goto BodyPilot HomePage











A) spirit-mind piloting a (B) body controlling a (C) system by (D) civil-rules in an (E) environment
( = source for 737 cockpit photo )

FAT = FATigue

Once upon a time, most believed that the Earth was flat.
And most once believed that heavy machines could not fly.
Now most need to know the truth that fat-foods cause fatigue.

A wise-0ne once said,
"...It's not what we don't know that fools us,
it's what we "know" that ain't so that does it
... "

The FAA knows that pilot-fatigue can cause errors that result in accidents;
so it wants to regulate duty&rest requirements (FAA-2009-1093).

But the root cause of FATigue is FAT.
Therefore rest-rules can not prevent fatigue because
they ignore the effects of fat-foods on alertness,visual-acuity&clarity & reaction-time.

Fats are oils which clog&block & suffocate brains, lungs, hearts, eyes, ears, etc, which need oxygenated-water-blood. Oil & water don't mix.
Oily-blood is just as harmful to bodies as watery-fuel is to engines & hydraulics.
Fat eyeballs react relatively slowly to changeing focus
when scanning between (far)skies&runways & (near)instruments&charts.
Especially when attention & blood-flow is diverted to inner-digestion & gas-pains.

Ordinary folks know that a heavy holiday meal makes us sleepy.  

Flight attendants notice that passengers doze after eating.  

A common sedative for insomniacs is a glass of milk.
Savvy business execs feed fancy foods to visitors
to make them drowsey during after-lunch negotiations.  

Boston Celtic star Bill Russell always emptied his stomach before big games
so as to be fully alert and focused on his work
instead of having his attention diverted to a queasy belly.
And CO2 bubbles in carbonated beverages displace the oxygen that our bodies need to be alert.  

No matter how much rest, one who eats butter, bacon&eggs, cheeseburgers or fries/chips before/during flight is less alert & less clearheaded during critical flight phases, especially at marginal runways like the old HST/STT where AA625 crashed on Apr27,1976. NTSB blamed pilot-error. As a video reporter for WBNB-TV, I saw that 727-123 burn and I attended every session of the official NTSB hearings. I know that the Captain was fat. His slow thinking got him behind the fast-changing emergency that caused him to touch-down long&hot & bounce & float. He then tried to go-around, but 727turbines need ~7secs to spool-up. After 5secs, he knew he couldn't take-off without hitting a hill ahead, so he shut-down power and over-ran the runway. 37Dead.

The only real pilot-fatigue accident-prevention is for
pilots to stop eating fatty-foods before&during flight.


FAA should take 3 steps to help this process.

First by generating modern scientific evidence by experimental body-testing the effects of various foods and food-combos on pilot alertness, agility, reaction-speed & situational-judgement.

Second, develop & implement recurrent pilot training based on the results of those body-food tests so that pilots learn how to prevent fatigue.

Third, require body-fat measurements during pilot flight-physicals for all pilots & ban fat-pilot ops into critical runways. 

PilotingWhileFat is like DrivingWhileDrunk.

It's time to realize this fact.

For all our sakes.



       McGraw-Hill's AviationWeek & Space Technology published a special report about FATIGUE in their 2009Sep21 issue ... AvWeek is the primary general trade-journal for the aviation & space industries ... i have reprinted that special report in this e-mail, followed by an analysis of "chronic fatigue syndrome" ...

... "FATIGUE" is obviously a major problem as pilots have been know to fall asleep while at the controls of passenger jets

AvWeek's list of causes is:

Unpredictable work hours,Circadian rhythm disruptions–early-wake-ups, time zone changes, night flyingMultiple flight legsConsecutive duty hours without sufficient sleep or rest.Environment (temperature, air quality, noise, workload)Personal stress factors

... IMHO, they ignored the primary cause of FATIGUE, which is what we eat (especially salt & oils & sticky foods & carbonated beverages) ... so i sent the following message to AvWeek:

Dear AviationWeek Letter Editor

It simply amazes me that the FAA, AirLinePilotsAssociation, Dept Of Defense, EuroAviationSafetyAgency & AvWeek continue to ignore the root cause of fatigue, namely what we eat. 

Ordinary folks know that a heavy holiday meal makes us sleepy.  Flight attendants notice that passengers doze after eating.  A common sedative for insomniacs is a glass of milk.  Savvy business execs feed fancy foods to visitors to make them drowsey during after-lunch negotiations.   Boston Celtic star Bill Russell always emptied his stomach before big games so as to be fully alert and focused on his work instead of having his attention diverted to a queasy belly.  We also know that the CO2 bubbles in carbonated beverages displace the oxygen that our bodies need to be alert.   

As you reported, pilots have a special resonsibility for many lives; therefore they should be willing to forgo ordinary eating habits so as to be fully alert during their shifts.  This could require no eating for a certain number of hours before flights & no eating during flights.  And maybe even using oxygen masks during approaches & landings.

ted ledbetter
blanco, texas

(tedled note: they published this message in AvWeek's 2009nov16th issue,
with the title "Adjust Eating Habits")


... this is the original special report, which failed to include food as a cause of sleepiness-fatigue:


Special Report: FatigueNew Airline Duty-Time Regulations, Tools Address Fatigue
Aviation Week & Space Technology Sep 21 , 2009 , p. 42
Frances Fiorino, Washington
Airline industry fights growing threat with new duty-time rules and risk management tools

Printed headline: Fatigue“Go! Flight 1002, are you having an emergency?” For 18 min., concerned air traffic controllers radioed the pilots. No response. The crew had not acknowledged instructions to proceed to an intersection in preparation for descent to Hilo, Hawaii. Radar showed the aircraft traveling at 21,000 ft. past its destination toward open ocean.

The 40 passengers were unaware that their flight crew had entered the Land of Nod halfway through the 51-min. flight on Feb. 13, 2008.

“I just closed my eyes for a minute, enjoying the sunshine and dozed off,” the captain explained to NTSB investigators. The first officer said he had “entered a sleep-like state from which I could hear what was going on but could not comprehend or make it click.”

Flight safety was compromised by both pilots’ falling asleep, which rendered them incapable of monitoring aircraft systems, communicating with ATC or scanning for potential conflicting traffic. The copilot awoke, roused the captain, and the flight proceeded to its destination without injury to passengers. Fortunately, the aircraft had reserve fuel on board—otherwise, it could have flown for only 22.5 min. longer before risking fuel starvation, notes the NTSB.

Fatigue—defined as physical or mental weariness—is “ubiquitous and unavoidable” in aviation, human factors scientist and Flight Safety Foundation Fellow Curtis Graeber told Congress in June. And no aviation profession or operation is immune; pilots, flight attendants, mechanics and controllers all suffer from it (see pp. 46-48).

Reducing fatigue-related accidents and incidents has been on the NTSB’s “Most Wanted List” of safety improvements since it was initiated in 1990. ln the last 15 years, fatigue has been associated with more than 250 fatalities in accidents investigated by the safety board. In addition, the NTSB has issued 117 fatigue-related recommendations in all modes of transportation, 34 of which relate to aviation.

The NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System database indicates that in 1995‑2007, there were at least 17 crew-reported incidents of one or more flight crew inadvertently falling sleep. In five incidents, both pilots were asleep at the same time. In a 1999 NASA survey of pilots at 26 regional airlines, 80% of them admitted to “nodding off” during flight, blaming multiple flight segments and scheduling as factors that contribute to fatigue.

In a non-fatal Feb. 18, 2007, runway overrun at Cleveland, the captain of Shuttle America/Delta Connection Flight 6448 had had 1 hr. of sleep in the 32 hr. prior to the accident. Fatigue factored into another runway overrun at Traverse City, Mich., on Apr. 12, 2007. The Pinnacle Airlines Flight 4712 pilots had only a half-hour layover between flights. Insufficient crew rest is an issue under examination by the NTSB in its continuing probe of the Colgan Air/Continental Connection crash near Buffalo, N.Y., last Feb. 12 in which 50 people died.

When fatigue strikes in most non-aviation situations, mitigating actions can be taken, such as stopping the activity and stretching or walking around. “Transportation employees have a higher duty—if a pilot, controller or mechanic is fatigued and makes a mistake, lives are at stake,” notes NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman.

Traditionally, the industry has combated fatigue with flight- and duty-time hourly or daily limits. But the current consensus is that the rules do not take into account the contemporary science on sleep/rest requirements and fatigue management. Nor do they consider the long- and short-haul operational variables that cause fatigue (see table).

On Nov. 19, the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) amendment setting standards for flight- and duty-time regulations goes into effect. The amendment stipulates that standards must take into account the latest science on fatigue.

The European Cockpit Assn. (ECA), representing 38,200 pilots in 36 countries, describes pilot fatigue as the biggest “hot potato” safety issue. According to the ECA, the European Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) current rules that allow a daily maximum flight/duty time of 13-14 hr. not only “exceed reasonable limits,” but are not in keeping with the body of scientific knowledge. The association notes that the Moebus Aviation study, “Scientific and Medical Evaluation of Flight Time Limitations”—conducted for EASA—determined that the agency’s rules are insufficient to protect against risks of fatigue.

Fatigue is the Air Line Pilot’s Assn.’s top safety concern. ALPA, which represents 54,000 pilots in the U.S. and Canada, has long been pushing for updated science-based flight/duty-time rules. In testimony before Congress in June, ALPA President John Prater described the FAA’s rules as a “patchwork” of regulations that have not changed in 60 years, before jets came into use in the 1950s.

Prater notes that pilots are routinely assigned duty days of up to 15 hr., during which they could expect to fly fewer than 8 hr., sometimes for several consecutive days. Prater also points out that pilots make critical landing decisions at the end of a duty day—and most fatal accidents occur in the landing phase of flight.

A 1994 NTSB study determined that pilots who have been awake longer than 12 hr. make significantly more errors, such as failure to recognize an unstabilized approach, than those who have been awake for less time.

In June, FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt, a former airline pilot, convened an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to review and modify current rules—and he demanded the committee present its recommendations to the agency by Sept. 1. The ARC delivered on time, and its proposals are undergoing the FAA vetting process. The FAA is aiming to issue proposed rulemaking for public comment by year-end.

The FAA’s challenge is to forge revised regulations that are applicable to today’s operations—from the daily, multiple-leg flights of regional carriers to ultra-long-haul flights of majors.


The Psychomotor Vigilance Task monitor measures alertness. Users press touch pads in response to symbols on the screen, and the PVT device translates response time to level of alertness.Credit: AMBULATORY MONITORING INC.

As of last week, the FAA was declining to discuss with Aviation Week matters related to fatigue, saying it was waiting until the committee’s recommendations are made public. The Flight Safety Foundation’s Graeber, who chairs ICAO’s flight- and duty-time panel, says the organization’s recommendations are the blueprints for the ARC.

But rules alone are insufficient to minimize the risks of fatigue.

The NTSB’s Hersman compares fatigue mitigation to house-building. Prescriptive flight- and duty-time rules serve as the strong foundation. To pass inspections, all the building components—such as airline scheduling policies and training—must be up to standard to avoid system failure.

The Aerospace Medical Assn. position paper, “Fatigue Countermeasures in Aviation,” published in the January 2009 issue of Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, is a compendium of recent scientific findings about the causes and effects of fatigue, as well as its effective management.

According to the paper, long-haul-pilots are more susceptible to vigilance lapses in flight. And “micro-sleeps” (those several seconds of “blackout” such as one experiences while on a long drive), are nine times more likely to occur during night flights. Scientists have determined that circadian rhythm “lows” occur in predawn and midafternoon hours—when alertness levels are also at a low point.

Scientists rank bunk rest as the most important inflight fatigue countermeasure. They strongly support scheduled naps in the cockpit, which are currently prohibited in the U.S. but approved in Europe and Canada.

Another mitigation effort is to require crew and supervisors to receive fatigue education—training emphasizing that sleep is the best possible protection against on the job fatigue.

Also of utmost importance is taking personal responsibility for obtaining quality sleep, rest, diet and exercise, stresses NTSB Senior Human Factors Investigator Malcolm Brenner. The effects of fatigue, like hypoxia, are insidious, and an individual cannot accurately assess his or her level of impairment. Individual response to fatigue also varies widely. Brenner’s advice is to be aware that you are impaired and to strictly follow standard operating procedures.

Implementation of a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) is considered one of the most effective countermeasures—and one that took center stage at the FAA’s June 2008 Aviation Fatigue Management Symposium in Washington, a gathering of regulatory, airline, safety and science leaders.

In early 2006, ICAO formed a panel to develop an international regulatory framework for a using the model developed by the Flight Safety Foundation in June 2001 for ultra-long-haul flights. And last month, ICAO formed a task force to develop an international standard for implementation of an FRMS. The task force’s findings are to be presented to ICAO within one year, according to Graeber, who leads the group.

An FRMS represents a “paradigm shift” in the way we manage the risks of fatigue, says Graeber. Such a system would be part of an airline’s Safety Management System, requiring a “just culture” environment and the full commitment of management.

To gather data, an airline would choose a computer model, which it would validate in the field using subjective tools (such as questionnaires) and objective tools to measure sleep quality and alertness levels of crews. The data are then used to identify fatigue risk areas, adjust scheduling to avoid those areas and formulate mitigation plans.

An FRMS can work in harmony with regulations. Air New Zealand successfully launched an FRMS 15 years ago, with the involvement of its aviation authority. Europe’s EasyJet also adopted an FRMS and, working with the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority, was able to make scheduling changes to minimize fatigue. In 2006, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore changed its 12-hr. flight-rule limits so that Singapore Airlines (SIA) could operate long-haul flights.

Currently, Delta Air Lines and Continental and American Airlines are developing an FRMS for ultra-long-haul operations. When Delta decided to fly non-stop service from New York JFK to Mumbai, India, it found duty-time guidance was not clear, says Jim Mangie, Delta lead line check pilot for 757s/767s and manager for fatigue issues in the Flight Operations Dept. Mangie also co-chaired the FAA’s flight/duty-time rulemaking committee. The airline devised a plan, got approval from the FAA and formed an FRMS team in the summer of 2006. At the end of 2007, Delta, partnering with the FAA’s Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, conducted initial evaluations with pilots and flight attendants.

Delta also enlisted scientific aid from researcher Philippa Gander of Massey University at Wellington, New Zealand, and the carrier plans to start collecting ultra-long-haul inflight data by the end of this month.

Continental, which put an FRMS team together three years ago, also plans to launch two 2-3-month-long data-gathering sessions, one at the end of September and one in winter. Testing will involve crewmember volunteers operating Boeing 777 flights, most of which will last longer than 16 hr.

“We are not saying these [ultra-long-haul] flights are unsafe,” says Continental Senior Director for Safety and Regulatory Compliance Don Gunther. “We are trying to find out how to reduce risk in the operation.”

Continental worked with Gregory Belenky, research professor at Washington State University at Spokane, to adopt the Safte-Fast model (Sleep Activity, Fatigue and Task Effectiveness simulation and Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool). The model, developed by scientist Steven R. Hursh, has been validated for U.S. railroad workers, but not for aviation.

One challenge, says Gunther, is that no current model accounts for “time on task”—high-task areas of flight, such as descent to landing. “We’re interested in protecting the critical areas of flight. I would like my crews to have the highest alertness levels that can be maintained going into those critical areas of flight.”


The Philips Actiwatch measures the amount and quality of sleep the wearer obtains over several days.Credit: PHILIPS RESPIRONICS

To gather data, crews will use portable digital devices to obtain objective data on their sleep patterns and alertness levels. The Actiwatch device measures the amount of sleep obtained prior to a flight, during layover and post-return flight. The Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) monitor measures response time—that is, alertness levels—to patterns appearing on the screen. Crews would take a 3-min. PVT test prior to a critical phase of flight, such as descent for landing.

The airlines are hoping that Flight Operational Quality Assurance program data—true performance data—will eventually be included in an FRMS, which will aid in pinpointing fatigue risk areas. Both Continental and Delta are planning to expand testing to include cabin crew.

Once data are validated, an airline can adjust scheduling to avoid risk areas while at same time gaining operational flexibility.

An FRMS presents challenges. While research exists for ultra-long-haul flights, little has been gathered for short-haul flights, where the cockpit is always busy and there is not much opportunity to collect PVT data.

Application of an FRMS is another question. Graeber says current thinking is to implement the system only in risk areas and not across an entire operation. Sounding a sober note, he says that science alone is limited as to what it can do. “While the ARC is trying to accommodate science as best it can, you can’t engineer a solution to this [fatigue] problem across the operational world and get it right every time.”! Warning! Fatigue leads to deteriorated human performance and increased risk of accidents

CausesUnpredictable work hours,Circadian rhythm disruptions–early-wake-ups, time zone changes, night flyingMultiple flight legsConsecutive duty hours without sufficient sleep or rest.Environment (temperature, air quality, noise, workload)Personal stress factors

EffectsDeterioration of central nervous system functioningLapses in vigilance, frequent “micro-sleeps”Increased chance of making errorsSlow reaction time, impaired decision- making, inattentivenessDigestive, cardiovascular problems

CountermeasuresImplementing Fatigue Risk Management SystemFatigue awareness/avoidance training for employeesSetting company fatigue policyAdjusting schedules, shift work to recognize circadian rhythmsInflight bunk restRest breaksScheduled cockpit nappingLimited use of pharmacological substances to address sleep disordersPersonal responsibility to maintain good sleep hygiene, diet and exercise

Best Defense: Daily, quality sleep

Sources: “Fatigue Countermeasures in Aviation.” Aerospace Medical Assn. Aerospace Fatigue Countermeasures Subcommittee of the Human Factors Committee, Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine Journal, January 2009; NTSB; European Aviation Safety Agency; Delta Air Lines, Continental Airlines.





-------  extra -------



There's no such thing as a virus that causes chronic fatigue syndrome

Thursday, October 15, 2009 by: Mike Adams


       Beware, readers, when you see articles in the mainstream media claiming that a retrovirus causes Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). 


The stories quote new research published in the journal Sciencewhich claims that this virus -- known as XMRV -- was found in 67% of CFS sufferers but only 4% of the general population. 


From there, the media leaps to the wild conclusion that CFS is caused by this virus.

What you need to know is that this disinformation is laying the groundwork for a future CFS vaccine that will be pushed on the population in much the same way as HPVvaccines are now. 

The first step in getting the public to accept yet another vaccine is to brainwash people into thinking that yet another disease is caused by a virus. 

From there, it's only a matter of time before drug companies start talking about offering "treatment" in the form of a vaccine.

This is a play-by-play mirror image of the fraudulent push behind HPV vaccines. 

First, drug companies funded studies to "prove" thatcervical cancer was caused by a virus (it actually isn't). 

From there, they pushed their vaccine, claiming it "saves lives" by preventing cervical cancer. Of course, we now know the cervical cancer vaccine is a pharmaceutical hoax. Even one of its own top researchers recently declared that HPV vaccines are "ineffective." (

So why is the XMRV virus found in more CFS sufferers than the general population? It's simple: People with CFS have compromised immune systems, and in this state of weakened immunity, they are unable to rid their bodies of not just XMRV, but many otherviruses as well. 

The presence of this virus is a symptom of the disease, not the cause.


Every viral announcement is a covert push for a future vaccine

For their own protection, it's important that health consumers learn to recognize these hidden vaccine agendas when they see them. Every announcement about a virus causing some particular disease is actually a covert push for a future vaccine. That's why drug companies are busily funding all kinds of research that hopes to find (or fabricate) a viral cause for almost every major disease.


You'll see, on a regular basis, increasingly frequent news stories claiming researchers have "discovered" the virus that causes cancer, or diabetes, or Alzheimer's disease or even strokes. 


And then, months or years later you'll see the FDA approving some new vaccine designed to "prevent" that disease or disorder. 


Before long, that vaccine will be added to an ever-growing list of other vaccines already being forced onto the population, and the whole thing will be framed in the language of "public health."




This is Big Pharma's disease mongering engine hard at work. 


This is how they game the system and fool the masses. 


First, they blame a virus for a disease, then they push a vaccine as "treatment." 


But it's all based on junk science. There is no virus that causes CFS or even cervical cancer. 


In fact, it's scientifically and medically inaccurate to say there's even a virus that causes the common cold. People are exposed to these viruses all the time and they don't catch the cold. 


Only a person with a compromised immune system (lacking vitamin D, usually, and suffering from chronic stress) winds up showing symptoms of the cold. 



The fall of the Germ Theory

The Germ Theory of disease is outmoded. Today, we know that the terrain matters more than the germ. In other words, it's what's happening with your own health that really determines whether you get the disease or not. 


The viruses are present all the time, just waiting for an opportunity for a weakened immune system to give them an opening. That's why halting such infections has more to do with boosting and protecting immune system health than eradicating the virus.



Read more about this in an amazing book called Good-Bye Germ Theory by Dr. William Trebing. You'll find it at (


Vaccines, of course, are based entirely on the mythology of the germ theory, a framework of belief usually credited to Louis Pasteur (1822 - 1895), from whom the term "pasteurization" is derived. But Pasteur missed the bigger picture. His friend and colleague Claude Bernard (1813 - 1878) was actually more correct when he explained that it was the internal condition of the body that determined whether disease appeared rather than the mere presence of germs. An imbalance in the body's natural state creates a vulnerability that gets exploited by an opportunistic microbe. But without the imbalance in the body, the microbes may still be present but incapable of causing problems.



A French-American microbiologist named Rene Dubos (1901-1982) agreed with the "terrain theory" of disease, stating: "Most microbial diseases are caused by organisms present in the body of a normal individual. They become the cause of disease when a disturbance arises which upsets the equilibrium of the body."


To stay in business, the pharmaceutical industry must oppose the "terrain theory" of disease and push the germ theory at all costs: The entire vaccine industry depends on it. 


The idea is also quite seductive to many patients because it allows them to cast off any responsibility for their own health condition and blame a virus instead of their own dietary and exercise habits, for example. 


It's also an explanation favored by many conventional doctors because it allows them to simply prescribe a vaccine or an antibiotic instead of engaging in the far more detailed task of teaching patients how to make healthier lifestyle choices.



To this day, by the way, the pharmaceutical industry continues to try to find a microbiological cause for cancer. The whole point of this is to develop an "anti-cancer vaccine" and promote it as a cancer cure.


But the germ theory doesn't explain cancer... or CFS or any other degenerative disease. 


And those who promote the germ theory for such conditions are unwittingly playing right into the hands of the pharmaceutical industry.



Sources for this story include:é_Dubos