Accident Reporting: What’s the Big Deal?

1. Accident Reporting: What’s the Big Deal? NASBLA Leadership Academy Lexington KY July 24, 2013 Tammy Terry, NASBLA ERAC Chair Ohio DNR, Division of Watercraft Deb Gona, NASBLA ERAC staff Research Consultant

2. Tell us about yourselves…. • Your name, your state, and your history with the agency you represent • Your level of experience (scale of 1-high to 10-low) with accident reporting, in general, and the BARD-Web system, in particular • The level of involvement your agency takes in accident reporting details. For example, do you investigate and enter details into BARD-Web yourselves or is all or part of the process handled by another agency or agencies?

3. Why is Accident Reporting Important? “Yet the best pilots have need of mariners, besides sails, anchor and other tackle.” - Ben Jonson mar·i·ner  (m r -n r) n. One who navigates or assists in navigating a ship.

4. Knowing the Seas –What are the Federal Requirements for Accident Reporting?

5. 33 CFR Part 173 Subpart C – Casualty and Accident Reporting 33 CFR Part 174 Subpart C – Casualty Reporting System Requirements • 33 CFR 173.55 Conditions for a Report • Specific occurrences involving the vessel or its equipment that require operator/owner to file a BAR • 33 CFR 173.55 (c) Who Submits the Report • Operator/owner files BAR with reporting authority

6. 33 CFR 173.57Content of Report

7. 33 CFR 173.53 & 33 CFR 173.55 Timelines for Report Notification and Submission – Operator/owner files BAR with reporting authority within timeframe; requirements depend on nature of incident (deaths, injuries, vessel/property damage) 33 CFR 174.121 Forwarding of Reports to Coast Guard – Within 30 days of its receipt of accident report, State forwards report data to Coast Guard HQ

8. Get to Know Prior Explorers – What are Federal uses of Accident Reporting data?

9. Importance to the Coast Guard • Measuring success of the RBS Program nationally • Demonstrating measurable impact of programs • Required to meet Adequate and Sufficient designation

10. USCG Boating Safety Division www.uscgboating.org • The Boating Safety Division of the Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety produces an annual statistics report on recreational boating accidents. • www.uscgboating.org/statistics/accident_statistics.aspx • The report reflects a national perspective on accident causes and types, and provides tables with State/Territory data.

11. Other USCG Publications • The U.S. Coast Guard Budget in Brief and Performance Report • The Coast Guard Marine Safety Performance Plan • The Coast Guard Posture Statement

12. National Boating Safety Advisory Council http://homeport.uscg.mil/NBSAC Established by the Federal Boating Safety Act of 1971, NBSAC uses the data as it advises the USCG on a range of boating safety matters. NBSAC subgroups advise on the use of accident report data to measure the impact of various objectives of the Strategic Plan of the National Recreational Boating Safety Program.

13. Get to Know Prior Explorers –What other Groups and Organizations have been using Accident Reporting data?

14. Notable Explorers • Non-Profits (CO case studies; propeller casualties) • Consultants (environmental impacts) • University researchers • Other federal agencies (life jacket wear campaigns) • Media • Insurance agencies (promotional strategies) • Industry • Lawyers • Claims adjusters, and … • NASBLA Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee www.nasbla.org/ERAC

15. Importance of Accident Reporting data to other researchers and analysts • Better understanding of factors surrounding recreational boating accidents • Use the same data sets as USCG and States … resulting in similar analysis issues

16. Becoming an Explorer –What have States been doing with Accident Reporting data?

17. Importance to the States • Measuring success of the RBS Program in the State • Demonstrating measurable impact of programs • Establishing objectives that provide return on investment

18. Individual States • Many states compile their own annual statistical summaries of recreational boating accident data. Among them: • California • Florida • North Carolina • Ohio • Tennessee

19. Individual States Taking it to the “next level” by using state and local trends in accident/injury/fatality data to determine the success of programs and hone in on problem areas.

20. Individual States Connecticut Looked at accident types on Candlewood Lake – the state’s largest lake - to determine if special regulations were needed on the lake

21. Connecticut

22. Individual States • Tennessee • Used an analysis tool – developed from an ERAC charge – to look at patterns in state fatalities across several parameters: • Year (across a 10-year span) • Accident Type • Accident Cause • Body of Water (including size and unique characteristics)

24. Becoming a Better Navigator –What are some of the critical data and process issues in Accident Reporting?

25. Areas for improvement in accident report data • Accuracy • Timeliness • Completeness • Better narratives

26. Accuracy Issues • Vague, conflicting, or missing definitions for data fields and data field options • Other areas with interpretation differences: • Injury requiring treatment beyond first aid • (33 CFR 173.55 (a)) • Vessels falling under the RBS Program • (33 CFR 173.51) • Commercial accidents (33 CFR 173.51)

27. Timeliness Issues • Public awareness of accident reporting requirements • Timeline for forwarding a report to the Coast Guard (33 CFR 174.121)

28. Completeness Issues • Gaps in BARD-Web data • Vessel Length • Operator Age • Operator Education • Too many ‘unknowns’

29. Narrative Issues • Incomplete information in narratives • “u1 ran into the stern of u2” • “PWC turned into other” • A good narrative • Uses no personal information (instead, uses Vessel 1, Operator, etc.) • Includes as much detail as possible – especially items that aren’t included in other BARD-Web data fields

30. Consequences of Non-Standardized and Incomplete Data • Unable to analyze key boating safety issues in a reliable and valid manner • Unable to accurately assess the success of various programs • Unable to rely on data to guide programs into the future

31. Get on Board – Charting a Clearer Course What’s Being Done? What Can You Do?

32. Actions Under Way or Planned • NBSAC Accident Reporting Task Force Recommendations – incorporated into National RBS Strategic Plan 2012-2016; subject of a Coast Guard Request for Comments in 2011 • US Coast Guard – Work on accident reporting regulatory proposals and policy documents • NASBLA ERAC – Charge work • Standardized terms and definitions • Online resource / reference modules and analysis tools • Online “forum”

33. NBSAC Recommendations • Develop a two-tiered boating accident notification/ reporting system • Clarify through policy and regulation, which watercraft qualify for boating accident reporting • Include exclusive state waters in accident reporting requirements

34. NBSAC Recommendations • Clarify which recreational boating-related injuries qualify for reporting by adopting OSHA standards for “medical treatment beyond first aid” as standard • Consider revising reportable boating accident criteria to exclude incidents where vessel was being used as a swimming platform or a person voluntarily leaves the vessel as the first event, regardless of whether the vessel was underway or not

35. NBSAC Recommendations • Create a Decision Matrix that will simplify the boating accident and casualty reporting decision-making process • Establish and enforce the responsibility and accountability of first responders for notifying of an accident or casualty and of state reporting authorities for investigating and submitting boating accident report data

36. NBSAC Recommendations • Amend CFR to specify the essential elements of information required to be included in the initial notification of a boating accident • Amend CFR to abstain from including specific data elements and require that essential elements of boating accident report information be specified in USCG policy document

37. NBSAC Recommendations • Revise former guidance document CG-449, and make it available in a condensed version through electronic media • Examine feasibility of harmonizing commercial and recreational boating accident cause data. • Continue to research methods for statistical adjustment of accident totals to help extrapolate unreported accidents.

38. NBSAC Recommendations • Draft text for inclusion in Boating Statistics discussing possible errors and limits to interpretation of data extracted from BARD • Examine suitability of additional models of accident causation (human factors) for use in describing fatal recreational boating accidents.

39. NBSAC Recommendations • Assist the states in conducting training, education and outreach efforts directed toward the boating public and accident investigators and regarding boating accident notification and reporting regulatory and policy revisions

40. United States Coast Guard • Work on accident reporting regulatory proposals and policy documents • Final Rule on Changes to SNS/VIS/BARD • Regulatory and policy action on NBSAC recommendations • Cooperation with ERAC on continuing work

41. NASBLA Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee (ERAC) • Standardized accident reporting terms and definitions in five key report categories • Resource/reference modules for the standardized terms • Online forum • Source for clarification and resources related to recreational boating accident reporting and analysis

42. NASBLA Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee (ERAC) • Development of standardized reporting terms and definitions in five key report categories • Accident Types • Contributing Factors • Operation • Activity • Vessel Types/Sub-Types

43. Time for a test … Can you identify the correct Accident Type and Contributing Factor?

44. The investigation of the meaning of words is the beginning of education. - Antisthenes, c. 445-c. 365 B.C.

45. Accident Reporting Terms & Definitions Project www.nasbla.org/terms Five accident report categories targeted by project team for update and standardization • Accident Types and Contributing Factors – approved by NASBLA Membership (Sept 2012) • Operation, Activity, Vessel Types/Sub-Types – revised and currently in final state review, then on to request for acceptance of work products

46. Accident Reporting Terms & Definitions Projectwww.nasbla.org/terms NASBLA Resolution 2012-3 In support of the Accident Reporting Terms and Definitions Project, the adoption of standardized terms and definitions by the U.S. Coast Guard, and actions to facilitate their application.

47. Accident Reporting Terms & Definitions Projectwww.nasbla.org/terms NASBLA Resolution 2012-3 – Three Key Elements • Support for project and its intent • Formal request to USCG to incorporate each list into national use after each is accepted by NASBLA members as a “final work product” • Recommend that ERAC/USCG continue to develop training and guidance for the States on the use of the terms and definitions

48. Accident Reporting Terms & Definitions Projectwww.nasbla.org/terms Criteria that guided the update and standardization of report category options • Clarity – Distinctiveness – Relevance • Afford better access to / analysis of data • Formatting to assist investigating officer’s work in recording relevant accident details

49. Accident Reporting Terms & Definitions Project • Webinar on latest revisions to the Operation, Activity, and Vessel Types/Sub-Types proposals conducted with States on July 15 • PowerPoint and audio from webinar available at www.nasbla.org/terms • Project team will meet July 29 to take up comments received during webinar and through COB July 26

50. Accident Reporting Terms & Definitions Project • Submit final comments on Operation, Activity, Vessel Types/Sub-Types • By COB FRIDAY JULY 26 2013 • To Deb Gona at deb@nasbla.org • All comments will be posted to the Discussion Forum linked from www.nasbla.org/terms