Building a Better Ship
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Building a Better Ship

on

  • 664 views

Updates & issues on accident reporting processes, data collection, and analysis:...

Updates & issues on accident reporting processes, data collection, and analysis:

2011 U.S. Coast Guard Recreational Vessel Accident Reporting Notice and Request for Comments

Accident reporting terms and definitions in five critical report areas (Accident Types Accident Contributing Factors, Operation, Activity, and Vessel Type).

Tammy Terry, Chair, NASBLA Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee (ERAC)

Jeffrey Ludwig, U.S. Coast Guard Regulatory Manager

Richard Moore, BLA, Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

Gary Haupt, Accident Investigation Instructor

Dr. Deb Gona, NASBLA ERAC liaison

Statistics

Views

Total Views
664
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
664
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Good afternoon! It’s good to see all of you – and thank you for affording us the opportunity to brief you today on the progress that is being made toward improving the processes and the quality of data collection in recreational boating accident reporting. We’ve got what we think are some exciting developments to share with you, and while today’s presentation is primarily informational in nature, we’ll be asking for participation from you as well – both through today’s interactive presentation and following the BLA workshop… so no post-lunch dozing on us, OK? ;>
  • You’ll note that the title of our presentation today refers to “Building a Better Ship” and we chose this as an apt analogy to work currently being done in the area of accident reporting: Building a vessel usually involves the efforts of a team rather than an individual and this is also the case for improving accident reporting data and processes. A special thanks goes out to all of the parties currently involved in this ongoing effort – and a hearty “come aboard” goes out to those of you who aren’t involved yet but who we hope soon will be. Building a vessel also requires communication – and in the case of accident reporting that includes the states, the Coast Guard, and the various agencies and organizations represented by the NASBLA Associates. I’m happy to be able to report that collaboration across these three groups is ongoing in all of the areas we’ll be discussing today – and we’ll be striving to set the bar even higher as we continue our work to include all of you in the process as well (if you aren’t already involved  ). Building a vessel also requires qualified persons who understand the mechanics of the vessel being built and who share a common “language” so to speak. In accident reporting that translates into having objective trained data collectors and data entry operators who understand the importance of the data being collected and who have a common set of terms and definitions to use in reporting the details of these accidents so there is uniformity in the data collected. And finally, testing the vessel… in the accident reporting comparison that includes testing the data being collected to determine whether the items collected can be used to provide meaningful analysis and direction on how to minimize recreational boating accidents and fatalities through various services and programs. What we’ll be sharing with you today are some of the steps being taken to build that “better ship” with regard to recreational boating accident reporting.
  • Some of you may be asking yourselves “why are we trying to improve what is already in place?” with regard to accident reporting – a very legitimate question given shrinking resources and increasing responsibilities for our programs – and is in fact the answer to the question itself: we need to be more efficient and effective in using our resources and budgets - and to do that we have to be able to target the areas where we can have the most impact. Without going into the level of detail provided in some of our prior presentations, I want to point out that several different groups including NBSAC, ERAC, and other organizations looking at recreational boating accident data have pointed out problem areas that, if addressed, could create the kind of quality improvement in the data that will lead to more useful analyses and better direction for our various boating safety services and programs – all of which in turn lead us to more measurable impact from our efforts - a goal that we all strive for.
  • So… today… we have some important updates to share with you regarding quality improvement in accident reporting – “building our better ship” so to speak: First, Jeff Ludwig, Regulatory Coordinator for the USCG will be joining us virtually (hi, Jeff) and along with Richard Moore (who needs no introduction) they will be sharing with you some of the feedback that was received from the states through the USCG’s recent Notice for Comments on Accident Reporting and what you had to say regarding some of NBSAC’s suggestions for improvement. Gary, Deb, and I will then be tag-teaming to bring you up to date on the ERAC Terms and Definitions project that we discussed with you at the fall conference - including distribution of one completed list and one draft list – and providing you with information regarding how you can provide your input into the final products. And finally, to wrap up today’s session, Dr. Ernest Marshburn, who many of you know from his association with the United States Power Squadrons, will be sharing the details of a research project currently underway that demonstrates the use of BARD accident report data in complex analyses – and that some of you may want to explore in your state in the future. So… with that I’ll turn over the microphone to Jeff and Richard…
