Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing  2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee Briefing 2011

544

Published on

NASBLA Committee briefing from the Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee at the Annual Conference, September 11, 2011.

NASBLA Committee briefing from the Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee at the Annual Conference, September 11, 2011.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
544
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Good morning! Thanks to you here with us today as we share with you the exciting work that NASBLA’s Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee has completed over the past year. I’m Tammy Terry, from Ohio, and I was given the opportunity to head up ERAC this past year and work with some great committee members and associated staff – and before we get into our work I’d like to recognize all of them for their efforts… - We have Jeff Parrish from Texas who was my Vice Chair (stand, Jeff), - Eleanor Mariani from Connecticut as our Board Liaison and one of our biggest supporters (thanks, Eleanor), - Our committee members themselves (please stand up) – who will be recognized as we review the charges they have been working on - Our Coast Guard representatives – who will also be recognized in association with their charge work - And last, the glue holding all of us together, the queen of e-mails and organization, Deb Gona I’d also like to thank the Board for all their involvement, advice and support this year as we took on some new challenges and worked our way through some important charge work this year. So let’s get to it…
  • For those of you wondering about our Powerpoint art, this quote might give you some insight… (read it) Seems pretty reasonable, right? Now, imagine you are at an archery competition, you line up to take your shot, and there are ten targets downfield. You’re a great archer and know that you can make the bullseye on any of the targets in your field of view, however, you don’t know which of the targets is the one being scored in this round. The odds are now pretty good that you are going to be very accurate – you’ll most likely make the bullseye – but the odds are against you being very effective in the result of your shot – you have only a one in ten chance at hitting the target that will get you a good score in the competition. I share this as an analogy to some of the discussions that have come out of our ERAC charge work this year. For those of you not familiar with ERAC, one of our primary missions is to take data collected by the states, the Coast Guard, and other organizations and use it to define the “problem areas” in recreational boating – what causes some boaters to be involved in accidents – or worse, fatalities – what makes one boater decide to wear a life jacket and another not – and share those with all of you so you can maximize your resources toward minimizing those accidents and fatalities. What our ERAC committee members have discovered over time however is that although our analyses have been useful toward such improvements, we could be even more effective in this work if we make sure that the data we are using is as reliable and valid as possible – so when we hit that target, we know that it is the RIGHT target.
  • Taking this paradigm to heart, we made some adjustments to our charter before we even launched into our work this year, amending the wording in our Charter to address two key areas: (see above) Evaluate and analyze data that can shed light on accident factors and inform development – and ultimately measure the effectiveness – of boating safety policies and programs… this is our traditional bread and butter ERAC fare – the analyses that you have come to know and love from ERAC over the years  And something implied over the years, but really fleshed out in our charter now, To ensure that research results are valid and reliable, and to actively seek ways to advance data quality, relevance, accuracy, consistency, applicability and completeness…
  • Practically speaking, this means that ERAC is involved in: Conducting analyses on targeted research questions… Recommending and – in partnership – actively working for improvements in criteria, processes, training associated with reporting, collecting, entering, and using accident data… Identifying boating safety programs and equipment design efforts that can mitigate identified risk factors AND 4. Monitoring and participating in external task forces and work groups
  • With a solid footing on our clarified charter, the ERAC Committee began work on 12 charges – that is not a typo, we had 12 charges  - grouped into four key areas as shown here… Read above I’m going to walk you through the results of that work here today…
  • Our first charge area included charges relating to proposed federal rulemaking and policy guidance – generally charges that prompt ERAC to stay engaged in federal rulemaking and policy that affect accident reporting details for the states. This group of charges are coordinated at the full Committee level. Our first charge in this group was related to the NPRM on SNS/VIS/BARD that was discussed at last year’s conference – and the follow-up webinar/conference call that many of you attended on this topic in the fall of last year. Monitor, inform, and develop feedback on USCG response to 2010 NPRM on SNS/VIS/BARD MANY of your states took the time to respond to that original NPRM – and thank you for that. With that kind of involvement and interest, we wanted to make sure we followed up on the outcome of that work. At this time, it is our understanding that the Coast Guard response will be forthcoming in the near future – and will be in the form of a final rule. Although ERAC will not need to develop a formal response as outlined in this charge and as previously anticipated (because this will be a final rule), we will continue to monitor this situation and keep you apprised of any other issues that ERAC identifies when this response is released.
