Inside the NTSB’s General Aviation Investigative Process

Addressing Medical Issues

By Dr. Nicholas Webster, NTSB Medical Officer

This is the second blog in a new series of posts about the NTSB’s general aviation investigative process. This series, written by NTSB staff, explores how medical, mechanical, and general safety issues are examined in our investigations.

The NTSB investigates every aviation accident in the United States. In each investigation, we look at the roles of the human, the machine, and the environment. By learning about the factors that cause an accident, we can make recommendations to prevent similar accidents in the future.

I am one of two medical officers (physicians) at the NTSB who work closely with investigators in all modal offices. When an investigator-in-charge (IIC) is concerned that operator medical issues, drugs, or toxins may have affected performance, he or she coordinates with us to study the medical aspects of the event. The medical officers review medical documents, toxicological testing results, and sometimes autopsy reports of those involved in accidents. In conjunction with the investigative team, we help determine if operator impairment or incapacitation contributed to the cause of the accident, then we help craft language to explain to the public the nature and significance of the medical issues and how they affected the operator and contributed to the accident’s cause. We also work closely with the Board’s biodynamics and survival factors experts to help evaluate accident-caused injuries and determine what changes could be made to prevent future injuries.

The resulting information is presented in a medical factual report, which documents all pertinent medical issues and any potential hazards that the medical issues posed. To ensure accuracy, these fact-based scientific reports are peer reviewed by the investigative staff before they are published as part of the public docket. The medical, factual, and operational details of each event are then analyzed by the investigatory team, which determines probable cause by consensus, peer review concurrence, and Board authority. The probable cause represents the most likely explanation for the event given all available evidence.

Two recent cases have garnered some attention in the general aviation (GA) community, both involving fully functional airplanes operating in manageable weather. In these cases, both pilot action (error or impairment) and pilot inaction (incapacitation) can lead to an accident. In these cases, we found that the pilots were operating in a relatively low-workload environment and had the skill and experience necessary to safely complete the flights. On the other hand, medical data showed that both pilots had severe heart issues that could cause sudden incapacitation without leaving a trace.

The first accident occurred on April 11, 2015, when an experimental Quad City Challenger II airplane crashed into terrain near Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. The 77-year-old pilot died and the airplane was substantially damaged. The pilot had the skill and experience to operate the airplane in visual conditions. According to witnesses, while the airplane was on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern at the pilot’s home airport, it entered a steep dive that continued until it struck the ground in an open field. Investigators found no evidence of preexisting mechanical concerns and, based on the propeller damage, determined that the engine was producing power at impact. Operational evidence also strongly supported pilot incapacitation.

The pilot had a history of coronary artery disease, which was treated by multivessel bypass surgery. He also had high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, and hypothyroidism, which were controlled with medications. The autopsy showed that the pilot had an enlarged heart; severe multivessel coronary artery disease (greater than 80-percent occlusion of all vessels), with coronary artery bypass grafts and complete occlusion of two bypass vessels; scarring of the ventricular septum, indicating he had had a previous heart attack; and active inflammation of the anterolateral wall of the left ventricle of his heart. These findings, particularly the large scar and active inflammation of the heart muscle, placed the pilot at high risk for an irregular heart rhythm, which can easily cause decreased blood to the brain and result in fainting without leaving further evidence at autopsy.

Additionally, according to the Chippewa County Coroner Death Report, the cause of death was blunt force trauma. However, the examining pathologist further stated, “the most likely scenario to explain [the pilot’s] death is that he suffered an arrhythmia secondary to myocarditis.” These findings are discussed in detail in the medical factual report. Based on the available evidence, we determined the probable cause of the accident to be the pilot’s incapacitation due to a cardiovascular event, which resulted in a loss of control and subsequent impact with terrain.

The second accident of note was the crash into terrain of a homebuilt Europa XL airplane on June 26, 2015. As in the previous case, the pilot died and the airplane was substantially damaged. In this accident, the 72-year-old pilot also had the skill and experience needed to successfully complete the flight, especially given that it was a clear day and he was operating under visual flight rules.

The airplane crashed under power in a steep, nose-down, slightly inverted attitude in an open field about a half mile from the end of the runway, slightly to the right of an extended centerline. According to the IIC, there was no evidence of preexisting mechanical concerns, the engine was operating at impact, and the operational evidence suggested pilot incapacitation.