  • Thank you Richard and Jeff… Alright, now it’s time shake things up a bit  - I told you we would be going “interactive” on you so it’s time to shake off the sleepies and put on your “thinking caps”… To kick off our next section of today’s presentation – regarding the ERAC Terms and Definitions Project – we thought maybe a quick pop quiz might be more fun than a lengthy dissertation  … so… Gary is going to walk you through an accident scenario and following his presentation we are going to ask you a series of questions involving terms and definitions currently in use in the areas of Accident Types and Accident Contributing Factors… everybody ready? Gary…
  • So… what I think we have demonstrated here today is something that ERAC has identified as a significant issue in the accident reporting data collection process: a lack of “common language” and standardization of terms being used by those parties gathering and entering data into the BARD system – which is then used for data analyses. Although not intentional this is nonetheless a significant obstacle in ensuring that the data being used in analysis is accurately identifying problem areas. We shared with you back at the conference in the fall a detailed summary of the process that ERAC was using to create a standardized list of terms and definitions in five key areas: Accident Types, Accident Contributing Factors, Operations, Activities, and Vessel Types – and Deb has compiled a summary document for your reference regarding this information for today. As you might remember from that presentation it is a very robust process including extensive involvement on both the state and Coast Guard sides, and also involves participation from the industry perspective. I’d like all of the members of the ERAC charge group working on this charge who might be in attendance today to please stand up… this group has been tireless in their efforts to date – meeting almost weekly to keep things rolling on this project. Thank you to all of you for your efforts and for your dedication to this important project. Today I am excited to provide you with not only updates on this group’s progress to date but also to share with you the products that are coming out of this group for your review, comment, and ultimately acceptance in the weeks and months ahead.
  • What is being handed out to you right now are two lists of terms and definitions: The Accident Types List you have just received is the complete revised consensus list of Accident Types terms and definitions that this team has compiled to date. This list includes suggested revisions made by the full ERAC Committee, by the NASBLA Executive Board, and through a branch-level review by the Coast Guard Office of Boating Safety. As per the process outlined and approved by the Executive Board last summer, which was shared with you at the fall conference, we are now ready for review and comments by the states, NASBLA Associates, and anyone else who may have an interest in the proposed terms and definitions in this area. In a moment Deb is going to walk you through the next steps in the process of finalizing this product – with your participation and involvement – so it can move into implementation and use. You are also receiving a copy of the draft list of Accident Contributing Factors that this group continues to work on in parallel with their efforts on the Accident Types list. Even though this is in draft form, we wanted to provide you with this list now so you could have a chance to begin considering it in conjunction with the closely-related Accident Types list. This list has not yet gone through its first set of reviews at the full ERAC Committee, NASBLA Executive Board, and USCG branch-level stages and some details are still being considered with regard to incorporating terms into this list that address the “human factors” causes; however, the team felt it was important to share with you the direction that this work is going in. Once team work on this list has been completed and these initial review stages are completed, the final Contributing Factors list will be submitted to all of you for review, comment, and again approval in the same manner that will be used for the Accident Types list. And finally, the team will then be taking up the remaining three sets of terms – Operations, Activities, and Vessel Types – taking into account their overlap with some of the details included in the yet to be finalized NPRM on SNS/VIS/BARD. Again, as with the first two lists, they will be routed through a series of reviews and updates to ensure that we have addressed concerns and suggestions from anyone that provides a submission – including all of you. That leads me into my “final thoughts” on this project before I turn it over to Deb to walk you through the submission of comments and suggestions process for all of these lists… WE WANT, WE NEED, AND WE HAVE TO HAVE YOUR PARTICIPATION TO MAKE THIS PROJECT SUCCESSFUL! I know we are all busy and let’s face it terms and definitions are not the most riveting subject – we accept that – but we need your input in the development phase – not after the project is on the borderline of being complete. If you have issues with anything included in the terms and definitions we are proposing – LET US KNOW! As Deb will be noting, we will be addressing all of your submissions with an adjustment to the proposed term/definition or an explanation of why we don’t see a need for a suggested change – BUT COMMUNICATION IS KEY - We can’t address your issues unless you let us know – and after all the work put into this effort I don’t want to see it fail because someone didn’t let us know about a potential area of conflict. OK – that’s enough of my rant… Deb, can you walk the group through the participatory process…
  • Thank you, Deb  - again – and I can’t say this enough – PLEASE – PLEASE – PLEASE – take advantage of this opportunity to provide input – I don’t want to be saying to anyone “why didn’t you tell us that before” as we approach the finish line on this project  . So, to wrap up today’s session, I’m going to pass the podium to Dr. Ernest Marshburn, former {title} of the USPS, to share with all of you the details of a research project he is conducting in Florida and Ohio…

