Certainly. That's a great point there. First of all, fatigue does not discriminate. We all have the same physiology. The science shows that, whether you're a ground handler, a mechanic, or a flight attendant on board the aircraft, you are impacted in terms of performance by fatigue at the window of circadian low between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.
It is critical, in terms of an overall fatigue risk management system, in order to reduce risk.... Now, I'm not saying that, just because you don't have an accident or an incident, it does not mean you're safe. It has to do with being exposed to risk and being proactive in reducing those risks. You can't look at safety in a hindsight manner. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. We need prescriptive, science-based rules in the aviation sector moving forward that apply to all aspects, whether it be 703, 704, or 705 cargo operators, because all pilots, all people who work in those sectors, are affected by the same physiology.
If we are truly interested in reducing those risks for the entire Canadian public, we need these rules to apply in all areas of aviation safety.
If we're talking about fatigue risk management systems, we believe that it should be a science-based system, but the critical issue when it comes to fatigue risk management systems is that you have science-based, prescriptive regulations in place upon which you overlay actual data from an ActiGraph or FitBit that monitors, so it's objective. You know. It does not lie. Then from that point forward, on a case-by-case basis, you can adjust the fatigue risk management system going forward, but to simply come in and provide a fatigue risk management system without appropriate prescriptive science-based regulations in place first is basically a licence to further exploit the system, and you're looking at safety, at the cost. You're looking at not putting safety first.