  • Our second charge in this group, (Gather, provide input into anticipated USCG rulemaking proposals to revise the accident reporting system and process) has seen some recent activity that we want to update you on today, but for which we will be providing a more in-depth discussion at tomorrow morning’s BLA Workshop. Specifically, a Recreational Vessel Reporting Notice of Advisory Committee recommendations was posted by the Coast Guard on September 6. Many of you have probably seen this item via e-mail and are familiar with the BSAC recommendations contained in this document for which the Coast Guard is requesting input and comments. It is our understanding that the comment period will extend through December 5. As with last year’s NPRM, this is an important opportunity for your state to weigh in on issues that directly relate to accident reporting details – and in a change from the past, this notice is not a proposed rule, but instead a chance for you to provide input BEFORE the rule is proposed by the Coast Guard – so whether your comments are positive or negative, you really need to make this a priority to respond. Deb Gona, Richard Moore, and myself will expound about this further at the BLA Workshop, but from discussions with Coast Guard staff, you may even provide comments related to accident reporting in general that are not specifically addressed in the questions listed in the notice – and the more detail the better. I mention this because ERAC will also be putting together a response including some work being done by our B-1 charge group, which I’ll discuss in a moment. So, again, please make sure you make it tomorrow’s BLA Workshop if you are available so you can get more detail on this item.
  • Finally, our third charge in this area – Request clarification on accident reporting criteria and procedures and inform the states on outcomes; monitor progress and offer input and support toward completion of the CG 449… The ERAC Committee sees this charge as an ongoing charge that overlaps with much of the work that the committee is currently doing and intends to do in the next year – and as you’ll see with the remainder of our charges, that clarification, reporting out to the states, and generally providing support toward standardization of accident reporting details is well underway in many of our other charges.
  • Our next group of charges relate to Guidance and training on accident reporting, data entry and use – specifically addressing that clarified part of our mission: how do we make sure that we are hitting the right target. This first charge has been one of the most challenging – but hopefully in the end - the most rewarding, of our charges this cycle. READ IT This charge is a follow-up to ERAC charge work done in 2009 and 2010 developing updated and standardized accident reporting terms and definitions in five key areas: accident types, contributing factors, vessel types, operations and activities. What these prior charge groups discovered in conducting the data analyses that ERAC takes on is that there were variances in the terms and definitions used between states – sometimes within separate Coast Guard documents – and in some cases no standardized definitions for commonly used terms at all. Without clear guidance in this area, you get variations in the coding of the data collected – and the chance again of “hitting the wrong target”. The original lists of revised terms in these five areas developed by the 2009 and 2010 ERAC charge teams were that important first step toward improving the system. Moving into the deployment stage for these terms in regarding to rolling them out to the states, this group realized that additional input on this set of terms – from the Coast Guard, and ALL Of the NASBLA member states was critical to creating a final set of terms and definitions that could be accepted and used by all parties. After some initial fits and starts on the process – and we’re thankful that the initial charge team held together through the initial “storming” – the team was reconstructed with the list of members you see here - I’d like our target team members from this charge that are in attendance to stand up please – they are (READ IT)… this is one hard-working group! – as I am about to share with you…
  • First, this group established a process for developing consensus on each of the terms and definitions lists, which was approved by the NASBLA Executive Board and the Coast Guard in mid-June of this year. The steps are outlined on the next two slides, but we will be discussing them in more detail at the BLA Workshop as well – and if there is a desire by that group – or this group – to have an informal session to allow you to discuss these details at more length, we (ERAC) are going to make ourselves available to all of you. We really want to engage all of you in the process of developing this product. These steps include - READ
  • READ
  • The group has also been meeting weekly to work toward consensus at the charge team level on these lists of terms/definition as outlined in step 1 of the process. I‘m pleased to say that the first list – Accident Types – has reached Step 2 and is currently under review by the Executive Board and the full ERAC Committee. That review period will be ending 9/23 at which time it will undergo Coast Guard internal review – and shortly thereafter will be rolled out to all of you for review. When this occurs – and I can’t stress this enough – we need your feedback! And we need you to be specific in our comments – if you don’t like a term or definition, tell us why – provide justification. We’ll be actively reviewing that feedback and making adjustments or answering your concerns accordingly. And if you don’t have any concerns or comments – at least let us know that you have reviewed it and you have nothing to submit. Our goal here is to work out the issues with these proposed revisions of the terms and definitions on the front end of the process- before it comes out to the states for final approval – so we can end up with a quality product that everyone can accept and use. This is a cyclical process – meaning it will continue to be reviewed and revised as we go through each step of the process - and this busy group is also moving ahead with starting step 1 of the Contributing Factors list and has already begun meeting on this group of terms and definitions parallel to their work on the Accident Types list. Obviously we will be continuing our work on this charge into the next charge cycle.
