SPINNING NOTES:    March – April 2006

STOP PROPELLER INJURIES NOW review of the current efforts to prevent motor boat propeller injuries and fatalities

STATISTICS:  

SPIN has been very active since the fall of 2005. Regrettably that includes contacting a number of families of victims, deceased and surviving in much altered circumstances. It also means sharing the very distressing results of our 2005 summer media research on 58 propeller accidents:

            34% resulted in death (compared to USCG BARD figure of 15 – 17%)

            14% resulted in amputations of a limb

            42% resulted in severe lacerations, requiring hospitalization

             3% were described as “minor”

             7% were “unknown” 

Not only did we find three times the number of accidents than detailed by the USCG clipping service, but the percentages of fatalities and severe injury far exceed USCG BARD estimates of 15 – 17%. Final BARD statistics for 2005 are awaited. 

The USCG STATISTICIAN now has accurate five year figures on propeller boat lengths most at risk - i.e., those most often involved in fatalities and injuries; and a break down of those accident scenarios most frequent in propeller fatalities and injuries. 

CHILDREN AT RISK:

SPIN has targeted the information on children 18 and under. We have contacted the American Academy of Pediatrics for a supporting position statement. Congressman Obestar of Minnesota, ex officio on the Transportation oversight sub-committee, requested and received a specific chart of children at risk during a seven year profile. This showed that 20% of the fatalities and 31% of the injuries involved children 18 and under. When you consider that children exposure hours on propeller driven boats are far less than those of adults, these percentages are a glaring indication of the risk to children from the open boat propeller. The Coast Guard was also asked by Congressman Obestar to provide the exposure hours but the response was deferred pending results from a current grant. We need that information to complete the picture of risk to our children. 

SEEKING ADDITIONAL CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT: 

A number of additional important inquires have been made on our behalf by Congress.

Congressman Stark of California has written both the Commandant and the National Parks Service. We are especially grateful that they initiated the discussion with NPS. Having met with the Director of Concessions in November, we felt confident that they would review their contractual authority and propose that their concessionaires install safety and teach safety at the point of rental. We expected a conversation between them and the USCG and it did not happen. We reviewed one of their concessionaire’s rental manuals and noted the lack of safety warnings and education. To date we have no response. We spoke to MariTech Industries who offered to install a ladder interlock and propeller guard at no cost to NPS on their own houseboat. To date NPS has not responded to this offer. The preponderance of rental houseboat/pontoon boats operates on federal waterways under the jurisdiction of NPS. Congressman Stark noted that NPS “is well positioned to create a model lake program of safe boating operation.” We know Congressman Stark will get some action and we are most grateful. The family of Sylvia Rosin, seasonal employee for Aramark Industries (Lake Powell Resorts), who died as the result of a severe laceration from a fall into an open propeller in the fall of 2005, will certainly be interested in the results of this inquiry. 

Senator Frist’s office had a meeting with the Coast Guard. We wished we could have been there to listen in. As the Coast Guard representatives reviewed a long history (see SPIN timeline www.spin-site.org), it may appear that this issue has received a lot of attention. How about some resolution? SPIN does believe that the current staff of the Office of Boating Safety under Rear Admiral Criag Bone and Chief Jeff Hoedt is supportive and working to (a) expand the cost benefit analysis to justify regulations, and (b) to test safety technologies in the marketplace. We are still hopeful that Senator Frist’s office has initiated the inquiry with Homeland Security for testing funds. 

Congresswoman Corrine Brown of Florida, a ranking member of the Transportation oversight committee, wrote asking that propeller accidents stand on their own in the annual summary and not be charged to precipitating events such as “falls overboard”. She referred to Coast Guard testimony from May 2001 wherein the Coast Guard assured the sub-committee that “a regulatory work plan to prevent open propeller strikes on recreational boats had high priority and was moving forward.” She requested a timeframe for the successful conclusion of the regulatory process. 

These represent only a few of the members of Congress who are signing on to this issue. We understand that it burdens the Office of Boating Safety to have to respond to these many inquiries. That being said, we remind them that hundreds of people have been killed or maimed, impacting also the larger circle of friends and families and caretakers.

All of these preventable accidents occurred despite the strong recommendations in the NBSAC resolutions from l998, the 2001 work plan and the publication of NPR 10163 in December of 2001. There has been no regulatory progress in the last five years. It took concerned members of Congress to re-energize the solution. 

PROPELLER INJURY AVOIDANCE PANEL AND NBSAC FOLLOW UP:

This panel met in D.C. on March 21 – 22 and SPIN was appointed as a member. There is a three-page summary available and the detailed minutes are being developed. The important points were:

1. NPR 10163, published in Dec. 2001 and in limbo since, will NOT BE PULLED. 10163 called for all rental and private non-planing houseboats to be equipped with propeller guards (SPIN has always supported the inclusion of pontoon boats and given the new statistics presented by Bruce Schmidt, any supplemental rule should include rental pontoons). The USCG will seek a broader cost/benefit analysis to substantiate the rule by references to other quantitative and qualitative factors available by OMB and Executive Order 12866 standards. The USCG was asked to present more information on the factors in the existing cost-benefit analysis at the next NBSAC meeting and to seek a wider interpretation of:

                Quantitative Factors:  Occupancy factor, Exposure Hours

    Qualitative Factors: Risk to Children; Extreme Consequence of Propeller Strikes and applicable of VSL (Value to Save Life)

    NBSAC FOLLOW UP: No information was presented at NBSAC March-April meeting as the Office of Boating Safety was pressed for time. NBSAC agreed that a more       comprehensive cost-benefit analysis needed review.

2. Development of an Education Package for Rental Operations – this could address 10% to 12% of the accident scenarios with 40% effectiveness on 13% of the total boat population. The Coast Guard is currently seeking legislative authority for mandatory education.

 NBSAC FOLLOW UP   

Supporting Resolution with reference to a prior equal resolution from Oct. l995 on which no action was taken. 

3. Rear Admiral Craig Bone’s suggestion to “require recreational marine engine manufacturers to provide a selection of propeller guards as OPTIONAL equipment on all new propeller-driven marine engines sold” was referred to NBSAC for further discussion of a number of issues relative to definition and standards and testing. Effectiveness = this would address 25% of all fatalities. 

NBSAC FOLLOW UP: No further discussion on details – general statement of support that the U.S.C.G. Office of Boating Safety incorporates this in their regulatory process.

4. Require manufacturers of recreational boats to install ignition cut-off switches.   This would address 25% of all fatalities, with the collateral benefit to prevent man-over- board drownings and facilitate recovery. Effectiveness =  25% of all prop fatalities.

            NBSAC FOLLOW UP - Supporting Resolution, unanimous.

5. Require operators to wear ignition cut-off switches IF currently installed.  This would address 25% of all fatalities, with likelihood of increased benefit based on state adoption and enforcement.  Effectiveness = 25% of all prop fatalities.

            NBSAC FOLLOW UP - Supporting Resolution, unanimous.

6. Require operators to shut off the engine when individuals in the water are within an unsafe distance from the boat (exact distance/wording to be determined, but to include: holding on to a boarding platform, boarding deck, boarding step, boarding ladder, etc.). It is believed that this would prevent 29% of the accidents (14% backing into swimmer + 9% climbing into boat + 6% boarding on a ladder). Effectiveness = 30% of all prop fatalities.

              NBSAC FOLLOW UP - Supporting Resolution, unanimous.

SPIN CRITIQUE

Positives:

1. Saving 10163 for expanded Cost Benefit Analysis. Collateral benefit of an expanded cost benefit analysis, allowing for additional quantitative and qualitative factors, to support VSL (Value to Save Life) would empower the Office of Boating Safety to justify more live saving regulations.  

2. Equipment Regulation for all new manufactured boats to provide ignition cut off switches (“kill” switches) or sensors.   

-           SPIN requested FOR THE RECORD a “retrofit” for all existing boats but understands that this would be a cost benefit nightmare. 

It was noted that there are almost 3800 boat manufacturers, but those members of NMMA (representing 12% of manufacturers but perhaps 70%+ of all boats), have been installing lanyard cut-offs for ten years. 

SPIN would like to see a requirement upon resale, that all terms of resale would require a lanyard retrofit. We suspect the U.S.C.G. does not have that authority and this might need to be handled as individual states sign on.

3. Building a mandatory education program at the point of rental. SPIN assumes that rental operators would provide this if the package were mandated and the script provided. We urge this development as part of a grant proposal so that staff time is free to proceed with the work plans and tasks of cost benefit for the more directive regulations.

4. SPIN subscribes to the idea that we “regulate to educate.” 

Wishful thinking – Operator Requirements:

1.         SPIN is worried that the two resolutions relative to operator behavior is wishful thinking. If we were so good at changing boater behavior, we would not have 676 fatalities and 3,363 injuries (2004). We have years of time and money spent on campaigns trying to convince people to wear their life jackets and the recent grant showed that even FEWER people are complying. 

2.         Enforcement will be a huge issue in a time of cut backs and lack of personnel.

How do water patrols see the lanyard or sensor if they do not have the man- power to make a formal stop and inspection?   

3.         How do we educate the operator of this new regulation?  Would there be a federal campaign similar to the “Buckle Up” for seat belts?

4.         How do we get state legislatures by reference to pick up this regulation for state waterways?

5.         Who establishes the penalty?  Will it equal a penalty that is a deterrent?  Such as the $ 86.00 one pays in California for failure to wear a seat belt. 

“Mandatory” Recreational Boater Education

              SPIN is very concerned that the federal government has not stepped up to this responsibility. We understand the individual states look protectively at this issue. We are particularly supportive of the NASBLA model act and standards. We feel there should be more emphasis on PREVENTION in that program. Despite years of cajoling state legislators and boaters, it is far easier to get permission to “recreate” in a boat than to “transport” oneself in a car. Witness yet another defeat in Virginia for mandatory education. Even in states with age limits and mandatory education/licensing, the requirements are often watered down. 

            SPIN has supported for years (cf. NBSAC resolution Oct. l995) a mandatory education package at the point of rental for ALL occupants (not just the one who signs the liability agreement). We hope the USCG receives legislative authority soon. However the bottom line is that safety is best installed because the exposed propeller always wins, whether you are an educated or first time boater.  

Resolutions 1999-63-02, 2001-67-01, 2001-68-10, 2202-70-01 formed the basis of NPR 10163: 

Resolution sections 2 and 3 called for all manufacturers of non planing and planing new and imported vessels 12 feet to 26 feet in length with propellers aft of the transom to select and install one of several FACTORY INSTALLED propeller avoidance methods.

The U.S.C.G. statistician has now defined the population of boats types and lengths most at risk and the accident scenarios to be prevented with rental pontoon boats ranking the highest in injuries and deaths. 

It is time to “require recreational marine engine manufacturers to provide a selection of propeller guards as optional equipment on all new propeller driven marine engines sold.” Safety installed = passive protection. This should be the first line of protection for the recreational boater. The recreating mind too often abandons common sense and education and operator responsibility. Knowing this, we should install safety, as well as educate and legislate. 

We have moved the emphasis from FACTORY INSTALLED to OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT.   

NMMA and aftermarket interests

There appears to be a new but guarded (no pun intended) interest from the National Marine Manufacturer’s Association to support a solution to prevent open boat propeller accidents. We are encouraged. 

NMMA recently sponsored the filming of two safety technologies by MariTech Industries at a NBSAC outing in Lake Mead. Both the sensor engine cut off switch and the ladder interlock would prevent a number of accident scenarios if required of the boating public. SPIN is very pleased to see NMMA promote this after market safety technology. 

SPIN participants were eager to see the “guard” demonstration, which was also part of the agenda (whose agenda?). We were very disappointed when no guard was presented.   Keith Jackson of MariTech Industries was apparently not invited to demonstrate their guard. This would have been opportunity to see the ease of the clamp type attachment, which allows installation in the water, without dry-docking. We still ask why this guard works on search and rescue boats, pontoon, patio and deck boats, environmental conservation boats, commercial boats, on movie industry sets, and private houseboats – AND SOMEHOW IT DOES NOT WORK ON RENTAL HOUSEBOATS? There is no extraordinary installation expense for dry-docking; nor gas consumption drag which out weighs the protection value (and why isn’t gas a concern when you fill up a deck Jacuzzi with thousands of pounds of water?); and why is “beaching” only a threat to a guard – and not the propeller?     

We urge the NMMA to support guards on non-planing rental houseboats and pontoon boats and all non-planing private boats.   

The NMMA press release on April 11, 2006,   summarized the major resolutions. However, the article was mute on the harder issues of the manufacturer requirement to provide “optional” equipment AND part 4 of the NBSAC resolution for “factory installed.” Thus far Google has only picked up this press release from SPAIN!   It will hopefully achieve a wider distribution.

In the 2001 Congressional hearing on C.O. poisoning, the NMMA was asked by Chairman LoBiondo, if the solution to the boat propeller accidents was a “mission to Mars.” He was assured that was not the case. SPIN was disappointed to review the March 2002 NMMA letter organizing the industry to comment negatively against 10163. However, we now see hopeful signs that this industry-based group will be more supportive, providing the suitability of technologies is demonstrated. We are confident that the NMMA will encourage the development of alternatives in the marketplace and continue to support innovative technologies.