comes with the job"; while not particular to the maritime industry, it is certainly pervasive within it. Fatigue is a hazard that needs to be addressed and managed appropriately.

The nature of maritime operations means that working on vessels exposes crew to conditions which lead to fatigue. Fatigue has been identified as a safety concern in a number of accidents, some leading to tragic outcomes. Accident investigations and the research literature revealed the serious impact of fatigue on safety, health and welfare of seafarers.

 Research is also clear on the consequences of fatigue, which include aspects such as performance decrements, increase in error rates, delayed or response failure, decreased attention span, decreased motivation, irritability, restlessness, and long-term health problems. There are also risk factors that lead to fatigue with the main contributors related to duration and timing in which sleep takes place. These risk factors also include inadequate sleep, prolonged periods of wakefulness, shift work, stress, environmental aspects (ship motion, temperature variation, light and noise), duration of continuous work and workload (task demands).

To date, there has been limited focus on the domestic commercial vessel (DCV) industry in Australia on the issue of fatigue. Hence limited information is available on the level of awareness and experiences with fatigue for crew engaged on domestic commercial vessels. 

An exploratory pilot study conducted by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) in 2016 on domestic fishing vessels² focusing on safety culture within the industry examining the systems, processes and people related to operating schedules and workplace norms. This initial study identified that the least mature systems on fishing vessels under study related to operational scheduling. The reason for operational scheduling rating poorly was because the risk of fatigue was not being managed effectively. The study further highlighted the need to explore how fatigue was managed given the masters’ perceptions on fatigue contradicted the facts about how sleep impacts performance. The study findings concluded that more understanding was needed on the issue of fatigue on domestic commercial vessels.

Therefore, to ensure that relevant and effective guidance is developed for the domestic vessel operations, input was sought in 2019 from the industry to gauge their understanding, experiences and current practices used to manage fatigue. 

This report provides initial and high-level findings of the data collected by the survey conducted in 2019. The initial analysis presents basic demographic and descriptive statistics. 

Objectives

This research survey was designed to capture and understand the level of awareness and perceptions of fatigue and its management of crew engaged on domestic commercial vessels. The survey was conducted in late 2019 and completed responses were received from 1024 crew engaged on most classes of domestic commercial vessels. 

Method

The survey was conducted online (approximately 80% of surveys were completed by respondents via Survey Monkey) and offline (approximately 20% of surveys were completed manually by respondents). Participation was anonymous, voluntary, and personal information was not made available to anyone.

To ensure a higher response rate, the survey was limited to 22 simple questions. The survey was designed to collect data on recent and normal experiences by crew engaged on domestic commercial vessels based on their last month, their last sea trip and hours of sleep they would normally obtain when at sea. The questions were based on existing literature centred on collecting data on four key areas:

• demographics, 
• sleep/rest, 
• fatigue awareness and 
• management of fatigue. 

The survey (see Annex A) took around six minutes to complete. The survey was available online between 18 July and 31 October 2019.

Footnotes

¹ Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) (2019). Fatigue guidelines: Managing and reducing the risk of fatigue at sea.
² Douglass, E., Neal, A., & Grech, M. (in print). An exploratory study of safety culture in domestic commercial vessels. University of Queensland/ University of Western Australia/ Australian Maritime Safety Authority.

The average age of survey respondents was 46 years and there was a good range of seagoing experience.  As shown in figure 1, 23% (totalling 231) of respondents stated they had between up to 10 years’ experience, 28% (288) of respondents had 10 to 20 years, 22% (227) of respondents had 20 to 30 years, and 25% (261) of respondents claimed over 30 years’ seagoing experience.

Participation 

Senior crewmembers were heavily represented in this survey with most of the respondents coming from masters of vessels (64% or 657 respondents). The next two role/ranks were engineers (14%, 141 respondents) and ratings/deckhands (also 14%, 139 respondents). 

Location of respondents

The location of respondents was spread across Australia as shown in Figure 2. 30% (308) of respondents were from Queensland, 22% (223) were from Western Australia, 13% each from Tasmania (135) and New South Wales (129), 10% (105) from South Australia, 8% (83) from Victoria and 4% (38) from the Northern Territory. Four of the seven States/Territories were roughly represented given the proportion of the domestic commercial vessel fleet. There was underrepresentation in New South Wales and Queensland and over-representation in Western Australia, Tasmania, and South Australia (see Figure 2 and Figure 3).

Vessel class and operational area 

As shown in Figures 4 and 5, Class 2 and Class 3 vessels respondent percentages matched their proportional representation as part of the domestic commercial vessel fleet (46% (474) Class 2 vessels, 28% (288) Class 3 vessels). Class 1 respondents were overrepresented (21% (216) Class 1) when compared to the proportion of that fleet. 