  • Our second charge in the area of guidance and training on accident reporting, data entry, and use is listed here… READ… This is another ongoing charge for ERAC, with the intent of using NASBLA’s quickly expanding Connected Community as a tool to share analyses, data tools, research, and other items resulting from our charge work. Keep watching for updates in this area.
  • Our third charge area, accident data analyses, is the bread and butter of our committee. And we have some great products to share with you. The first charge in this area was to READ IT. Our target team for this charge included READ IT This charge was also follow-up to prior charge work involving a template, developed by Ken Ripley from Tennessee, that focused in on analysis of boating accident data – specifically fatalities – at the body of water level.
  • The findings from that initial analysis were so intriguing that this group was formed – and three other states (CT, OH, and TX) were asked to replicate the analysis to see if significant findings could also be found. Those findings did in fact bear fruit and proved useful to those states in local resource deployment and also provided data that correlated local with national trends. This group then went one step farther – developing instructional materials and an Excel tool to allow other states to complete such work if they had a desire – an “analysis in a box” if you will  We’ll be sharing that tool and additional background on this charge at a breakout session on Wednesday entitled “Making Your Accident Report Data Work for You” – and we hope you’ll join us to discuss this project and learn how you can use it in your state. Post-conference we’ll also be developing a webinar with additional instruction – through the Connected Community site – to provide you with support if you move forward with using these tools.
  • Our second charge in the area of accident analysis is equally as exciting, involving READ IT Our target team members for this charge were READ IT This is also a follow-up charge from previous consideration of nighttime glare issues associated with boating accidents and fatalities. In that prior charge, insufficient evidence was found for glare from the helm being a significant factor in nighttime accidents. Nonetheless, there was significant data indicating that nighttime accidents in general – and specifically fatalities – were important enough to be studied at a more global level – looking at all of the factors surrounding these incidents. Thus this charge was created and the group began analysis toward determining commonalities in types, causes, and circumstances surrounding these instances.
  • Analysis was conducted and selected findings indicate that: READ IT As with the prior charge, and actually in conjunction with that charge, the “Making Your Accident Report Data Work for You” session on Wednesday will also include additional findings from this group. Again, exciting stuff and we’d really like to see you there.
  • Our final charge in the area of accident data analyses is an ongoing charge to continue READ IT Our charge leader and team members on this target are READ IT This is an ongoing charge with ERAC, continuing to garner input from previous ERAC studies, as well as keeping abreast of other work being done out there to address other items that may be of interest to the committee and the greater NASBLA member audience as they develop. This will remain an ongoing charge for ERAC moving forward.
  • Our final group of charges relate to resource, advisory, and monitoring activities on several important projects that relate to data collection and analysis. The first is ongoing work to a charge we’ve shared with you in the past and involves READ IT Bill Griswold from USBI continues to head up these efforts with assistance from READ IT This work provides one way of capturing data on vessels that fail Vessel Safety Checks and could serve as a promising additional source of data for use in achieving the goals outlined in the National RBS Strategic Plan Objective 8 ad continues to move forward.
  • We’re happy to report that READ IT As this work continues forward we’ll continue to monitor its progress.
  • This year the group also offered it assistance in READ IT Our NASBLA representative – Deb Gona – along with team members Bob and Ted – head up this important partnership charge work.
  • The panel was seated in July of this year and is currently in the orientation/organizing stages, however ERAC stands ready to assist with data analysis in conjunction with this group in in whatever areas the Standards Panel sees fit to explore as we move into the 2012 charge cycle.
  • Another monitoring/advisory charge taken up by the committee this year involves READ IT. This is a project being coordinated by Ernie Marshburn out of East Carolina University – a name some of you may know from the Power Squadron – and is focused on collection of on-water data to consider geo-spatial details related to accidents as well as find a means of collecting information to allow normalization between those boaters involved in accidents and those NOT involved in accidents – in the same environments. This project also involves the introduction of a potential new platform for data collection in the field – SHOW UNIT – which is being used to capture data for the project and could potentially be used for VSC or accident reporting data collection in the future as well. ERAC’s involvement in general on this charge will be to monitor the success of these efforts and provide feedback to Mr. Marshburn regarding the details of the project as it moves into the analysis stage. Our charge team for this target includes READ IT
  • Data collection is now underway in both Ohio and Florida – and I’d like to recognize Richard Moore for his efforts on this project as well. Although not a formal member of ERAC this year, he and his staff have been instrumental in getting this project up and running – thank you  The electronic data collection units are now in use as well. Preliminary results will be made available at the Spring BLA Workshop, with final results to be made available next fall. So stay tuned on this charge – and for any of you who would like additional information on this project, see me later for Mr. Marshburn’s contact information.
  • Our final monitoring charge is READ IT and is headed up by a target team of READ IT This is follow-up charge to the initial development of an Inland Stability Standard (ISS) document developed by the Westlawn Institute of Technology as an alternative to the Simplified Stability Test under 46 CFR (Section 70 of the NASBLA Charter Boat Model Rules).
  • It is our understanding that Westlawn has now developed an online module for this program and has received accreditation from the US Department of Education. We also anticipate a future demonstration of that module.
  • One final item I would like to share with you today is a list of “priorities” developed by the ERAC Committee at our full committee meeting in Lexington back in March. NASBLA asked the group to consider potential items of importance that ERAC would like to see included in the next Strategic Plan Update and our ERAC members came up with several over-arching themes that I would like to share with you today… READ #1 – relates directly back to some of the ongoing charge work we have shared with you today and which we see as essential in the continuing need for quality data analysis regarding recreational boating issues #2 – Again, goes along with #1 #3 – relates directly to making sure that we continue to use the data we have to maximize what in some cases are diminishing resources
  • And finally #4 #5
  • That covers our presentation material, so I’ll open the floor to questions and comments…
  • Transcript

    • 1. ERAC Engineering, Reporting & Analysis Committee 2011 Committee Report Milwaukee, Wisconsin September 11, 2011 Tammy Terry – Chair Jeff Parrish – Vice Chair Eleanor Mariani – Board Liaison Susan Tomczuk/Jim Law/Mike Jendrossek – USCG Representatives
    • 2. <ul><li>“ The odds of hitting your target go up dramatically when you aim at it.” </li></ul><ul><li>- Mal Pancoast </li></ul>
    • 3. KEY ELEMENTS OF COMMITTEE CHARTER 2011 <ul><li>Evaluate, analyze data that can shed light on accident factors and inform development – and ultimately measure effectiveness – of boating safety policies/programs </li></ul><ul><li>To ensure research results are valid and reliable, actively seek ways to advance data quality, relevance, accuracy, consistency, applicability, completeness </li></ul>
    • 4. KEY ELEMENTS OF COMMITTEE CHARTER 2011 Practical Application <ul><li>Conduct analyses on targeted research questions </li></ul><ul><li>Recommend and – in partnership – actively work for improvements in criteria, processes, training associated with reporting, collecting, entering, using accident data </li></ul><ul><li>Identify boating safety programs and equipment design efforts that could mitigate identified risk factors </li></ul><ul><li>Monitor/participate in external task forces and work groups </li></ul>
    • 5. 12 CHARGES IN FOUR KEY AREAS <ul><li>Regarding proposed federal rulemaking and policy guidance </li></ul><ul><li>Guidance and training on accident reporting, data entry, use </li></ul><ul><li>Accident data analyses </li></ul><ul><li>Resource/advisory/monitoring activities </li></ul>
    • 6. Regarding proposed federal rulemaking and policy guidance <ul><li>Target: Monitor, inform, develop feedback on USCG response to 2010 NPRM on SNS/VIS/BARD </li></ul><ul><li>Target Team: Full Committee </li></ul><ul><li>Bullseyes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Coast Guard response – in the form of a Final Rule – expected in near future </li></ul></ul>
    • 7. Regarding proposed federal rulemaking and policy guidance <ul><li>Target: Gather, provide input to anticipated USCG rulemaking proposals to revise accident reporting system and processes </li></ul><ul><li>Target Team: Full Committee </li></ul><ul><li>Bullseyes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recreational Vessel Reporting Notice of Advisory Committee recommendations; request for additional public comments, published Sept. 6, 2011 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Additional discussion at BLA Workshop on Monday, Sept. 12 </li></ul></ul>
    • 8. Regarding proposed federal rulemaking and policy guidance <ul><li>Target: Request clarification on accident reporting criteria and procedures, inform states on outcomes. Monitor progress/offer input and support to completion of CG 449 </li></ul><ul><li>Target Team: Full Committee </li></ul><ul><li>Bullseyes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ongoing </li></ul></ul>
    • 9. Guidance and training on accident reporting, data entry, use Target: Incorporate guidance on accident reporting and application of existing and revised categories into accident investigation course work materials and into BARD-Web data entry training Target Team: Gary Haupt, MO (Charge Leader) Susan Tomczuk, USCG (Charge Leader) Ken Ripley, TN Cody Jones, TX Fred Messmann, NSBC Amy Rigby, CA John Adey, ABYC Eric Lundin, CT Mike Jendrossek, USCG Mike Baron, USCG
    • 10. Guidance and training on accident reporting, data entry, use <ul><li>Bullseyes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Process for developing consensus on standardized terms/definitions list approved by NASBLA Executive Board and USCG, mid-June 2011 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Step #1 - Development of consensus list of terms/ definitions by ERAC Charge Group B-1 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Step #2 - Deliver consensus list to Executive Board and full ERAC Committee for review/comments/consensus </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Step #3 - Deliver consensus list to USCG for internal review/comments/consensus </li></ul></ul></ul>
    • 11. Guidance and training on accident reporting, data entry, use <ul><li>Bullseyes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Process for developing consensus on standardized terms/definitions list approved by NASBLA Executive Board and USCG, mid-June 2011 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Step #4 – Deliver consensus list to states for review/comments/consensus </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Step #5 – Submit final consensus list to Executive Board for formal recognition/acceptance by the states </li></ul></ul></ul>
    • 12. Guidance and training on accident reporting, data entry, use <ul><li>Bullseyes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Team-recommended Accident Types terms/definitions list currently in review by Board and full ERAC Committee; will be released to USCG, and then the States for comment, post-conference </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Team work ongoing for Contributing Factors/Causes, Vessel Types, Activity, Operation lists </li></ul></ul>
    • 13. Guidance and training on accident reporting, data entry, use <ul><li>Target: Explore development of online forum to expand discussions on recreational boating accident analysis and data issues with other researchers and data users </li></ul><ul><li>Target Team: Full Committee </li></ul><ul><li>Bullseyes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intent to use NASBLA’s online “Connected Community” to share analyses, data tools, and other items resulting from ERAC charge work </li></ul></ul>
    • 14. Accident Data Analyses <ul><li>Target: Replicate concept of 2009 ERAC template, which used Tennessee data to visually depict fatality trends by body of water, in at least two more states, and create instruction documentation </li></ul><ul><li>Target Team: Ken Ripley (Charge Leader) Eric Lundin (Charge Leader) Eleanor Mariani, CT Jim Law, USCG Cody Jones, TX Amy Rigby, CA Tammy Terry, OH </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
    • 15. Accident Data Analyses <ul><li>Bullseyes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Four states participated: TN, CT, TX, OH </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>State findings proved useful to local resource deployment; correlated local with national trends </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional materials and an Excel “tool” were developed; template, findings, uses will be featured in “Making Your Accident Report Data Work for You,” a 10:00 a.m. breakout session Wed., Sept. 14 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Additional webinar/online access to “tool” and instructions to be made available through NASBLA’s online “Connected Community,” post-conference </li></ul></ul>
    • 16. Accident Data Analyses <ul><li>Target: Conduct comprehensive review of BARD and other appropriate statistics to isolate and examine all factors associated with nighttime recreational boating accidents </li></ul><ul><li>Target Team: Jeff Parrish (Charge Leader) Amy Rigby, CA Scott Brewen, OR Tom Guess, VA Cody Jones, TX Eleanor Mariani, CT Chris Edmonston, BoatUS Dan Maxim, USCGAux, Dick Snyder, Mercury Pete Chisholm, Mercury Karen Steely, Aaron Foundation Tammy Terry, OH </li></ul>
