I love the headline today about the non-effect of split sleep.
I worked 6 & 6 years ago. Like 20 years ago.
My sleep has never been the same since.
Ever.
And no, we never, ever felt rested.
By the time you cleaned up, hit the rack, awoke and ate before watch, you were only sleeping 4 hrs, 4.5 if you were lucky.
Sorry, “experts”. Been there. Done that.
Or days when the drills were done on your off watch you were lucky to get 2 hours
I prefer 6-6, even the idea of 12-12 makes me cringe. It’s a recipe for disaster.
The AWO is jumping all over this but “splitting sleep not being harmful” and “working 6x6 giving enough rest” are not the same thing. Four on eight off is good, and I’d rather work 6x6 than 12x12 if I’m alone in the bridge, but I’ve always dragged ass after being awake for 8 hours or so. Did I ever feel truly rested working 6x6? Yes, though maybe not for long. But I was never in danger of falling asleep either.
Who paid for this study? The people that did this study are not part of the US government. They are hired academic guns.
Having worked both 6/6 and 12/12, 12’s are the far better option. A long period of 6’s is a form of torture. As has been mentioned your lucky to get a few hours quality sleep on a lot of vessels due to noise from stuff like maintenance such as needle gunning near cabins, the ship slamming in heavy weather or engine/tunnel thrusters noise. If operators want ships full of grumpy crew who have had their minds zombified through fatigue, 6’s is the way forward.
12x12 is the only way to go. Plenty of time to watch a movie or take care of personal business still get a solid 8 hours of sleep. In times past 4x8 and 6x6 is indeed torturous. Now if I worked an eight hour day, 8x16 would be the most kick ass watch of all. I don’t understand why that isn’t the norm in a three watch system on any eight hour day vessel.
I have worked 6/6, 12/12 and 8/8/4/4 and the last one was the best. Sadly 6/6 is standard on Norwegian offshore supply vessels.
[QUOTE=Fraqrat;179294]12x12 is the only way to go. Plenty of time to watch a movie or take care of personal business still get a solid 8 hours of sleep. In times past 4x8 and 6x6 is indeed torturous. Now if I worked an eight hour day, 8x16 would be the most kick ass watch of all. I don’t understand why that isn’t the norm in a three watch system on any eight hour day vessel.[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t really matter, but I liked 4/8.
6/6, but grab extra bunk time whenever possible on the 1800-0001/0001-0600. Usually a few extra hours every couple days.
It’s true that 6 & 6 square watches induce sleep deprivation by its very nature. I would highly recommend that those concerned folks at AWO give it a try themselves and see how it works out for them instead of trying to imply (with a straight face) that it’s somehow actually good for us. But I have to admire their Orwellian language that makes it sound like a swell idea nonetheless. So logical and reasonable, who could possibly argue with their “impartial” science? We members of the uneducated class formally known as boat-trash just aren’t bright enough to realize that we don’t actually need more sleep, just better time-management skills!
But aside from that, what is tolerable (not to be confused with desirable) health-wise and job performance-wise for a given person is variable and depends a lot on specifically what kind of work you’re doing, where, and under what circumstances. There really isn’t a 1-size fits all answer. What is the tempo or pace of operations? The environmental conditions? How long are the hitches? What are the living conditions aboard like? How are travel and crew-changes handled? All of these do play a role.
For instance, if you are involved in New York Harbor bunkering operations, with move after move going on around the clock, the idea of 12 & 12 is laughably unrealistic under most normal circumstances. You simply wouldn’t last long and your abilities and situational awareness would be very quickly impaired to a dangerous level. Especially since your off-watch “rest periods” are subject to all the usual impairments brought about by normal operations. That’s why historically most harbor boats worked 1week-on/1 week-off. Nobody wanted, or could take, much more than that. Busy ship-docking tugs in 24-hour service would, likewise, have the same problems. Under these circumstances 6 & 6, while tough, is usually the lesser of two evils.
AWO and their “government partners” have been doing anything they can to avoid facing reality on this issue for many years. Nothing surprising about the amazingly convenient “new” study that confirms they were right all along.
And keep in mind that this was initially put out as an AWO “news release” on Professional Mariner’s website. Business-model advocacy pretending to be actual hard news reporting with a critical eye has sadly become more and more commonplace.
I’m not a professional mariner, but I did read the report. It is based on a thing called the SAFTE/FAST model, a computer program that according to the people who sell it (it’s a commercial product)is based on first principles of brain chemistry and has been experimentally validated. You plug in a person’s sleep history and the model tells you how degraded their performance is in terms of equivalent blood alcohol level – the assumption being that being fatigued is like being drunk.
So if you believe the model, you believe the conclusion. If you don’t, you don’t. A lot of people believe in SAFTE/FAST, IMHO because it seems to be the only game in town. A lot of people don’t completely trust it, because the “validation” of the model has taken place in a laboratory setting and is not related to real-world accident/incident data. In other words, it should be possible to look at a bunch of accidents and near-misses and compare the theoretical impairment of crew given by the model against the actual impairment demonstrated by a casualty. This examination doesn’t seem to have happened.
(I put the word “validation” in quotes because I’ve done a lot of work with predictive mathematical models and believe firmly that they are never validated, only invalidated. You can have 1000 runs that correlate with observed data and that history tells you nothing about 1001st. Been there, done that, took the lumps :-))
Bottom line: lots of theory and hand-waving, little or no use of real-world data on impairment.
Cheers,
Earl
I agree the 6/6 schedule is tolerable on a harbor tug or at least practical especially if working week/week. I did 6/6 on a 3 week schedule for years knocking around harbor and offshore depending on what contract we were on. By the end of 3 weeks i felt like a zombie. I also turned into a grumpy prick sometimes. Especially when i got woken up in my off watch for a safety meeting about slips/trips/falls or galley safety. My workouts turned into a joke by week two and would last about 25 mins. I work 4/8 on an ATB now with pretty steady moves in the harbor. I guess thats prob the best schedule I’ve had in my career so far. Im on the 0200-0600 and 1400 to 1800. I feel like a vampire by the end of the hitch but at least i get a solid 6-7 hrs of sleep when i get off at 0600 everyday.
[QUOTE=Earl Boebert;179304]I’m not a professional mariner, but I did read the report. It is based on a thing called the SAFTE/FAST model, a computer program that according to the people who sell it (it’s a commercial product)is based on first principles of brain chemistry and has been experimentally validated. You plug in a person’s sleep history and the model tells you how degraded their performance is in terms of equivalent blood alcohol level – the assumption being that being fatigued is like being drunk.
So if you believe the model, you believe the conclusion. If you don’t, you don’t. A lot of people believe in SAFTE/FAST, IMHO because it seems to be the only game in town. A lot of people don’t completely trust it, because the “validation” of the model has taken place in a laboratory setting and is not related to real-world accident/incident data. In other words, it should be possible to look at a bunch of accidents and near-misses and compare the theoretical impairment of crew given by the model against the actual impairment demonstrated by a casualty. This examination doesn’t seem to have happened.
(I put the word “validation” in quotes because I’ve done a lot of work with predictive mathematical models and believe firmly that they are never validated, only invalidated. You can have 1000 runs that correlate with observed data and that history tells you nothing about 1001st. Been there, done that, took the lumps :-))
Bottom line: lots of theory and hand-waving, little or no use of real-world data on impairment.
Cheers,
Earl[/QUOTE]
And they may have done inadequate research on existing literature:
from the report, Section 3.5:
“There is another important element to consider when examining why the recommendation in CEMS to change to a schedule that allows 7 to 8 hours of consecutive sleep was not implemented: there is no scientific evidence to suggest that a schedule that allows 7 to 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep is better than one that allows for 7- to 8-hours of sleep in more than one episode. [U]For example, to the best of the research team’s knowledge, there are no data that directly compare a rectangular [/U][U]two-watch schedule of 7:5:5:7 or 8:4:4:8 with the square watch 6:6:6:6,[/U] which is the primary schedule used by the majority (70%) of the companies surveyed as part of this report.”
Here’s one:
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA517285
[FONT=TimesNewRomanPS]"Results. The mean modeled cognitive effectiveness for all watches within each system were 96%, 96%, 89% and 66% for the 1-in-3 straight eights, 1-in-3 straight fours, 1-in-2 (8-4-4-8) and the current CF 1-in-2 (6-6-6-6), respectively. "
This report found the 8:4:4:8 better than straight sixes. But in all fairness, it was for submariners, and, well… they were Canadian… Also done with FAST. Odd they didn’t note it.
There’s so much literature out there, I imagine anyone could find what they want, especially when they couch the terms in a fashion that identifies ‘acceptable’ vice ‘optimal’ performance.
[/FONT]
AWO is essentially reverse-engineering the whole equation. They shop around for the right science to give them the answer they want: that the manning levels are just fine and that there’s no need to change the regulations governing our work-to-rest ratios. If there is a problem with us not getting enough rest, well, it’s our own fault for not using our time wisely enough or some other bullshit. The only thing to be “optimized” is the profit margins.
With Subchapter M still pending final release from DHS the timing of this sure smells like scientific cover for what the more realistic among us assume to be a pre-determined outcome of the new regulations. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…
12&12 for me, been doing it for at least 30 years with no problems.
My deckhand and I will split the am watch when we aren’t busy. A few extra hours every few days helps. I would prefer to do 8/4/4/8 when we are in the harbor but my captain likes to do 6/6. Of course he seems to not need much sleep, unlike me.
[QUOTE=AHTS Master;179315]12&12 for me, been doing it for at least 30 years with no problems.[/QUOTE]
yeah fine if your going noon to midnight but if you are poor miserable fuck who has to go midnight till noon and try to sleep basically during all the noise of the day then I pity the fool…I never ever could get rest trying to go to sleep in the middle of the day like that.
somehow though I could manage to get enough sleep if I had to do 1800 to 0600 but that fucking 0000-1200 would kill me in a week
6’s are the best for inland towing. If you’ve ever worked inland push boats you know.
[QUOTE=Tkoval;179318]6’s are the best for inland towing. If you’ve ever worked inland push boats you know.[/QUOTE]
4x8 is better.