|
Safety-at-Sea Committee Meeting
Friday,
October 17, 2003
1200
- 1500 Hours
St.
Louis, MO
Reports
Interpreting
Data on Crew Overboard Accidents
John Rousmaniere, March 11, 2003, rev. September 5,
2003
Since many boating accidents go unreported, when
data become available we should leap on them in order to better
understand how accidents may be avoided.
There are two sets of data – one from the Seattle area, the
other from the Great Lakes – that offer important points about crew
overboard accidents.
Two
lessons learned from the Seattle Sailing Foundation’s study of 105 COB
accidents
The spreadsheet that the Seattle Foundation sent me
did not make total sense. I
have asked Matt Pederson to clarify it.
But I can draw these conclusions:
1. Water
temperature is crucial to recovery.
Of the people who went over in cold water, 54% died.
But in warm water, only 31% died.
2. The
Life Sling works even indirectly. Sometimes,
when the Life Sling itself did not make the rescue, the victim was still
recovered alive. There are three overlapping interpretations:
- Elements
of the Life Sling rescue strategy (such as the quick stop) are as
important as the entire strategy itself
- Or,
Life Sling training makes better sailors, and better sailors make
better rescuers
- Or,
good sailors buy Life Slings
Lessons
learned from a study of 80 COB accidents on the Great Lakes
In 1998, Chicago sailor Glenn McCarthy, a member of
U.S. Sailing’s Safety-at-Sea Committee, gathered data about
crew-overboard accidents during races on the Great Lakes.
He found firm information about 80 accidents from 1960-1998.
McCarthy estimates that
at least once every four years, a Great Lakes racing sailor dies in a
COB accident.
Below is a summary of his findings that was
published in Sailing World,
December 1998-January 1999, and is used here with the magazine’s
permission.
-
How it happens: McCarthy's
study indicates that the most likely way to go overboard is if your
boat sinks, which can occur in a grounding, after a collision, or
for other reasons. Other common ways to go overboard include
slipping or being washed through the lifelines or being knocked over
by the boom in an accidental jibe. Lifeline failures were also often
cited.
-
Who
goes overboard: Sailors
won't be surprised to learn that the crew most at risk is the bow
person, followed by those in the mid-cockpit. But for every two crew
on the bow who go in the water, one helmsman goes in. No position is
risk-free; even sailors below decks can be pulled overboard by an
unruly spinnaker. Perhaps more thought provoking, however, is the
fact that in one-third of the incidents in McCarthy's study,
multiple crew were in the water, normally a much more difficult
recovery situation.
-
When it happens: Nearly
a third of the overboard incidents in the study took place at night.
The study says that there are only six races a year on Lake Michigan
that go overnight, while there are 150 to 175 day races for offshore
boats. That suggests you're more than eight times as likely to fall
overboard during a night race. The study also reports a high
incidence of falling overboard before or after the race or in
relatively benign situations when sailors were less vigilant.
-
What's
the wind strength?
The study indicates that extreme winds make overboard
situations more likely, yet that is no guarantee of safety in
lighter air. In 74% of the cases, crews went overboard in winds less
than 27 knots; 40% occurred in winds under 18 knots. The majority of
incidents occurred with wave heights of 3 feet or less.
-
Injuries reported: More
than a third of the cases involved injury. Most commonly, sailors
suffered from hypothermia, but the next most common result was
death. Other injuries included a broken collar bone, broken teeth
and jawbone, and rope burns.
-
Personal flotation: 40% of the time, the study shows, the sailor
overboard was wearing personal flotation. Of the nine sailors who
died, two were wearing flotation (though in one case the PFD-clad
sailor was fatally injured in a two-boat collision before going
overboard). Four sailors were not wearing flotation, and three who
went missing following a 1965 sinking were not recovered and
presumably were not wearing flotation.
For
McCarthy’s case studies and statistics, see:
http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Studies/1998_lmsrf_study.asp
http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Studies/1998_lmsrf_stats.pdf
|
Proposed Changes to Special Regulations
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
Chuck's Proposed Wording
|
Chuck's Reasoning
|
Glenn's Comments
|
Chuck's Additional
Comments
|
|
3.09.8a
|
Each scupper shall have
a net cross sectional area equivalent to a circle with a 1"
diameter (.78 sq. in.) or 25mm diameter (490 sq. mm).
|
I can’t understand the
current rule. Either we define the area which is not obstructed,
or define diameters. What is a one inch unobstructed opening or
the equivalent? Sorry that I don’t have exact wording, but this
rule has to be able to be interpreted by an inspector with a
simple ruler.
|
I agree that “1
inch” does not make sense.
What I think you want is the use of “1 square inch (or
equivalency)”. I
gave a shot at it, change the technical wording to meet what you
were looking for it, if needed.
Only change the “Proposed Wording” section.
|
Revised wording says
that if you're going to have scuppers, they have to be at least as
large in unobstructed area as a 1" diameter hole.
|
|
3.27.3
|
Navigation lights shall
meet appropriate COLREGS standards based on the length of the
boat.
|
Simplicity. Currently
Table 11 and Table 14 repeat information that is in COLREGS. We
don’t want to get in the position of suggesting various light
combinations a la Chapman’s.
|
The difference between
the “Current Wording” and “Proposed Wording” is the
deletion of the “US SAILING Prescription, and Table 14”.
I think this is what you intend, and probably is ready to
go.
|
I intend my wording to
replace both Table 11 and Table 14. Meet the COLREGS or USCG
requirements, and that's it.
|
|
3.28.2
b
|
Omit reference to
portable generators.
|
The regulations require
that generators be permanently installed (3.28.2 a). Why would you
then have a statement about portable generators in 3.28.2 b?
|
The difference between
the “Current Wording” and “Proposed Wording” is the
deletion of “b) A portable generator shall never be operated
inside a yacht MoMu0,1,2,3”.
I think this is what you intend, and probably is ready to
go.
|
Great
|
|
4.1
|
“…radar reflectors
shall have a minimum documented ‘equivalent echoing area’ of 6
sq. m.”
|
Use term RCS or Radar
Cross Section, instead of “equivalent echoing area” which is
the accepted term. Incidentally, all of 4.10 needs to be rewritten
either around currently available models, or on a tighter
specification.
|
You stated, “all of
4.10 needs to be rewritten”.
Be my guest!
|
New wording: Radar
reflectors shall have a radar cross section which is greater than
5 sq. m. for at least 240 degrees of rotation perpendicular to the
reflector's axis, and shall have a radar cross section of greater
than 2.5 sq. m. at a angle of heel of 20 degrees for at least 240
degrees of rotation.
|
|
4.19.2
|
Remove comment about
GPIRBs.
|
I recommend that we omit
safety advice from US Sailing prescriptions. Either have a
prescription that is mandatory, or leave it out. The SRs should be
as terse and factual as possible; not a bully pulpit for safety
advice.
|
The difference between
the “Current Wording” and “Proposed Wording” is the
deletion of “(the device may then be known as a “GPIRB”)”.
I think this is what you intend, and probably is ready to
go.
|
No, I would simply omit
the reference. Since a GPIRB is a subset of a 40 Mhz EPIRB, we
don't need to recommend it.
|
|
4.19.4
|
Remove comment about
inadequacies of Class B
|
Same as above.
|
I can not pick out the
“Class B” wording that you think should go.
There is no difference between the “Current Wording”
and “Proposed Wording”. Please
modify only the “Proposed Wording” to remove the Class B
comments you wish gone.
|
Sorry, I meant the
comments on the 121.5 MHz units. I would delete the first, third,
and fourth paragraphs in 4.19.4.
|
|
4.19.4
|
Remove comment about
Argos beacons.
|
Same as above.
|
I am not exactly sure
what wording you want changed.
There is no difference between “Current Wording” and
“Proposed Wording”. Please
modify the “Proposed Wording”.
|
This is the third
paragraph in 4.19.4. I suggest deleting reference to Argos
beacons. It's only a recommendation.
|
|
4.19.4
|
False alarm information
|
Same as above.
|
I am not exactly sure
what wording you want changed.
There is no difference between “Current Wording” and
“Proposed Wording”. Please
modify the “Proposed Wording”.
|
This is the fourth
pargraph in 4.19.4. I suggest deleting it.
|
|
5.02.1
|
Remove “strongly”
|
The Special Regulations
are either mandatory or permissive, as defined in 1.03.2 and
1.03.3. You either have to have the gear, or training, or boat
construction details, or you don’t
.
We should avoid “degrees” of mandate or recommendation
by omitting words like “strongly”. I know we all have opinions
on what should be on boats, but the purpose of the Special
Regulations is to define minimum standards, not preach safety
concepts or plead for more gear.
|
The difference between
the “Current Wording” and the “Proposed Wording” is that
the word “strongly” is removed in one place.
|
|
5.07.1
|
Remove
"strongly" twice.
|
|
The difference between
the “Current Wording” and the “Proposed Wording” is that
the word “strongly” is removed in two places.
|
Back To
October
17, 2003 Minutes
Back to Agendas & Minutes Index |
