Reflecting back on 10 years as a Board Member

By Robert Sumwalt

On August 21, 2006, I was sworn in as the 37th member of the National Transportation Safety Board. At the same time, I was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve as NTSB Vice Chairman. In 2011, President Barack Obama reappointed me for an additional five-year term as a board member.

Robert Sumwalt, taking the oath of office, administered by then-NTSB Chairman Mark V. Rosenker on August 21, 2006.
Robert Sumwalt, taking the oath of office, administered by then-NTSB Chairman Mark V. Rosenker on August 21, 2006.

As I reflect on 10 years as an NTSB board member, there are several things that stand out. First, is the mission. Our role in transportation safety quickly became apparent when, on my seventh day on the job, I launched to an airline crash in Lexington, Kentucky. Tragically, that crash claimed 49 lives.

But, the NTSB’s primary mission involves more than just investigating accidents. It also involves determining the cause of accidents, and then, most importantly, issuing safety recommendations to prevent future accidents. At the entrance to our training center, we have an etched glass window that says, “From tragedy we draw knowledge to protect the safety of us all.” And that’s exactly what we do – we learn from tragedy so we can keep it from happening again.

Recently, one of our investigators wrote to me about a rail accident he investigated where fire and explosion claimed multiple lives. He told of meeting a man who was glaring at the carnage as he pushed a baby in a carriage. As it turned out, the man’s wife – the baby’s mother – had been killed in the disaster. Our investigator promised the man that the NTSB would get to the bottom of why this event occurred so other accidents could be prevented. “I also watched a man standing outside of the exclusion zone peering over the barrier in tears as a backhoe demolished his home,” the investigator explained in his note to me. “My thoughts were of those victims, and it was clear that we were being called upon to do this for them.”

Yes, we are here to give a voice to those who don’t have a voice—the victims and their families of transportation accidents. I take great solace knowing our work really does make a difference and keeps others from enduring similar tragedies.

The NTSB is an independent federal agency – meaning, we are not attached to a larger federal organization such as the U.S. Department of Transportation. In my opinion, independence is one of our greatest virtues because it allows the agency to conduct investigations and explore safety issues without being encumbered by actual or perceived political pressures. As I’ve often said, our independence allows us to “call it the way we see it.”

What also stands out to me is the dedication of the men and women of the NTSB. Their passion and determination to find the truth is uplifting. In the most recent employee viewpoint survey, 96 percent of respondents replied positively to the statement, “When needed I am willing to put in the extra effort to get a job done.” That demonstrates the commitment and dedication NTSB employees share for fulfilling our mission.

In addition to investigative activities, there is a proactive side to the NTSB. Our staff conducts safety studies, tracks and follows up on our safety recommendations, and advocates for safety improvements by providing testimony on safety issues, promoting our Most Wanted List, bringing important safety issues into the public discussion via social media efforts, and organizing safety events such as roundtable discussions.

One of the NTSB’s values is transparency; we are open and honest with the public about our work. We post on our website all accident reports and publications, as well as the docket for each accident. The docket provides reams of background information for accidents, such as interviews, photos, and technical information that may not be in the actual accident report. Our board meetings are webcast and open to the public. And, our Office of Safety Recommendations and Communications ensures the media are informed of the status of investigations by answering questions, arranging interviews, issuing press releases, and releasing updates through social media.

Many are surprised to learn that the NTSB also serves as a court of appeals for pilots, aircraft mechanics, and mariners who receive violation notices from the Federal Aviation Administration and U.S Coast Guard. The NTSB’s Office of Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) processes those cases, and our three ALJs hold hearings to adjudicate those matters.

The NTSB’s Office of Transportation Disaster Assistance – a highly trained group with expertise in social services, emergency management, and forensics – works closely with various organizations to meet the needs of disaster victims and their families. This group also serves as the primary point of contact for family members and disaster victims, providing updates regarding the status of NTSB investigations and addressing their questions. It takes a special person to do the work they do, and I’m always appreciative of how well they do it.

There are other parts of the agency that aren’t often acknowledged, but nevertheless are important to allowing the agency to function. As in any organization, job openings need to be posted and filled, bills paid, contracts written and executed, and our computers maintained. The employees who perform these functions are as dedicated as those performing the agency’s core mission.

To put it simply, I’m so proud to be part of this agency. Our mission, independence, transparency, and people are all so important. I’m honored to have served with them for the past 10 years.

Robert Sumwalt is an NTSB board member.

How Will You Send Your Kids to School? – Make Safety Your First Priority

By Leah Walton

I’ve worked in the traffic safety arena for more than 10 years. I know the rules of the road, I know the traffic statistics, and I know the safest mode of transportation.   