Building a Better Ship Building a Better Ship Presentation Transcript

  • Building a Better Ship: Quality Improvements In Recreational Boating Accident Reporting Data and Processes Richard Moore, Florida FWC Jeff Ludwig, USCG Gary Haupt, Accident Investigation Instructor Deb Gona, NASBLA ERAC Liaison Tammy Terry, ERAC Chair, Ohio DNRDr. Ernest Marshburn, East Carolina University
  • Building a Better Ship• Requires a team effort• Requires communication• Requires qualified personnel• Requires a common “language”• Requires testing
  • Why It Matters• Various issues identified in accident reporting data collection and processes by: – NBSAC – ERAC – Other agencies and organizations
  • Today’s Updates• Building a Better Ship – USCG Recreational Vessel Accident Reporting Notice and Request for Comments Results – ERAC/USCG Accident Reporting Terms and Definitions Project Updates• Testing Our Vessel – Advanced Spatial Analysis of Accident Risks in Recreational Boating – Dr. Ernest Marshburn
  • Recreational Vessel Accident ReportingNotice of Advisory Committee recommendations;Request for additional public comments
  • Published in theFederal Register on September 6, 2011 90-Day Comment period
  • 35 Comments Received-31 State Reporting Authorities -NASBLA -Three Other Commenters
  • 55% of the State Reporting Authorities Commented - Comments are pretty evenlydistributed among the states (as ranked by number of reported accidents)
  • The Notice Contained 29 Questions - Responses to those questions are critical to informing the USCG’s decision-making process-Of the 29 questions, 16 had responses which could be evaluated on a “Yes”, “No” or “Maybe” scale
  • Some of the Most Important Questions- Would the states support a two-tier system – 83% “Yes”- Would the public support a two-tier system - 71% “Yes”-Would the two-tier system improve the number of accidents reported – 46% “Yes”
  • The USCG Takeaway from Reviewing the Comments - There is general support forrevisions to the accident reporting system consistent with the NBSAC recommendation - However, the “devil is in the details”
  • Concern Was Noted Over… - Reporting timelines - Scope of “investigations” -Lack of authority to compelindividuals to report and local agencies to “cooperate”
  • Two-Tier Concept 1st Tier- Law Enforcement is notified that an accident occurred involving the boat owner, operator, occupant or witness-Basic “who”, “what”, “where” and “when” is provided
  • Two-Tier Concept 2nd Tier- Law Enforcement follows up onthe “what”, “where” and “when” details, along with the all important “why”
  • Two-Tier Concept Timelines - 1st Tier: 30 days(consistent with existing requirement) - 2nd Tier: TBD (sufficient to allow for investigation,but still allow USCG to include in annual report published in late May on next calendar year)
  • Concerns over what an “investigation” consists of are understandable - In most cases, this could consist oftelephone or e-mail follow-up to collect pertinent information - In the case of serious accidents orfatalities, more thorough techniquesmight be required – but this is already done in these cases
  • Compelling those involved in accidents to report, and local agencies to forwardinformation to state reporting authorities, always has the potential to be a challenge
  • - The USCG believes that by simplifying the operator requirement, it will be easier to educate and people will be more likely to submit reports - The USCG also believes that by clarifying reporting requirements and adopting a two-tier system, it will be easier for local authorities to forward accident reports to state reporting authorities
  • The Way Forward…The Office of Auxiliary and Boating Safety intends to initiate rulemaking to revise recreational boating accident requirements
