Issue #84 – May 2026
Welcome to Focus on Fatigue!
In this edition of Focus on Fatigue, we wanted to highlight some of the insightful and practical topics we’ve recently shared on our LinkedIn page. From emerging trends to real-world applications, these articles reflect the conversations we’re having every day around fatigue and safety. If you’re not already following us on LinkedIn, we encourage you to jump over and give us a follow to stay up to date with the latest fatigue-related insights as they’re released.
The FRMS Team
Views expressed in articles and links provided are those of the individual authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of InterDynamics (except where directly attributed).
The Danger of Averages in Safety Management
A conversation we’ve had with a number of clients recently relates to how measurements can either mask or reveal risks.
Imagine having your head in an oven and your feet in a freezer.
Your average temperature might look perfectly comfortable. But the reality is very different.
This is the problem with relying too heavily on averages, compliance metrics, or arbitrary limits when managing fatigue and safety.
Averages smooth out the extremes. They hide the spikes of real risk. They make uncomfortable truths look acceptable on paper.
In fatigue risk management, a roster might meet every regulatory requirement and still leave a worker dangerously fatigued. The system is technically compliant, but it may not actually be safe.
Compliance is important — it provides a baseline. But safety demands we look deeper:
- variability, not just averages
- real-world conditions, not just rules
- risk exposure, not just compliance boxes
Because just like the oven-and-freezer example, an average can look comfortable while the reality is anything but.
True safety comes from understanding the whole picture, not just the number in the middle.
What Does Fatigue-related Risk Really Look Like Across Fly In Fly Out (FIFO) Rosters?
A new open-access study in Annals of Work Exposures and Health takes a deep dive into one of the mining industry’s most important — and often debated — topics: roster design.
The research examined 10 of the most common FIFO roster patterns used in Western Australian mining, analysing different combinations of shift start and finish times and commute durations. In total, 150 roster variations were assessed.
Using biomathematical fatigue modelling with the FAID Quantum Fatigue Assessment Tool, the study explores how fatigue scores fluctuate across real-world roster schedules.
The findings highlight that fatigue doesn’t build evenly across a roster. Factors such as night work, early starts, consecutive shifts, circadian disruption and limited recovery opportunities can cause fatigue to accumulate — meaning the way a roster is structured can significantly influence when fatigue-related risk is highest.
Importantly, the analysis also highlights that fatigue-related risk can remain elevated even after the final shift, including during the commute home. This is a reminder that fatigue-related risk doesn’t necessarily end when the shift ends — and there is legal precedent in Australia (Kerle v BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd) for employers being held responsible for fatigue-related risk during the journey home.
The research isn’t intended to prescribe the “perfect roster”. Instead, it demonstrates how objective, data-driven analysis can support better roster design decisions and help organisations reduce fatigue-related risk in safety-critical environments.
Being Forward-Thinking with Fatigue
This insightful article by Tim Smithies recently featured in Safe to Work, exploring a more mature use of biomathematical fatigue models beyond a simple “go / no-go” check. It’s great to see this risk-based approach filtering into mining.
It’s a strong example of how to move beyond compliance and embed fatigue insights into real operational decisions.
Well worth a read for anyone looking to strengthen their approach.
Can You Bank Sleep?
Can you “bank sleep” ahead of a busy week, travel, or night shifts?
A recent set of articles in SLEEP explored this question through a Pro/Con debate. While there is some evidence that extending sleep beforehand can help performance during short-term sleep loss, the picture is far from simple.
🔍 What the research shows:
- Yes – getting extra sleep before deprivation can slightly improve alertness and reduce performance decline (although it’s unclear whether this reflects true “sleep banking” or simply starting without an existing sleep debt)
- Any benefits are modest, temporary, and don’t prevent impairment altogether
Meanwhile, the “con” perspective highlights key biological limits:
⚠️ Sleep isn’t a savings account
Our bodies regulate sleep through tightly controlled systems (homeostatic pressure and circadian rhythms). These systems don’t appear to support long-term “storage” of sleep in any meaningful way.
⚠️ You can’t fully offset future sleep loss
Even with prior sleep extension, cognitive performance, reaction time, and decision-making still decline when sleep is restricted – just slightly less.
⚠️ There’s a ceiling effect
You can only extend sleep so much. Beyond a certain point, the body resists further increases, limiting any potential “buffer.”
⚠️ Recovery still requires actual sleep
No amount of prior sleep eliminates the need for adequate sleep afterward – the biological demand doesn’t disappear.
💡 The takeaway:
Sleep extension may offer a short-term buffer, but it doesn’t replace consistent, adequate sleep. While ensuring you enter a period of future sleep loss well-rested is beneficial, framing sleep as something you can “bank” risks oversimplifying a system that is fundamentally biologically constrained and non-negotiable.
In practice, it’s less like a savings account — and more like a daily requirement you can only stretch so far.
Read the articles here: