English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

n response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Azul Airlines organized and conducted five separate humanitarian missions to China between May and July, 2020. Each mission consisted of 4 flight legs between 11-15 hours long crewed by a team of 8 pilots. Each pilot was given a 9-hour sleep opportunity during the flight period. Prior to conducting the missions, a sleep-prediction algorithm (AutoSleep) within the Sleep, Activity, Fatigue, and Task Effectiveness (SAFTE) model Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool (FAST) was used to predict in-flight time in bed (TIB) and total sleep time (TST). During missions, pilots wore a wrist actigraph and completed a sleep diary. These analyses compare the accuracy of SAFTE-FAST AutoSleep predictions against pilots’ sleep diary and actigraphy from Azul’s COVID-19 humanitarian missions. Methods Pilots wore a sleep-tracking actigraphy device (Zulu Watch, Institutes for Behavior Resources), and reported the TIB and sleep quality of their in-flight rest periods using a sleep diary. Diary TST was estimated from TIB and sleep quality. AutoSleep, diary, and actigraphy measures were compared using paired samples t-tests. Agreement was compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results Twenty (n=20) pilots flying across 5 humanitarian missions provided sleep diary and actigraphy data. AutoSleep predictions of TIB (235±20 minutes) and TST (193±16 minutes) were significantly lower than diary (TIB: 330±123, t=6.80, p≤0.001; TST: 262±108, t=5.60, p≤0.001) and comparable to actigraphy (TIB: 246±127, t=0.78, p=0.43; TST: 212±113, t=1.59, p=0.12). ICC values were &amp;gt;0.90, indicating excellent agreement, for TIB (0.94) and TST (0.91). Conclusion Biomathematical predictions of in-flight sleep during unprecedented humanitarian missions were in agreement with actual sleep patterns during flights. These findings indicate that biomathematical models may retain accuracy even under extreme circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic. Pilots may overestimate the amount of sleep that they receive during extreme flights-duty periods, which could constitute a fatigue risk. Support (if any) NA

286 Pilot Sleep During Brazil-to-China COVID-19 Humanitarian Mission Flights Compared to Biomathematical Predictions of Sleep