The pilot had a history of severe coronary artery disease, which was treated with multivessel bypass surgery, stents, and medication. Additionally, he had elevated cholesterol and high blood pressure, which were treated with medications. Since his last medical certification examination, an exercise stress test showed no significant changes, but a cardiac catheterization report documented that his coronary artery disease had progressed, resulting in 90‑percent occlusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery and impaired blood flow to a part of the heart muscle. Additionally, the autopsy identified multivessel coronary artery disease treated with patent coronary artery bypass grafts, and documented up to 70-percent occlusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery.

These findings are discussed in detail in the medical factual report. The pilot’s severe progressive coronary artery disease and the impaired blood flow to an area of his heart muscle placed the pilot at high risk for an acute cardiovascular event such as a heart attack, anginal attack, or acute arrhythmia. Any such event would likely cause a sudden onset of symptoms such as chest pain, severe shortness of breath, palpitations, or fainting, and would leave no evidence visible on autopsy if death occurred in the first few minutes.

The Mahoning County Coroner Autopsy Report cited multiple blunt force injuries as the cause of death, with coronary artery disease and chronic hypertension contributing to the cause of death. Again, although the pilot died of blunt force injuries, the evidence supports our finding that the accident sequence was likely initiated by his incapacitation due to a cardiovascular event.

These cases illustrate how we integrate medical findings into our investigations. We also provide interested parties with links to publicly available, detailed information that supports our findings. In both of the cases described here, the medical factual reports document significant medical issues in pilots who were operating under sport pilot rules; however, we only determined the medically related probable causes after thorough, scientific, peer-reviewed analysis of all the available facts concerning the human, the machine, and the environment.

Our goal is to identify medically related hazards that may be causal to or resultant from the accidents we investigate, and then work with the experts on the investigative team to develop mitigation strategies, which take the form of safety recommendations, that target and eliminate these hazards and improve transportation safety.

Inside the NTSB’s General Aviation Investigative Process

By Member Earl F. Weener

This is the first in a new series of posts about the NTSB’s general aviation investigative process. This series, written by NTSB staff, will explore how medical, mechanical, and general safety issues are examined in our investigations. I hope you take time to read these posts and, in doing so, come away with a greater understanding of the NTSB, our processes, and our people.

It has been my ongoing honor and privilege to serve as a Member of the NTSB over the past seven years, and I’ve been impressed by the diverse professionals who make up the NTSB staff. They work in different modes—rail, highway, pipeline, marine, and aviation—and specialize in engineering, human factors, medicine, safety outreach, and recorders, to name a few, but they all share a common goal: to protect the traveling public through recommendations aimed at improving transportation safety.

The NTSB is made up of approximately 430 dedicated employees who have a wide range of educational backgrounds and relevant experience. Our ranks include MDs, JDs, and Ph.Ds. Among our investigators, we count former members of law enforcement, industry professionals, and technical experts. When we investigate an accident, a multidisciplinary team is selected to fit the needs of the investigation.

Member Weener and investigators at the scene of the July 2013, crash of a de Havilland Otter Air Taxi, in Soldotna, Alaska

I’m often asked how the NTSB—particularly our crash investigation process—works. The NTSB is required by law to investigate every aviation incident in the United States, and our aviation safety staff investigate more than 1,200 aviation events each year. Our investigative process looks at three factors—human, machine, and environment—to determine the probable cause of accidents and incidents. This process has evolved during our 50 years, leveraging the skills, talents, and professionalism of our people, who use the latest investigative techniques and tools to find facts, analyze those facts, and determine why and how an accident happened.

Investigators consider what may have caused or contributed to the events of every accident. They look for issues in areas such as mechanical failures, operations, and weather conditions. They doggedly work to recover all onboard recorders and other sources of data, even when those recorders may be severely damaged. They also consider pilot performance, collecting evidence regarding possible fatigue, medical fitness, prior training opportunities, and specific aircraft experience.

Evidence is gathered through cooperation with pilots, witnesses, law enforcement officials, the FAA, airport officials, industry, and other stakeholders; in extreme cases, our staff can also issue subpoenas to obtain needed evidence. Investigations cannot and do not try to answer every question of why and how, but focus on questions of what caused the accident, or made it worse. Probable cause is the factor—or factors—that, based on all available evidence, the Board concludes most likely resulted in the accident. It generally takes around a year to produce a final report, which includes a probable cause and contributing factors.

Based on our investigations and special studies, we issue safety recommendations to regulatory agencies, industry, and other parties to an investigation who are positioned to implement our suggestions and improve transportation safety. The NTSB isn’t a regulatory agency, so we cannot compel compliance with our recommendations; however, of the more than 14,500 safety recommendations issued in our 50-year history, more than 80 percent are acted upon favorably. This is testimony to the NTSB’s diligence, investigative acumen, and commitment to transportation safety.

Looking back over the years and contemplating the NTSB’s contributions, I am proud to see that transportation safety has, in fact, improved greatly—especially in commercial aviation. We have seen significant improvements in aircraft crashworthiness; the introduction of life-saving technologies, such as collision avoidance and ground proximity warning systems; implementation of safety policies and regulations aimed at preventing pilot impairment, distraction, and fatigue; and emphasis on safety management systems and enhanced flight crew procedures. NTSB investigations identified the need for these advancements and helped incentivize remarkable safety improvements. Modern commercial aviation is safer now than ever before.

I often quote author Douglas Adams, who tells us that people are almost unique in their ability to learn from others, but remarkable for their resistance to doing just that. You may have heard the old saying, “knowledge is power.” We believe “knowledge is safety.” I hope you take a moment to learn about the NTSB’s investigative process in the next several blog posts, and that you come away with a greater understanding of how we at the NTSB strive to turn our knowledge into safer transportation.

Teens and “Sleep Debt”

By: Dr. Jana Price

(This blog is also featured on NOYS.org.)

As young people’s schedules become busier and busier, it’s easy for sleep to fall off their priority list. Getting plenty of sleep helps youth complete tasks more efficiently, think clearly and creatively all day long, and stay alert while driving.

Although people generally recognize that sleep plays a significant role in ensuring they’re safe behind the wheel, many still admit to driving while fatigued. A recent AAA Foundation study found that 96 percent of drivers consider fatigued driving to be a serious threat and unacceptable behavior; however, nearly 3 in 10 of these same drivers admitted to driving drowsy. We believe that young drivers can avoid drowsiness if they better understand the importance of sleep, a sleep routine, and sleep debt.

Sleep is necessary for health, safety, and well-being. It helps the brain prepare for the upcoming day and allows new neural pathways to form that improve learning and memory. How much sleep do young drivers need? According to the National Sleep Foundation, teens ages 14 to 17 need 8 to 10 hours of sleep per night.

When people don’t get enough quality sleep, they begin to accumulate “sleep debt.” This can result from a late night of studying, getting up early for sports practice, or fragmenting sleep by using a cell phone during the night. Sleep debt accumulates over time and, ultimately, can affect a person’s ability to think and perform, negatively affecting tasks like driving. Sleep debt is also linked to high-risk behaviors, such as texting while driving, drinking and driving, and not wearing a seatbelt.

At the NTSB, we have witnessed the effects of unpaid sleep debt on teen drivers. On March 20, 2016, four teens were traveling home from a weekend trip at South Padre Island, Texas. About 1:57 p.m., the driver crossed the center median, lost control of the car, entered the opposing lanes of traffic, and collided with a truck-tractor semitrailer. The driver was seriously injured and her three passengers died. NTSB investigators learned that, in the 24 hours before the crash, the driver had very little opportunity for sleep: only about 5 hours on the morning of the crash. The crash also happened at a time of day when most people commonly experience a dip in alertness and performance; in fact, the three passengers in the car were all either asleep or dozing at the time of the crash. We determined that that the driver’s loss of control was due to inattention resulting from her fatigue.

What can teens do to reduce their risk of falling asleep behind the wheel? It’s important that youth get 8 to 10 hours of sleep each night to be rested and rejuvenated. They should resolve to create a good sleep environment, which includes maintaining a regular sleep schedule and keeping screens out of the bedroom. If a teen has built up a sleep debt by skimping on rest, he or she can pay it back by getting a good night’s sleep for several days in a row. Finally, teens should avoid driving during the night and early morning hours when sleep typically occurs.

As teens begin to plan their upcoming school schedules and enjoy their final weeks of summer vacation, they should make sure sleep and relaxation find a prominent place on their priority list. By encouraging youth to stay out of sleep debt, we can guarantee safer and more alert young drivers behind the wheel.