As shown in Figures 6 and 7, respondent’s operational areas in this survey were not representative of the proportion of the domestic commercial vessel fleet. The respondent percentages closest to being representative were operational area C respondents working restricted offshore operations within 30 nautical miles from shore at 26% (270) with the proportion of the fleet being 32.5%.

Length of trips at sea

Respondents were asked to indicate how long they were out at sea per trip. 31% (315) of respondents stated that their trips were less than 12 hours. 13% (129) of this category stated that they were out at sea between 12 to 24 hours, 5% (53) were out from 1 to 3 days and 33% (341) stated they were at sea from 3 to more than 10 days (Figure 8). 

Hours of sleep

Respondents were asked how many hours sleep they normally got per night when at home. 67% (684) of respondents stated they got 7 to 8 hours or more sleep per night when at home. 33% (340) of respondents reported getting less than 6 hours sleep per night. (Figure 9).

Respondents were asked to rate the quality of their sleep over the past month. In line with the amount of sleep respondents quoted above in Figure 9, 65% (665) stated that their sleep quality during the past month had been good or very good and 35% (359) of respondents stated that their sleep quality had been bad or very bad. 

Sleep quality

A deeper analysis will be able to demonstrate whether those respondents who stated that they were getting above 7 hours sleep per night were the same respondents who stated that their sleep quality was good to very good. However, the findings reported here indicate that seafarers know how many hours sleep constitutes good quality sleep, and whether their sleep is of good or bad quality. These findings also indicate that 35% (359) of respondents are turning up to their vessels already fatigued (Figures 9 and 10).

Respondents were asked to state how many hours of sleep they normally got in a 24-hour period when at sea. 38% (392) stated that they normally got 6 hours sleep or more in a 24-hour period out at sea, however, 40% (414) stated that they got less than 6 hours sleep in a 24-hour period at sea. When looking at this in combination with how much sleep people need or get at home, most respondent’s sleep quantity is reduced while at sea. Research shows that fatigue, resulting from insufficient sleep is associated with a significant degree of performance impairment.

Sleepiness at sea

Respondents were asked to rate their level of sleepiness at the end of their last trip out to sea. To capture their responses, the survey used the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS), a widely used subjective level of sleepiness scale that has very good reliability and validity in the sleep science literature.

Respondents reported an even split between alertness and sleepiness at the end of their last trip out to sea in this survey. 50% (507) of respondents indicated that they felt between Level 1 (extremely alert) and Level 5 (neither alert nor sleepy) on the KSS, and 50% (517) of respondents indicated that they felt between Level 6 (some signs of sleepiness) and Level 9 (very sleepy, great effort to keep awake, fighting sleep) (see Table 4 and Figure 12).

Symptoms of fatigue

Respondents were asked to identify as many different symptoms of fatigue based on a list provided. The most chosen symptoms appeared to be those that have been readily identified in the fatigue management/sleep literature, i.e. sleep-related (nodding off (71%)) and cognitive impairment symptoms (unable to concentrate (75%), mood swings/irritable and slow responses (both at 69%), and poor judgment (65%)). Least identified symptoms were those that tend to be manifestations or behavioural outcomes of a fatigue state, i.e. affected speech (32%), risk taking (37%), headaches (41%), and body aches and pains (42%)). Also, less than half of respondents (48%) identified symptoms relating to awareness of their own performance and memory issues. These identifiable behavioural symptoms appear to be areas that can be presented to seafarers in education and awareness material as they are symptoms of a fatigued state that they might be able to identify not only in themselves, but in their crew too (Table 5 and Figure 13).

Respondents were asked to state if they had experienced any fatigue symptoms either before or during their time at sea. 25% (252) stated that they rarely or never experience symptoms, nearly half of the respondents (48%, 496) stated sometimes, and 27% (276) stated they experienced fatigue very often or most of the time. This reiterates the importance of educational and awareness support to ensure they understand what they need to do to continue to operate their vessels safely (Figure 14).

Fatigue risk factors

Respondents were asked to identify as many factors from a list provided that they considered increased the risk of fatigue. As with the question on symptoms, most respondents chose those factors that are readily identifiable for increasing risk, i.e. long working hours (86%) and inadequate sleep (82%). Factors such as working at night (64%), poor weather conditions (65%), insufficient rest or break (67%) and inadequate crewing (49%) were also highly rated risk factors (Table 6 and Figure 15).

Individual coping skills used to manage fatigue

Respondents were asked to state the fatigue coping skills that they generally used while out at sea. The highest percentages captured were caffeine (57%), and looking out for each other (53%); and the lowest percentages were smoking (9%), prescription drugs (3%) and non-prescription drugs (3%). Coping skills are not considered to be effective fatigue countermeasures (getting on with work (49%) and neither is self-monitoring (46%)) which were chosen by nearly half of all respondents.  The reason for this is research has shown that individuals are poor judges of their performance when fatigued. Further education and awareness that presents effective and coping mechanisms, is needed (Table 7 and Figure 16).

Fatigue management training and information

Respondents were asked if they had received any fatigue management information, guidance, or training. 50% (513) of respondents indicated that they had either not received any fatigue management training or guidance or were unsure. These statistics indicate that more education and awareness material on fatigue management is needed (Table 8).

Fatigue management approaches

Respondents were asked to identify the fatigue management approaches that owners/operators of their vessels have in place. As per Table 9 and Figure 18 the highest percentages selected included good practise approaches to fatigue management as per the fatigue/sleep literature (i.e., Encourage the crew to look out for each other (50%), fatigue management policy and procedures (46%) and incorporating standard work hours and schedule (43%)). 

Other management approaches such as allowing the crew to stop work when unable to stay awake (28%), scheduled rest breaks (30%), navigational watch alarms (30%), encouraging fatigue reporting (24%) and increasing crew numbers (12%) were not as widely selected. Further exploration into the drivers behind why these management approaches were not as widely used will allow for better guidance to be developed to support this area. 

Table 9: Approaches to manage fatigue frequency count and percentages of total

1. It appears from the information captured in this survey that the 1024 respondents who took part formed a good representation of the domestic commercial vessel fleet demographic. 
2. Given the responses on sleep duration when at home and the quality of that sleep, the findings suggest that one third of respondents commence duty on board their vessel in a fatigued state.
3. 40% of respondents identified that they get less than 6 hours sleep in any given 24-hour period when out at sea.
4. Around 35% of respondents stated that their average sea trip length lasted for longer than 12 hours. Without a fatigue risk management plan in place, all trip lengths over 12 hours may result in crew becoming fatigued at regular intervals after that initial 12 hours which can impact safety.
5. Respondents were less likely to identify behavioural symptoms of fatigue (i.e., headaches, body aches, affected speech and risk taking). This is in line with research in which fatigued individuals are poor judges of their own level of performance and decision-making when fatigued.
6. Over 25% of respondents stated they experienced fatigue very often or most of the time either immediately before or during their time at sea. 
7. The highest percentages captured for domestic commercial vessel seafarers’ fatigue coping skills were for a known fatigue countermeasure, ‘caffeine’ (57%), and for ‘looking out for each other’ (53%). These are not considered to be effective countermeasures on their own and need to be supported by more appropriate control measures. 
8. 50% of respondents indicated that they had either not received any fatigue management training or guidance or they were unsure.
9. The highest percentages for owner/operator fatigue management approaches include, i.e., ’encourage the crew to look out for each other’ (50%), ‘fatigue management policy and procedures’ (46%) and ‘incorporating standard work hours and schedule’ (43%). These were followed by the following selected fatigue management approaches ‘allowing the crew to stop work when unable to stay awake’ (28%), ‘scheduled rest breaks’ (30%), ‘navigational watch alarms’ (30%), ‘encouraging fatigue reporting’ (24%) and ‘increasing crew numbers’ (12%). Further exploration into the drivers behind the selection of fatigue management approaches is required.

Fatigue is known to affect performance and reduce crew effectiveness and efficiency, decrease productivity, lower standards of work, and may impact safety outcomes. Reducing the risk of fatigue-related accidents and injuries requires clear guidance on fatigue management approaches to work safely on domestic commercial vessels. As identified in this study, without said guidance, individuals will likely rely on their own self-managed approaches with some demonstrably unreliable to reduce the risks. Thus, addressing the risks of fatigue and its causes is essential for the domestic commercial vessel fleet. 

As a result of this study, AMSA will commence a safety campaign focusing on the risks associated with fatigue and develop associated guidance to support the industry in this area. Areas of concern as identified in this study will ensure better education and awareness on the following as a start: 

• factors that increase the risk of fatigue at sea; 
• identifiable behavioural symptoms of a fatigued state that seafarers might be able to identify not only in themselves, but in their crew as well;
• effective fatigue coping measures that can be adopted at sea; 
• fatigue management approaches that would assist in managing the risk of fatigue.

This will ensure that appropriate consideration be given to fatigue as part of the crewing assessment as part of the vessel’s safety management system and in meeting legislative requirements set out in Marine Order 504 – Certificate of Operations.