TESTIMONY OF
GEORGE BLACK, MEMBER
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARKS
WASHINGTON SENATE
ON
PERSONAL FLOTATION DEVICES FOR CHILDREN
JANUARY 23, 1997

Good morning, Chairman Oke and Committee members. It is a pleasure to be here today on behalf of the National Transportation Safety Board. We are pleased to share with you our findings with respect to recreational boating accidents and recommendations for addressing the problems we found.

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress to investigate transportation accidents, determine their probable cause and make recommendations to prevent their recurrence. The recommendations that arise from our investigations and safety studies are our most important product. In our 27-year history, more than 80 percent of our recommendations have been adopted.

Nationwide, there were 836 recreational boating fatalities reported to the Coast Guard in 1995, a 6.6 percent increase from the previous year. Information from an earlier survey by the American Red Cross indicates that more than 350,000 persons are injured from recreational boating accidents annually, and more than 40 percent of these injuries require medical treatment beyond first aid. The number of recreational boats and the speed at which many of these recreational boats can operate has increased dramatically in recent years.

The Safety Board has twice conducted major studies of recreational boating accidents, in 1983 and 1993. In its most recent study, the Safety Board reviewed data from the Coast Guard and asked 18 States to provide information on their 1991 fatal boating accident investigations. Safety studies performed by other organizations also were reviewed. Information on 407 fatal recreational boating accidents involving 478 fatalities that occurred in 18 States in 1991 was reviewed for this study. This represented about 52 percent of the 779 fatal accidents and 924 fatalities that occurred in that year.

The Board has conducted a number of detailed investigations into recreational boating accidents. The minimal use of personal flotation devices (PFDs) in fatal recreational boating accidents is disturbing. One particular accident that occurred in Arkansas highlights the Board's concerns and, I think, this committee's concerns.

At about 11:30 on a Sunday morning a 9-person family boarded a family-owned boat at a public boat launching area on the Fourche La Fave River near Perryville, Arkansas. The family, which included a man, a woman, and children ranging in age from 16 months to 14 years, intended to go down the river to fish from the bank. The man and a 12 year old girl were the only persons on board the boat who were able to swim. The 14-foot long boat, was made of aluminum and had a 9.9 horsepower outboard motor. It was open and flat-bottomed with four bench seats.

The weather was clear, visibility was good, there were light winds and the temperature was 90 degrees. At the site of the accident, the river was approximately 80 feet wide, and its depth at the center varied from 9 to 50 feet.

Neither the boat nor the passengers were equipped with personal flotation devices. Motorboats in Arkansas of less than 10 horsepower were not required to carry PFDs.

As the boat headed downstream, water splashed on the boy and girl who were sitting in the front seat. They moved rearward, causing the boat to flood. It sank in the middle of the river, in about 14 feet of water, and about 100 feet downstream from the boat launching area. A 12 year-old girl swam the 30 to 40 feet to shore, and a 14 year-old girl supported herself in the water by holding onto the bow of the boat, which remained above the surface.

Two fishermen, who arrived at the boat-launching area shortly after the accident, found the 12-year-old on the river bank and the 14-year-old holding onto the boat. The men entered the water and brought her ashore. One of the rescuers searched the river bank for more survivors. He found a 4-year-old in the water, near the river bank, in the approximate area of the accident. She was unconscious. Although he administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), the child was pronounced dead upon arrival at a local hospital. Officials started a search by boat, and found five other victims that day, and one the next day.

The Safety Board's investigation of this accident concluded that contributing to the loss of these seven lives was the lack of personal flotation devices.

This tragedy can be contrasted with another that occurred in San Pablo Bay, California in which the use of PFDs clearly made a difference. At about 2:00 p.m. on a Friday afternoon, 2 adult males, one adult female, and 5 children (ages 18 months to 9 years) departed a California marina in a 15-foot-long open boat powered by a 70-horsepower outboard motor

The ten mile trip across San Pablo Bay to an island was uneventful. About 5:30 p.m., the party departed the island. On the return trip, the boat was heading into the wind and waves, and the trip was rougher than the earlier crossing.