To learn more about this critical problem and how to help prevent teen drowsy driving crashes, join us for our Wake Up to Teen Drowsy Driving: Don’t Send Them Back to School in ‘Debt’ webinar.  To register for the webinar: https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/2417579063773167107

 

Jana Price, PhD, is a Senior Human Performance Investigator in the NTSB Office of Highway Safety.

 

 

 

ADAS Must be Implemented in CMVs Now

By Rob Molloy, PhD

On July 24, I had the privilege of co-facilitating a roundtable discussion that addressed strategies to increase implementation of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) —or collision avoidance systems—in the trucking industry. Many of the truck crashes we have investigated may have been mitigated or even completely prevented if the vehicles involved were equipped with ADAS. Considering that these technologies have been available in some shape or form since the 1990s, this conversation was long overdue. (See our Special Investigation Report and Most Wanted List fact sheet for more details.)

We joined forces with the National Safety Council to bring together some of the key players in the industry to discuss how we can increase ADAS implementation throughout trucking fleets. The benefits of technologies like collision warning and automatic emergency braking (AEB) are nearly indisputable, as shown in a number of published studies.

Dr. Robert Molloy leads roundtable discussion

Joining us at the table were technology suppliers, truck manufacturers, fleet owners, government officials, researchers, trucking associations, and highway safety advocates. One universally agreed-upon takeaway from this group was that the technology is improved and effective enough now that there is no reason more truck fleets shouldn’t have it in their vehicles. As one roundtable participant noted, “Don’t let what-ifs hold up proliferation of these technologies; this technology is ready to go . . . and the longer we wait, the more crashes will happen.” In response to concerns about occasional false alerts, another noted, “We can’t wait for the technology to be perfect.”

We talked about the current state of industry, driver training and acceptance, the challenges to implementation, the benefits of regulation versus voluntary compliance, and, ultimately, we identified ways to increase implementation.

So, what did we learn?

  • Strong cases exist for accident reduction and positive return-on-investment, and they need to be shared more. For example, Schneider reported a 95-percent reduction in accident severity and a nearly 70-percent reduction in frequency in vehicles with ADAS technology. The legal costs of accidents are tremendous and also serve as an incentive for ADAS adoption. “It only takes one accident to put a small fleet out of business,” one participant noted. We must keep reminding businesses of this.
  • We are talking about driver assistance systems, not driver replacement systems. Driver acceptance and training is key. Drivers must understand what certain alerts mean and the systems’ limitations. Performance standards will be a necessary component for more universally understood systems.
  • Regulations would speed the implementation process and will eventually be needed to reach all fleets and create a level playing field. In the meantime, there is also a model for voluntary compliance that works, such as the passenger vehicle AEB commitment made last year. In fact, at our roundtable, Volvo Trucks reminded us of their announcement to make a suite of ADAS standard on all of its newly manufactured trucks. Although Daimler Trucks hasn’t taken the step to make such systems standard yet, its representatives did note a doubling in the take rate of ADAS technology to 66% in their newly manufactured trucks.
  • Data from these systems can be used to develop better systems, validate their benefits, and understand driver activities. Much work needs to be done regarding the retention and use of this data.
  • ADAS technologies are only as successful as the underlying braking and stability systems with which they are integrated. Brakes must be properly maintained, and the electronic stability control mandate must be implemented.

Although this event was targeted toward truck fleets, the general public should care, too. Why? Because truck crashes, as compared to passenger vehicle crashes, disproportionately result in fatalities. Between 2014 and 2015, the number of large trucks involved in fatal crashes increased by 8 percent, from 3,749 to 4,050, and the number of large trucks involved in injury crashes was 87,000. The traveling public—the ones in the cars in front of, beside, and behind these trucks—should be leading the drum beat to ensure all trucks are equipped with the technology that could stop the vehicle if the driver can’t, or warn a driver if another vehicle suddenly stops or gets into their lane.

As I mentioned, late last year, passenger vehicle automakers committed to installing AEB in all passenger vehicles by 2022—some even earlier, so I challenged the trucking industry to do the same, with the NTSB facilitating the effort. The trucking industry should step up to this challenge now and send a message that this is an industry concerned with safety. From the many conversations that I have had with truck operators and drivers, this is a story I already know is largely true: the truck industry—one so vital to our economy—cares about the safety of its drivers and the overall safety of vehicles on our roads. A commitment toward using available technology in all its operations will drive that point home.

 The recording of the roundtable event is available on YouTube. Also see the NTSB website page for more details on the event.

 Dr. Robert Molloy is the Director of the NTSB Office of Highway Safety.