    • 17. Accident Data Analyses <ul><li>Bullseyes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Analysis conducted; selected findings indicate that nighttime accidents: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Are more likely to be fatal </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Differ significantly from daytime accidents in frequency of accident types and accident causes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Are strongly related to behavioral causes, particularly alcohol use </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analysis results will be highlighted in “Making Your Accident Report Data Work for You,” a 10:00 a.m. breakout session on Wed., Sept. 14 </li></ul></ul>
    • 18. Accident Data Analyses <ul><li>Target: Continue monitoring/examining applications of methodologies that could isolate operator- and vessel-related factors from other potential influences on boating accidents </li></ul><ul><li>Target Team: Dan Maxim (Charge Leader) Tom Guess, VA Chris Edmonston, BoatUS Bob Sweet, USPS </li></ul><ul><li>Bullseyes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ongoing </li></ul></ul>
    • 19. Resource/Advisory/Monitoring Activities <ul><li>Target: Counsel task force activities associated with United Safe Boating Institute’s (USBI) FY 2011 grant project to evaluate methods of capturing Vessel Safety Check data </li></ul><ul><li>Target Team: Bill Griswold, USBI (Charge Leader) Ted Sensenbrenner, BoatUS USBI grant project advisory group </li></ul>
    • 20. Resource/Advisory/Monitoring Activities <ul><li>Bullseyes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>USBI database has been developed; web-based entry screen for examiners to capture/input data on vessels that fail the VSC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Powerpoint for training purposes has been developed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Additional grant application to be submitted to pilot the program in six states (Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, Washington) </li></ul></ul>
    • 21. Resource/Advisory/Monitoring Activities <ul><li>Target: Serve as resource to preliminary work of National Boating Education Standards Panel as it develops criteria for risk-based, data-driven analysis of Standards </li></ul><ul><li>Target Team: Deb Gona (resource leader) Bob Sweet, USPS Ted Sensenbrenner, BoatUS </li></ul>
    • 22. Resource/Advisory/Monitoring Activities <ul><li>Bullseyes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Panel seated July 2011; currently in orientation/organizing stages; gathering data resources and studies in anticipation of ‘call for revisions’ to Standards in near future </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Carryover into 2012 </li></ul></ul>
    • 23. Resource/Advisory/Monitoring Activities <ul><li>Target: Serve in advisory role to research project underway on “Reducing Recreational Boating Accidents through Advanced Risk Analysis” </li></ul><ul><li>Target Team: Tammy Terry (Charge Leader) Ken Ripley, TN Fred Messmann, NSBC Bob Sweet, USPS Ted Sensenbrenner, BoatUS </li></ul>
    • 24. Resource/Advisory/Monitoring Activities <ul><li>Bullseyes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Data collection underway in Florida and Ohio </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Electronic data collections units now in use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preliminary results from the study to be made available at the spring BLA Workshop; final results to be made available next fall </li></ul></ul>
    • 25. Resource/Advisory/Monitoring Activities Target: In follow up to ERAC’s FY 10 review of the Inland Stability Standard, stay informed about progress of Westlawn Institute’s development of ISS distance training module Target Team: Eric Lundin (Charge Leader) Cody Jones, TX John Adey, ABYC Ted Sensenbrenner, BoatUS
    • 26. Resource/Advisory/Monitoring Activities <ul><li>Bullseyes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Westlawn developed online module, received accreditation from U.S. Dept. of Education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Anticipate future demonstration of module </li></ul></ul>
    • 27. NASBLA Strategic Plan Development ERAC input to three- to five-year objectives Gathered at March 4, 2011, meeting of the full committee <ul><li>Achieve standardization and consistency in accident reporting terminology and clarity in reporting requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Improve quality and quantity of information collected on boating accidents </li></ul><ul><li>Analyze data to assess risk, inform resource allocation, and determine effectiveness of boating safety initiatives </li></ul>
    • 28. NASBLA Strategic Plan Development ERAC input to three- to five-year objectives Gathered at March 4, 2011, meeting of the full committee <ul><li>Enhance partnerships in development of boat design and equipment safety standards and in rulemaking </li></ul><ul><li>Develop and support stronger understanding of factors associated with life jacket wear </li></ul>
    • 29. <ul><li>QUESTIONS </li></ul><ul><li>??? </li></ul>

    ×