Joint Cognitive Systems

For this week’s discussion post we will be discussing an example of an approach that
determines how to provide situationally relevant information to system operators in a joint
cognitive system. To understand how and why the following approach was chosen, we must first
comprehend the connection between situational awareness and fatigue. Several scholarly
journals and articles suggest that one of the root causes of loss of situational awareness is fatigue
and sleep disruption (Helle et al., 2022; Monk, 2007). These two factors often lower the
individual’s alertness level and harm cognitive processing. Helle et al. (2022) demonstrate that
these conclusions have been consistent across various domains (e.g., oil and gas industry,
aviation industry, transportation industry, power generation industry, maritime industry, etc.).
Therefore, we will examining how an integrated fatigue risk management system (FRMS) can
aid system operators in the aviation industry.

FRMS & Its Application

The goal of the FRMS approach is to create a proper balance between safety,
productivity, and cost. The International Civil Aviation Organization defines this approach as
being data-driven and a way to monitor and manage behavior to minimize the risk of being
fatigued and to ensure adequate levels of alertness (Sprajcer et al., 2021). This approach can be
divided into four steps: (1) measure and assess current situation, (2) modeling and analysis risks,
(3) manage and mitigate risks, and (4) assessment and feedback (see Figure 1; Fan & Smith,
2018). Although majority of the research on FRMS has been conducted on pilots, this framework
would make a great addition to managing air traffic control officers (ATCOs).

ATCOs are constantly working with several advance technologies to gather information
that may aid in guiding and monitoring aircrafts within their jurisdiction (Mishra & Bhardwaj,
2003). Thus, ATCOs would be perfect to use in this discussion post to describe how the
integration of the FRMS framework may improve their human-machine interactions. For
example, step one may require researchers to gather data on how ATCOs currently perceive their
levels of fatigue during duty and gather information on their current lifestyle. Next, step two may
require researchers to identify contributing factors (e.g., diet, stress, alcohol consumption) based
on the ATCOs’ current lifestyle (Stein & Friedmann, 2005; Medawar et al., 2019; Mishra &
Bhardwaj, 2003). Step three involves suggesting ways of mitigating or minimizing these
identified factors to manage the ATCO’s fatigue. Finally, the last step requires researchers to
complete the cycle by conducting the actual experiment by having the ATCOs implement
changes into their lifestyle and observe how it impacts fatigue. This step ensures proper feedback
is gathered from all the data points to determine the framework’s effectiveness in managing the
risk of fatigue.

Conclusion

In the end, this discussion post shows how the fatigue risk management system (FRMS)
framework would help manage ATCOs’ levels of fatigue and how this can improve their level of
alertness and situational awareness. In fact, this approach encourages operators to be aware of
elements in their daily routine are degrading their performance level at work. Hence, through
self-awareness, this framework motivates operators to make permanent healthy changes to their
lifestyle that are not only likely to improve their performance (e.g., situational awanress), but
also their well-being. Researchers may explore on this topic by determining how this approach
can aid operators across other domains to improve their situational awareness.

Figure 1
FRMS Framework

Note. Fan & Smith (2018).

References
Fan, J., & Smith, A. P. (2018). A preliminary review of fatigue among rail staff. Frontiers in
psychology, 9, 634. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00634

Helle, D. E., Frølich, M., Langen, T., & Muller, G. (2022). Situational awareness and human
factors when designing complex systems. INCOSE International Symposium, 32, 167-178.
https://doi.org/10.1002/iis2.12906

Medawar, E., Huhn, S., Villringer, A., & Veronica Witte, A. (2019). The effects of plant-based
diets on the body and the brain: a systematic review. Translational Psychiatry, 9(1), 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-019-0552-0

Mishra, P. K., & Bhardwaj, G. (2003). Evaluation of Role Stress in Indian Air Traffic
Controllers. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 318-334.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27767851

Monk T. H. (2007). Practical consequences of fatigue-related performance failures. Sleep,

30(11), 1402–1403. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/30.11.1402

Sprajcer, M., Thomas, M. J., Sargent, C., Crowther, M. E., Boivin, D. B., Wong, I. S., ... & Dawson,
D. (2021). How effective are Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS)? A review. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 165, 106398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106398

Stein, M. D., & Friedmann, P. D. (2005). Disturbed sleep and its relationship to alcohol use.
Substance Abuse, 26(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1300/j465v26n01_01