A Message to the International Aviation Community: Don’t Get Complacent

By Dennis Jones, Acting Managing Director

Acting Managing Director Dennis Jones talks about the issues affecting the aviation industry and needed safety improvements

Recently, I had the opportunity to address aviation experts at the 6th World Civil Aviation Chief Executives Forum in Singapore. This forum is a unique gathering of aviation leaders who meet to discuss the latest developments and issues affecting the global aviation industry and to exchange experiences, insights, and ideas. I spoke on a panel with colleagues from safety agencies across the world. Our topic was “Ensuring Oversight, Rethinking Safety.” We discussed the future role of safety regulation and the challenges facing safety management as the field continues to grow and develop. I was honored to share my thoughts on this topic because my entire career has been focused on improving safety, both as an investigator and manager with the NTSB for nearly 40 years and as a pilot.

Looking at the progress we have made in the world of commercial aviation here in the United States, one might say we have reached our pinnacle. Aviation is now the safest it has ever been, and we are experiencing a period of zero fatalities in the commercial sphere. But we must not get complacent; we must continue to grow and learn.

Although the aviation industry can share among itself the challenges we have overcome to improve transportation safety, we can also learn a lot from other modes of transportation, as well. For example, in rail, companies are installing in-cab video to monitor operator and crew behavior and to develop best practices to improve safety; aviation could—and should—do the same. At the same time, as more driver assistance technologies are installed in vehicles of all types, and fully automated vehicles are already being tested, the highway community could learn from aviation’s experience with using automation within its operating environment.

Avoiding complacency means keeping your eyes open, receiving and sharing information, and always being ready to respond. As a multimodal investigative agency, we have seen too many ways in which disasters can occur, and some have involved complacency—becoming too bored or familiar with standard operating procedures, which leads to a lack of interest or desire to follow the established procedures. By issuing safety recommendations, such as those focused on procedural compliance, we try to urge operators to avoid this risk and a subsequent tragic outcome.

Safety is a journey, not a destination. Although, we are seeing zero fatalities in commercial aviation, our general aviation community is still suffering losses every day, sustaining nearly 400 fatal accidents a year in the US alone. Why? We must keep asking the questions and seeking the answers to bring this number down to zero.

Acting Managing Director Dennis Jones and fellow Ensuring Oversight, Rethinking Safety panelists at the 6th World Civil Aviation Chief Executives Forum

The NTSB does not issue regulations; we are focused on solving the accident mystery and issuing appropriate recommendations to improve safety and prevent future incidents. Regulations may be one way to do this, but we have always understood that safety goes beyond rulemaking. One tool we use to call attention to the issues we can all act on is our Most Wanted List of transportation safety improvements. The Most Wanted List keeps us focused on our key safety priorities and is one way to avoid complacency on those most important live-saving issues. Despite how many regulations are in place, if an operator or individual doesn’t embrace safety, there is always an increased risk for an accident.

To continue the progress we’ve made, to ensure a safe transportation system for the traveling public, we must admit our own responsibility and role in improving safety, and we must work collaboratively: investigators, engineers, CEOs, pilots. Safety can only be achieved through worldwide collaboration and a continued invested interest in learning, growing, improving, and saving lives.

Preventing Crashes with Technology

By Erik Strickland

I’m a transportation geek. It’s an odd niche, but I’ve decided to own it. I’m also a fan of the latest-and-greatest when it comes to technology. I normally can’t afford to be an early adopter, but I keep an eye on things and jump in when the tech has started to prove itself.

This is how many vehicle manufacturers look at transportation safety technology, as well. They may develop a piece of tech, do tons of tests on it, and then roll it out on limited, trim levels; applying it first only to high-end models. That’s great for that new widget that makes the windshield wipers automatically kick on, but some things, like safety technology, need to be on all vehicles, not just on the high-end models. Last fall, we held a forum to discuss the importance of getting safety tech (like automatic emergency braking and collision avoidance systems) into passenger vehicles. It was a great discussion, and folks were amazed at how many vehicles lack these safety advancements.

But safety technology isn’t just for passenger vehicles; it’s just as important for commercial vehicles, like heavy-duty trucks and semi-tractor trailers. Safety technologies are incorporated into commercial vehicles at a much lower rate than they are in passenger vehicles, yet when heavy-duty vehicles are involved in a crash, the damage is often more severe than what you see in a passenger vehicle crash. What’s more, although many commercial vehicles are being designed and built to accommodate the new safety technology, operators are not requesting the tech or installing it.