  • The Way Forward…-We recognize that providing comments on recommendations and vague concepts is difficult -The next step should be a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and request for comments that includes a concrete proposal that clearly identifiesthe responsibilities of all parties involved in accident reporting
  • The Way Forward…Timelines are uncertain at this point, but we will keep the NASBLA membership informed through the ERAC Committee
  • What is the best primary descriptor of your agency?0% 1. Fish and/or Game0% 2. Environmental Protection0% 3. Public Safety/State Police/Highway or Water Patrol0% 4. State Parks 100% 5. Boating Program Administration Only
  • Did your state respond to the USCG Notice for Comments?24% 1. Yes17% 2. No59% 3. I’m Not Sure 10
  • What was the primary barrier to your participation in this process?11% 1. No barriers0% 2. Too many questions/too many topics0% 3. Too difficult to gather the information7% 4. Not enough time to draft response4% 5. Thought others would say the same thing as me21% 6. Somehow I missed the notice0% 7. Someone in agency dropped the ball4% 8. Not sure anything will be done with the results 1014% 9. Issue just isn’t important to me39% 10. Other… prepare to discuss
  • What was the secondary barrier to your participation in this process? 8% 1. No barriers 0% 2. Too many questions/too many topics 12% 3. Too difficult to gather the information 15% 4. Not enough time to draft response 0% 5. Thought others would say the same thing as me 8% 6. Somehow I missed the notice 4% 7. Someone in agency dropped the ball 15% 8. Not sure anything will be done with the results 10 12% 9. Issue just isn’t important to me 27% 10. Other… prepare to discuss
  • ERAC/USCGAccident Reporting Terms and Definitions Project Updates
  • Scenario #1
  • If you were the Investigator, what wouldyou choose as the Accident Type/Event? 0% 1. Collision with vessel 0% 2. Person fell overboard 0% 3. Capsizing 0% 4. Person left boat voluntarily 0% 5. Person fell on/within boat 10 0% 6. Person ejected from boat 0% 7. Other/describe
  • If you were the Investigator, whatwould you choose as the Contributing Factor? 0% 1. Alcohol Use 0% 2. Excessive speed 0% 3. Hazardous waters 0% 4. Improper lookout 0% 5. Operator inattention 0% 6. Operator inexperience 10 0% 7. Sharp turn 0% 8. Navigation rules violation 0% 9. Other/Describe
  • Are there any other Contributing Factors associated with this accident? 0% 1. Alcohol Use 0% 2. Excessive speed 0% 3. Hazardous waters 0% 4. Improper lookout 0% 5. Operator inattention 0% 6. Operator inexperience 10 0% 7. Sharp turn 0% 8. Navigation rules violation 0% 9. Other/Describe
  • Scenario #2
  • If you were the Investigator, what wouldyou choose as the Accident Type/Event? 0% 1. Collision with vessel 0% 2. Person fell overboard 0% 3. Capsizing 0% 4. Person left boat voluntarily 0% 5. Person fell on/within boat 10 0% 6. Person ejected from boat 0% 7. Other/describe
  • If you were the Investigator, whatwould you choose as the Contributing Factor? 0% 1. Alcohol Use 0% 2. Excessive speed 0% 3. Hazardous waters 0% 4. Improper lookout 0% 5. Operator inattention 0% 6. Operator inexperience 10 0% 7. Sharp turn 0% 8. Navigation rules violation 0% 9. Other/Describe
  • Are there any other Contributing Factors associated with this accident? 0% 1. Alcohol Use 0% 2. Excessive speed 0% 3. Hazardous waters 0% 4. Improper lookout 0% 5. Operator inattention 0% 6. Operator inexperience 10 0% 7. Sharp turn 0% 8. Navigation rules violation 0% 9. Other/Describe
  • The investigation of themeaning of words is thebeginning of education. - Antisthenes, c. 445-c. 365 B.C.
  • Progress• Accident Types List• Accident Contributing Factors List• Activity/Operations/Vessel Types Lists
  • Help Us Build the Boat
  • Setting Sail