As the boat neared the entrance channel to the river leading back to the marina, the outboard motor stopped because the primary fuel tank ran dry. With the boat drifting and rolling, the fuel line was connected to a reserve tank, but efforts to restart the motor were unsuccessful. When one of the adult males moved to the back of the boat to try and remedy the situation, the stern of the vessel sank. The five children were wearing personal flotation devices; the three adults retrieved theirs from a forward locker before the bow went under water.

About 6:00 a.m. the following day, a local fisherman spotted the adult female drifting near the river's entrance about one mile from where the boat sank. She was rescued and the Coast Guard was notified. Based on her report, a full scale search was initiated. By mid-morning, an additional survivor (the nine-year old child) was found, along with the bodies of the other four children and one adult male. The children died from hypothermia. All were about five miles from the accident site. The surviving child was treated for hypothermia. Fortunately, the mother and one child were rescued because they were wearing their PFDs.

Another brief example shows the effectiveness of PFDs in very different circumstances:

Three men launched a small inflatable vinyl plastic raft on the Arkansas River near Swissvale, Colorado. After traveling about 2 miles, they started through a rapid. Their raft was thrown sideways, hit a small rock, and capsized, throwing all three men into the water. Two men wearing PFDs struggled and eventually reached the river bank. Although there were three PFDs on board the raft, the third man was not wearing one and he drowned in the accident.

It is notable that a Colorado state park ranger had spotted the three men earlier in the day rafting on the same stretch of river. Observing that one of the rafters was not wearing a PFD, the ranger made contact with the men and, after determining that the correct number of PFDs were on board, recommended that the remaining rafter also wear his PFD. The rafter asked if he was required by law to wear a PFD and was told that he was not, whereupon he did not put it on, despite the fact that he could not swim. This man was the same individual who drowned in the accident later in the day. The two other men in the raft, both of whom were wearing PFDs survived, even though the water was quite cold.

Of the 478 fatalities that occurred in the accidents examined in our study, 351 were reported by the States to be the result of drowning. Of those who drowned and for whom information on PFD use was available, 15 percent (50) wore PFDs and 85 percent (281) did not wear PFDs.

A detailed review of the 50 drownings in which the victims were wearing a PFD suggests that in each case, factors such as exposure to cold water, being trapped under water, being unconscious, wearing the wrong type of PFD or wearing the PFD improperly, contributed to the cause of death. A review of the 281 drownings in which the victims were not wearing a PFD suggests that in 15 percent of the drownings (43 drownings) there were factors that PFDs may not have been able to overcome. However, this suggests that as many as 238 persons in the 18-State sample (85 percent of the drowning victims) may have survived had they been wearing a PFD.

The Safety Board believes it is incumbent on the States to increase the level of PFD usage. This objective can be achieved by mandating PFD usage for persons involved in recreational boating activities or situations that are perceived as dangerous. Examples of these activities include boating in rough or hazardous waters, use of personal watercraft (commonly known as jet skis), water skiing, and solo vessel operation. Thirty-seven States and the District of Columbia currently have some type of PFD requirements. Washington law requires skiers and personal watercraft users to wear personal flotation devices.

At a minimum, the Safety Board believes that children should be required to wear PFDs. Thus, the Safety Board recommended that the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators and the American Academy of Pediatrics determine an age at which children should be required to wear PFDs when boating. These organizations responded, and the Safety Board concurs, that at the very minimum, children age 12 and under should be required to wear PFDs.

As a result, recommendations were issued to the States asking them to consider requiring greater use of PFDs and making their use by children mandatory. The Board also believes that requiring children to wear PFDs will eventually result in more adults wearing PFDs, such as occurred with the use of child safety seats and safety belts in automobiles.

Currently, 27 States require children to wear PFDs, although the age limit ranges from 5 and under to under 13. But, it is our understanding that Washington has no requirement for children. The measure before you would cover children age 9 and under. We believe that this is a reasonable first step toward preventing tragedies such as those we have been called upon to investigate.

Thank you again for inviting the Safety Board to testify about this important problem and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.