Technology doesn’t replace the need for a safe driver, but, just like a seat belt, it acts as a secondary line of defense in case a crash does occur. We believe operators should include new safety tech in their vehicles just as they do seat belts, and we’re not the only ones who think that.

Next week, we’re co-hosting an event with the National Safety Council that will bring together leaders from all related stakeholder groups to discuss technology in heavy-duty trucking and how we can increase adoption rates.

Check out who’s coming to the roundtable and tune in to watch it online. It’s going to be an informative afternoon, and I hope everyone walks away as excited about transportation safety tech as I am, with great ideas on how to use it to make heavy-duty vehicles safer.

 

Erik Strickland is a Safety Advocate in the NTSB Office of Safety Recommendations and Communications

The Best Days of Their Lives

By: Stephanie Shaw

The school year has come to an end and summer vacation is in full swing! For many young people, summer vacation means summer jobs, trips away from home, and late nights with friends. It also means more time behind the wheel. As we embrace the excitement and freedom of summer, it’s also important to recognize that, for teens, it’s the beginning of the “100 Deadliest Days”—the driving season in which crashes involving teens ages 16 to 19 years old increase significantly. Youth drivers are getting behind the wheel with cellphones in hand or drowsy from long, summer nights.

Our Most Wanted List strives to end alcohol and other drug impairment, distraction, and fatigue‑related accidents, and calls for stronger occupant protection; during the 100 Deadliest Days, young drivers are often faced with many of the challenges included on the Most Wanted List, which makes the collaboration between the NTSB and youth‑serving organizations so vital.

It is imperative to engage in conversations with the young people who travel our roadways and discuss unsafe driving behaviors that could potentially impact their travels. Peer-to-peer programs have the power to influence meaningful change; youth are more likely to listen to and follow the example of their peers. We use our expertise in traffic safety and safety advocacy to enhance youth leaders’ traffic safety knowledge and support the work of peer-to-peer organizations dedicated to keeping youth safe on the roads. For example, we recently attended the Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) National Conference and the Family, Career, and Community Leaders of America (FCCLA) National Leadership Conference to inform young people about common driving dangers and discuss safe driving behaviors.

At the SADD Conference, youth leaders from across the United States gained valuable knowledge about safety advocacy and effective techniques for influencing policy in schools, communities, and states. At the FCCLA Conference, over 150 young leaders and advisors filled our session on drowsy driving, eager to gain a comprehensive understanding of sleep and drowsy driving. At both conferences, youth and advisors talked with us and shared what they were doing in their communities and schools to prevent their peers from making decisions that could end their lives. Many who

FCCLA students and advisors attend the Wake Up! 2 Drowsy Driving session at the 2017 National Leadership Conference

spoke with us were simply inspired to help others and to make a difference, but others’ concerns were much more personal. Countless youth stopped by and shared stories of the tragedies that led them to take action—classmates, friends, sisters, fathers who had been killed in drowsy, impaired, and distracted driving crashes. Friends killed and permanently injured because they weren’t wearing their seat belts when they were involved in a crash. Mothers sharing stories of their children killed in crashes so that no other family would have to experience the same loss.

One of the most effective methods for creating positive change in young peoples’ lives is to empower them to address the safety issues facing their schools, communities, and states. SADD and the FCCLA provide youth with the leadership skills, safety knowledge, and programming to collaborate with their peers and influence safe driving behaviors for future generations. To make our roads safer and reduce traffic fatalities, youth must use their voices to speak up, advocate for causes they care deeply about,

Students work together to develop advocacy campaigns during the Developing Future Safety Advocates workshop at the 2017 SADD National Conference

and create change in their peers’ lives by setting a positive example. The knowledge gained from experiences like the SADD Conference and the FCCLA Conference allows youth to identify and advocate for the solutions that will prevent teen deaths.

As youth entered the opening session of the SADD Conference, they were greeted by the song lyrics “This is gonna be the best day of my life.” For far too many youth, their lives will be cut short because of a crash during these 100 Deadliest Days. This summer, we encourage you to talk with the young people in your life to ensure that the best days of their life don’t end this summer.

Stephanie Shaw is a Safety Advocate in the NTSB Office of Safety Recommendations and Communications

The Official Blog of the NTSB Chairman

%d bloggers like this: