Hazard Identification Methodology for Recreational Boats

1. Hazard Identification Methodology for Recreational Boats Supported by the NMMA Boating Industry Risk Management Council Robert Taylor, M.S., P.E. Wendy Sanders, Ph.D., P.E. Erik Morphy, M.S.

2. Introduction • NMMA BIRMC and ABYC supported this project to further the research in risk based assessment of on-product boat warning label topics. • Identification of factors in real world fatal/injury accidents would be the proper basis to identify warning topics. • Current ABYC recommended labeling is focused somewhat on equipment-related hazards rather than from a vessel operation perspective.

3. Example of Current ABYC Standard Labels • Primarily equipment-based • Few deal with human factors issues, which are the main contributor to boating accidents

4. Introduction • NMMA BIRMC and ABYC supported this project to further the research in risk based assessment of on-product boat warning label topics. • Identification of factors in real world fatal/injury accidents would be the proper basis to identify warning topics. • Current ABYC recommended labeling is focused somewhat on equipment-related hazards rather than from a vessel operation perspective. • Research has shown that a common format for warning labels is a preferred approach within the context of designing a manufacturer’s on-product warning label.

5. Personal Watercraft Uniform Warning Label • Industry and USCG collaboration • Generated as a result of a risk-based assessment for on-product warning labels

6. Methodology • The data used in this hazard identification methodology was extracted from the USCG BARD. • Years examined include 1995 through 2007. • Fatal incidents were focused upon in this analysis, though injury incidents were examined for consistency. • This methodology takes a data-based look at human factors in the frequency of fatal boating incidents. • Potential application to NBSAC Strategic Plan

7. NBSAC Strategic Plan Objective 9. Boating Accident Reporting • Strategy 9.1- Clarify Accident Reporting Criteria • Strategy 9.2- Increase Accident Reporting Reliability • Strategy 9.3- Improve Accident Reporting Training • Strategy 9.4- Provide Reporting Criteria Training • Strategy 9.5- Pursue MOA with Federal Land Management Agencies • Strategy 9.6- Add Language Barrier Field to BAR • Strategy 9.7- Study Human Factors in Boating Accidents • Strategy 9.8- Link the BARD and Vessel Identification System (VIS) • Strategy 9.9- Study 12+5 Character Hull Identification Number (HIN)

8. Strategic Plan – Objective 9 Strategy 9.7 Study Human Factors in Boating Accidents • Encourage boating accident investigators to populate the human error reporting section of the BARD-Web application. • USCG will analyze the data to determine what human factors are involved in accidents and why accidents occur. • Use this data to pursue preventive measures.

9. Identify Accident Types for Each Boat Type Sort for Frequency of Each Accident Types for Each Boat Type Identify Contributing Factors for Each Accident/Boat Type Use Accident Type and Contributing Factor Data to Develop Warning Topics Sort Contributing Factors into Groups Sum Contributing Factor Groups by Accident Type 1 2 3 6 8 4 7 5 Rank Warning Topic Groups Using Summed Fatal Factor Counts Group Warning Topics Methodology Flowchart

10. Open motorboats Cabin motorboats Pontoon boats Houseboats Jet boats Airboats Inflatables Canoes & kayaks Rowboats Sailboats (sail only) Auxiliary sailboats Identify Accident Types for Each Boat Type USCG BARD 1995-2007 • Capsizing • Carbon monoxide exposure • Collision - fixed object • Collision - floating object • Collision - vessel • Departed vessel • Electrocution • Ejection • Fall in boat • Fall overboard • Fire/explosion (fuel) • Fire/explosion (non-fuel) • Flooding/swamping • Grounding • Sinking • Skier mishap • Struck by boat • Struck by motor/prop • Struck submerged object ACCIDENT TYPES 1 Risk Assessment Methodology – Step 1 BOAT TYPES

11. Fatal Accident Types for Each Boat Type

12. USCG BARD: All Fatal Incidents 1995-2007 Group results into 19 established accident type categories A manual assessment of each accident type descriptor was necessary to classify each reported accident into an accident type category Example: “fall overboard” may appear in different reports as “falls overboard”, “person overboard”, “kneeling on seat before falling overboard”, etc. Identify Accident Types for Each Boat Type Sort for Frequency of Each Accident Types for Each Boat Type USCG BARD 1995-2007 1 2 Risk Assessment Methodology – Step 2

13. USCG BARD 1995-2007 Accident Type Frequency & Ranking by Boat Type

14. Sort for Frequency of Each Accident Types for Each Boat Type Identify Contributing Factors for Each Accident/Boat Type USCG BARD 1995-2007 2 3 Risk Assessment Methodology – Step 3 • “Count” indicates the number of times a particular contributing factor appears in the database. • It is not a count of the number of vessels, accidents or fatalities. • This analysis was performed for 11 boat types and 19 accident types. Partial results of contributing factor analysis for fatal EJECTIONaccidents involving OPEN MOTORBOATS reported in 1995-2007

15. A manual assessment of each “cause of accident” descriptor was necessary to classify each contributing factor into one of the 32 contributing factor groups Sort Contributing Factors into Groups Identify Contributing Factors for Each Accident/Boat Type • Alcohol/drug use • Capsizing • Carbon monoxide exposure • Careless swimming • Careless/reckless operation • Collision with a fixed object • Collision with a floating object • Embarking/disembarking • Entrapment • Environmental/sea conditions • Excessive speed • Failure to ventilate • Flooding/swamping • Ignition of spilled fuel or vapor • Improper anchoring/docking • Improper loading • Improper PFD usage • Improper use of lanyard/kill switch • Improperly seated occupant • Lack of or improper boat lights • Mechanical failure or issue • No proper lookout • Occupant/skier behavior • Operator inattention • Operator inexperience • Overloading • Restricted vision • Sharp turn/change of direction • Slip/trip • Teak surfing • Violation of navigation rules • Water conditions 3 4 Risk Assessment Methodology – Step 4 CONTRIBUTING FACTOR GROUPS

16. Sort Contributing Factors into Groups Identify Contributing Factors for Each Accident/Boat Type 3 4 Risk Assessment Methodology – Step 4 Partial results of grouped contributing factor analysis for fatal EJECTIONaccidents involving OPEN MOTORBOATS reported in 1995-2007

17. Sort Contributing Factors into Groups Sum Contributing Factor Groups by Accident Type 5 4 Risk Assessment Methodology – Step 5 Relative frequency of EXCESSIVE SPEED as a contributing factor group for all fatal accident types for OPEN MOTORBOATS reported in 1995-2007

18. Sort Contributing Factors into Groups Sum Contributing Factor Groups by Accident Type 5 4 Risk Assessment Methodology – Step 5 Partial results of ranked relative frequency of all contributing factor groups for all fatal accident types for OPEN MOTORBOATS reported in 1995-2007

19. Use Accident Type and Contributing Factor Data to Develop Warning Topics Sum Contributing Factor Groups by Accident Type 5 6 Risk Assessment Methodology – Step 6

20. Use Accident Type and Contributing Factor Data to Develop Warning Topics 7 6 Group Warning Topics Risk Assessment Methodology – Step 7 • Warning topics were combined into associative groups based on topic area and intended audience. • As an example, 34 potential warning topics are identified as a result of the analysis of fatal incidents for open motorboats, but these were consolidated into 13 combined warning topic groups. • Example:

21. 7 Group Warning Topics Risk Assessment Methodology – Step 7 13 warning topic groups based on contributing factors to fatal accident types for OPEN MOTORBOATS reported in 1995-2007

22. 7 8 Rank Warning Topic Groups Using Summed Fatal Factor Counts Group Warning Topics Risk Assessment Methodology – Step 8 • After the warning topics are grouped the factor counts are summed for each warning topic group by boat type. • Each warning topic addresses multiple contributing factors so the the factor counts are quantitatively redundant. • The ranking based on these factor counts qualitatively provides data-based information as to the relative significance of each warning topic group for each boat type.

23. Risk Assessment Methodology – Step 8

24. Helm label – operator only Occupant label – all occupants Transom label – occupants of swim platform area Further Potential Consolidation of Topics

25. Risk Analysis in the Real World Statistical Analysis of USCG Database (BARD) • Real-World Experiences of: • Manufacturers • Law Enforcement Personnel • Operators Develop On-Product Warnings Revise Product Literature Prioritize Budgeting Items Set Policy Initiatives Focus Design Decisions

26. The Common Sense Approach • The analysis used to develop this methodology is a precautionary method versus a reactionary method. • Experience and qualitative observation of the accident data suggests that there are reactionary warning topics that would serve to save lives and mitigate injuries. • For example, “Advisory to Wear PFDs” is not a highly-ranked warning topic among most boat types. • Simply wearing one’s PFD will not prevent a collision, a fall overboard, capsizing, an ejection, a carbon monoxide exposure (in the water), etc.

27. The Common Sense Approach • “Fall overboard” is the most common fatal accident type across most boat types, and in these events wearing one’s PFD can potentially save a life and reduce the potential for injury.

28. The Common Sense Approach • “Capsizing” is the second most common fatal accident type across most boat types, and like “Fall Overboard” incidents could be mitigated by PFD usage.

29. Applications for this Data and Methodology • Development of uniform boat-type-specific warning label packages and collateral literature warning topics for boat manufacturers. • ABYC panel or forum to decide based on this data and warning guidelines, what label topics to include on various boat types and which to cover in instructional material. • Industry consensus of “uniform label” contents by boat type. • Manufacturer decision based on features of specific boat design. • The results of the application of this methodology directly apply to Strategy 9.7 of the NBSAC Strategic Plan.