But what I don’t know yet is how I will feel when I send my first child to kindergarten. The first day of school is fast approaching, and I admit I’m getting emotional about it. Will my son be safe and happy in this new environment? Will he make friends? Is he ready for kindergarten? Where did the time go?

One thing we should also ask ourselves: how will our children get to and from school and what is the best way of getting there?

The best way to get to and from school varies from family to family, and sometimes even student to student. We must take into consideration all the options and determine the safest way to transport our children.

Students can travel by school bus, family vehicle, public transportation, bicycle, or walking. Regardless of the way they get there and back, we must teach them – and demonstrate for them – the safest practices and behaviors.

Will your child ride the school bus? It should be your first choice if it is an option for your family.  Statistically, the school bus is the safest form of transportation on America’s roadways. Before your child steps on the school bus, talk to them about how to ride the bus safely. Remind them to wait at the bus stop until the bus comes to a complete stop and the driver signals that it’s ok for them to get on. Once on the bus, they should sit quietly in their seat facing forward, buckle their seat belts if the school bus has them, and hold the handrail when getting on or off the bus.

Will your child walk or bike to school? That’s an excellent way to reach the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ recommended 60 minutes or more of daily physical activity! It is recommended that children under the age of 10 walk with an adult or an older, responsible sibling. Talk to your children about walking safely, using crosswalks and sidewalks, and walk the route with them before school starts to practice being a safe pedestrian. If they ride their bike, make sure they wear their helmet – a helmet is the best protection against head and brain injury. Review bicycle safety tips and practice the ride with them too, to ensure they are safe and ready.

Will your child ride with you or drive themselves to school? It is important to note that more students are killed while riding or driving in a passenger vehicle than any other mode of transportation. If this is your family’s only or best option, make sure everyone is as safe as possible in the family vehicle. Make sure everyone is in the right type of seat for their size, has their seat belt fastened, and is free of distractions (if driving)

schooltransprelfatals
source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Back to school safety isn’t just an important consideration for parents and caregivers of schoolchildren – back to school safety should be a priority for all community members. Today, the NTSB hosted a press event that featured the “Look Out for Each Other” campaign of Montgomery County, Maryland, which reinforces the sentiment that traffic safety involves everyone. We must all work together to make sure everyone reaches their destination safely – whether we are on our way to work, out for an evening with friends, or headed off to the first day of school.

Back to school time comes with many mixed emotions – especially for me now. But, with proper planning, fears around how our children will get to and from school should not be among them.

Leah Walton is a Safety Advocate for NTSB

Roundtable Review – Part 2: The latest on rail tank car safety

By Robert L. Sumwalt

In last week’s blog, Roundtable Review-Part 1, I provided an overview of the NTSB’s July 13, 2016, rail tank car roundtable. Today’s blog discusses how the industry is monitoring its progress and the available options for meeting the earliest federal deadlines.

FAST Act Phase-out ScheduleFollowing the February 2015 crude oil derailment and fire near Mt. Carbon, WV, the NTSB issued an urgent recommendation calling for the Department of Transportation to make a “publicly available reporting mechanism that reports at least annually, progress on retrofitting and replacing tank cars.” Section 7308 of the FAST (Fixing America’s Surface Transportation) Act calls for the DOT Secretary to implement a reporting mechanism to monitor industry-wide progress toward meeting these federally-imposed deadlines. Many who participated in the roundtable were optimistic that the deadlines could be met.

More than two dozen rail tank car owners, operators, and manufacturers, as well as labor union representatives and transportation safety associations, came together to discuss ways industry and government can work together to overcome the challenges associated with meeting federally-imposed mandates that involve phasing out both legacy DOT-111 and CPC-1232 tank cars that carry flammable liquids (see image of timetable).

Participants addressed concerns with issues surrounding replacing older specification tank cars. “The one thing is to make sure we’ve got the best inspection and prevention techniques and technologies that we can possibly deploy,” said Hal Gard.

Gard is the rail administrator with Oregon’s DOT, a state which saw 42,000 gallons of crude oil spill along a scenic stretch along its revered Columbia River in Mosier after a derailment of CPC-1232 tank cars in June. “It was a bad day,” Gard said. “The CPC-1232s actually performed well, [but] we still are going to have to deal with the aftermath of that accident for a while.”

During the meeting, the roundtable participants dug into various details of and challenges associated with implementing the provisions of the FAST Act—for example, addressing differences between the types of tank cars currently in crude oil and ethanol service, specifications of the new DOT-117 cars, and various options available to the industry to retrofit.

Most agreed that it would take a sustained, concerted effort from all industry parties working together to meet the required deadlines. The shipper is responsible for the proper packaging of whatever they’re going to ship, reminded Robert Hulick, executive vice president with Trinity Rail. He said that many play a role in meeting deadlines, including the tank car owners and those who lease the cars. “It’s not any one party that makes that decision unilaterally,” he said.

Denford Jaja, with the Hess Corporation, agreed that there needs to be “a joint effort between the industry, the shippers, railroads, [and] the regulatory bodies.”

Jaja also said that when all parties involved have access to clear, validated information, it is easier to measure progress toward the goal. “We are fully supportive of a science- and fact-based approach to safety,” he said. “The faster we can resolve uncertainties, I think that’ll give us some certainty on the path forward.”

Andreas Aeppli, principal with Cambridge Systematics, said everyone who has a vested interest or role in the transport of commodities by rail needs to continue to educate themselves and understand what is actually required. For instance, while some of the most distant federal deadlines for halting the transport of crude oil and ethanol in DOT-111 and CPC-1232 tank cars aren’t until May 2025, the earliest mandates for some tank cars take effect much sooner, on January 1, 2018.

“It’s really important to have…information available because it’s freely out there. When you want to hold people’s feet to the fire, particularly as we get closer to the deadlines, [we need] to ensure that everybody is aware of what’s going on and adheres to the regulations and requirements that are being called for,” Aeppli said.

As stated in last week’s blog, those participating in the roundtable left feeling hopeful that progress would continue to be made. William Bates, a labor union legislative director with SMART Transportation Division, was among those who are cautiously optimistic. Addressing the entire roundtable, he said: “I would have the peace of mind knowing that I got the best equipment there. I hope that every car I pull is a [DOT] -117 or [one that has been] retrofitted. We need everybody’s help. Let’s get on the ball!”

For a complete transcript of the roundtable, see our “Events” page.

Robert L. Sumwalt is an NTSB Board Member and he moderated the roundtable

Crash Investigations in All Modes Inform Our Perspective on ‘Driverless’ Cars

By Christopher Hart

For decades, the automotive industry has been using technological advances, such as seat belts, air bags, and structural crush resistance, to protect us if we’re in a crash.  Those advances have undoubtedly saved thousands of lives a year.  Now we have the exciting opportunity to use technological advances to prevent crashes from happening in the first place, which can save tens of thousands of lives a year. But because automation will coexist with human drivers for the foreseeable future, there will be many challenges.

Driverless cars could save many, if not most, of the 33,000 lives that are lost every year on our streets and highways – a very tragic and unacceptable number that has been decreasing for several years but has recently taken a turn in the wrong direction.

Most crashes on our roads are due to driver error. The theory of driverless cars is that if there is no driver, there will be no driver error. Ideally, removing the driver would address at least four issues on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements – fatigue, distractions, impairment, and fitness for duty. The automation in driverless cars would presumably also address a fifth item on our list, namely, improved collision avoidance technologies.

Decades of experience in a variety of contexts has demonstrated that automation can improve safety, reliability, productivity, and efficiency. That experience has also demonstrated that there can be a downside. As noted by Professor James Reason, who is a world-renowned expert in complex human-centric systems:

In their efforts to compensate for the unreliability of human performance, the designers of automated control systems have unwittingly created opportunities for new error types that can be even more serious than those they were seeking to avoid.

Our investigation experience provides three lessons learned that support Prof. Reason’s statement. The first is that the theory of removing human error by removing the human assumes that the automation is working as designed. So, the question becomes: what if the automation fails?

An example of the automation failing without the operator’s knowledge occurred in Washington, DC, with the Metro crash near the Fort Totten Station in 2009 that tragically killed the train operator and 8 passengers. In that accident, a train temporarily became electronically invisible, whereupon the symbol of the train disappeared from the display board in the dispatch center.

Unfortunately, when the train became electronically invisible, there was no alarm in the train behind it regarding the electronic disappearance of the preceding train. By the time the operator saw the stopped train and applied the emergency brake after coming around a curve – which limited her sight distance – it was too late.

Another lesson learned in support of Prof. Reason’s statement is that even if the operator is removed from the loop, humans are still involved in designing, manufacturing, and maintaining the vehicles, as well as the streets and highways they use. Each of these points of human engagement presents opportunities for human error. Moreover, human error in these steps is likely to be more systemic in its effect – possibly involving several vehicles – and more difficult to find and correct. An example of this lesson learned is the collision of an automated – driverless – people mover into a stopped people mover at Miami International Airport in 2008. That collision was caused largely by improper maintenance.

The most fundamental lesson learned from our accident investigation experience in support of Prof. Reason’s statement is that introducing automation into complex human-centric systems can be very challenging. Most of the systems we have investigated are becoming increasingly automated but are not fully automated. As a result, we have seen that the challenges can be even more difficult in a system that is not completely automated but still has substantial human operator involvement.

With that background on how automation can be both the good news and the bad news, how can the NTSB help inform the process of moving toward driverless cars?

First, we offer considerable experience regarding the introduction of automation into complex human-centric systems.

Most of our investigations involve relatively structured systems with professional operators who are trained extensively (including, typically, on the automation) and have various requirements regarding proficiency, fatigue, impairment, distraction, and fitness for duty. Given that human drivers will probably be in the loop for some time to come, I would suggest that as difficult as the transition to more automation has been in the structured and regulated environments we have investigated, it may be even more challenging in a public arena, in which drivers are usually not highly trained and may be fatigued, impaired, distracted, or not medically fit.

The second way that the NTSB can help relates to collaboration. The auto industry has already recognized the importance of collaboration, as most recently shown by their collaborative approach regarding the voluntary installation of autonomous emergency braking by 2022. Our experience with collaboration, especially regarding commercial aviation, may help improve it further.

Although automation has played an important role in the commercial aviation industry’s continuing safety improvement, much of the industry’s exemplary safety record is attributable to collaboration. In the early 1990s, after the industry’s accident rate had been declining rapidly, the accident rate began to flatten on a plateau. Meanwhile, the Federal Aviation Administration was predicting that the volume of flying would double in 15-20 years.

The industry became very concerned that if the volume doubled while the accident rate remained the same, the public would see twice as airplane crashes on the news. That caused the industry to do something that, to my knowledge, has never been done at an industry-wide level in any other industry – they pursued a voluntary collaborative industry-wide approach to improving safety.

The voluntary collaborative process, known as CAST, the Commercial Aviation Safety Team, brings all of the players –airlines, manufacturers, pilots, air traffic controllers, and the regulator – to the table to do four things: Identify the potential safety issues, prioritize those issues – because they would be identifying more issues than they had resources to address, develop interventions for the prioritized issues, and evaluate whether the interventions are working.

This CAST process has been an amazing success. It resulted in a reduction of the aviation fatality rate, from the plateau on which it was stuck, by more than 80% in less than 10 years. As an observer in CAST, the NTSB can help the auto industry determine how much of this aviation industry success story is transferrable to them.

The third way that the NTSB can inform the process of introducing automation relates to on-board event recorders. Our investigations are significantly enhanced when we have event recorders to tell us what happened. Airliners have had “black boxes” – which are actually orange — for decades, to record both the aircraft parameters and the sounds in the cockpit. Other transportation modes are increasingly introducing event recorders as well as audio and video recorders.

There have already been crashes as a new wave of automation has been introduced which handles some or all of the driving task. The more that the industry knows from event recorders about what went right and what went wrong, the more the industry will be able to fashion remedies that effectively address the problems. Accordingly, consistent with another item on our Most Wanted List – Expand the Use of Recorders to Enhance Transportation Safety – we would encourage the use of robust on-board event recorders to help the process.

The NTSB will continue to investigate highway crashes when the investigation can illuminate important safety issues, including issues arising from automation. In addition, we are willing and able to work with the automotive industry before accidents happen.

The NTSB has already engaged with the industry and regulatory agencies to help inform how driverless cars can be safely introduced into America’s transportation system. Our experience in the introduction of automation into human-centric systems, our appreciation of the power of collaboration, and our understanding of the importance of on-board event recorders all position the NTSB to provide valuable assistance to the process.

(Excerpted in large part from a presentation that I gave at the National Press Club on June 30, 2016. Go here for the full speech)

Roundtable Review – Part 1: The latest on rail tank car safety

By Robert L. Sumwalt

 

Member Robert L. Sumwalt opens the Rail Tank Car Roundtable at the NTSB Boardroom and Conference Center.
Member Robert L. Sumwalt opens the Rail Tank Car Roundtable at the NTSB Boardroom and Conference Center.

I had the privilege of moderating a day-long NTSB roundtable pertaining to rail tank car safety on July 13, 2016, in which more than two dozen rail-car manufacturers and owners, union representatives, and transportation safety associations discussed the rail industry’s progress and challenges on implementing new federal safety standards for tank cars that carry flammable liquids. The event provided rail industry leaders an open forum to discuss the logistics of replacing the existing tank car fleet in flammable liquid service to meet new federally imposed deadlines, and to identify ways in which government and industry can overcome roadblocks they face to meeting those mandates.

The U.S Department of Transportation (DOT) is requiring shippers to address the oldest, higher risk tank cars first: DOT-111 tank cars – which historically have been the most common type of cars to carry crude oil and ethanol. Shippers using legacy DOT-111 tank cars to haul crude oil must decide to either retire or retrofit them to new standards by March 2018, at the latest. For the DOT-111 tank cars that haul ethanol, shippers have until May 2023.

The deadlines set by federal officials for compliance are more relaxed for newer, modified version of these tank cars, called CPC-1232s. Deadlines to get CPC-1232s out of service for shipping crude oil and ethanol (or retrofitted to meet DOT-117 standards) extend as far into the future as May 2025. For shipping other Class 3 flammable liquids, shippers have until May 2029.

DOT-117 tank cars are a safer means of transporting flammable liquids because these tank cars are less likely experience a puncture (and therefore, a product release) because of several safety specifications that DOT-111 and CPC-1232 tank cars do not have.

Newly manufactured DOT-117 tank cars are built with a thicker shell that is nine-sixteenths of an inch thick, which is 28 percent thicker than legacy DOT-111 tank cars and most CPS-1232 cars. DOT-117 cars also have thermal and top fittings protection; an extra layer of 11 gauge (approximately 3 mm) steel surrounding the shell, known as a tank jacket; and full-height head shields, which add an extra one-half inch of protective steel on each end of the tank cars. Also, there is improved protection to the bottom outlet valve handle to guard against inadvertent opening during a derailment.

Two main points are relevant when considering whether shippers can meet these new deadlines. First, can tank car manufacturers supply enough cars to meet demand? We were encouraged to hear that manufacturers felt they could.

There are, however, more complex considerations on the demand side. With the recent decrease in domestic oil production, some in the industry see steep price tags for new and retrofitted cars as being prohibitive. “This is a game changer for shippers,” said Gabe Claypool, with Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc., during the roundtable.

John Bryne, of the Railway Supply Institute, agreed. He said economic factors heavily influence the decision making process when it comes to the timing of the legacy tank car phase out. “Industry has done a good job at meeting voluntary improvements for better packaging, but more needs to be done. Also, there needs to be some sort of incentive for the shippers to act more quickly.”

Without those incentives, Bryne warned that progress toward swifter compliance with federal deadlines could be stifled, although the deadlines themselves can be met. This leads to the next point: one hurdle toward quick implementation of these needed changes are, in a sense, the deadlines themselves. With some of the due dates extending nine years or more, shippers and those who currently lease tank cars can wait several more years before the recommendations to phase out older tank cars become absolute law.

While these considerations may make sense from a business perspective, from the NTSB’s perspective, the sooner these changes are made, the better – a belief that is fueled by numerous accidents we have seen involving breached tank cars. In the past decade, there have been 28 significant accidents in the U.S. and Canada involving flammable liquids transported by rail, in which nearly 5 million gallons of crude oil and ethanol have spilled. In each of these accidents, legacy DOT-111 or CPC-1232 tank cars were used to transport flammable liquids. If past performance is a predictor of future performance, continuing to transport crude oil and ethanol in DOT-111 or CPC 1232 tank cars poses an unacceptable public risk.

Several roundtable participants expressed optimism that the deadlines could be met.

Robert Fronczak, assistant vice president of the American Association of Railroads, provided statistics showing the number of legacy DOT-111 tank cars in crude oil transportation has steadily decreased since 2013 – from a peak of more than 21,600 three years ago, to just 708 through the first quarter of this year.

Kevin Neels, Ph.D., a transportation and research consultant with The Brattle Group, stated those numbers are a sign industry is headed in the right direction. “A lot of the riskiest cars are going out of service. And that’s good. We need to continue to monitor this to ensure that risk-prone tank cars stay out of service. In due course, we’ll see a much safer fleet hauling these materials.”

In next week’s blog, we will discuss how the industry is monitoring its progress and the available options for meeting the earliest federal deadlines.

 

Robert L. Sumwalt is an NTSB Board Member.

EAA AirVenture – Opportunity to Educate Pilots on Lessons Learned from Crashes

By Jeff Marcus

Logo for EAA AirVenture Fly In 2016For one week each year the control tower at Wittman Regional Airport in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, becomes the busiest in the world when 10,000 airplanes fly in for the Experimental Aircraft Association’s AirVenture. EAA AirVenture is one of the largest airshows in the world, with more than 500,000 visitors arriving over the week. This large gathering of general aviation pilots and aviation enthusiasts offers NTSB a great opportunity to share important information about safety with the flying public, and I am excited to be a presenter at this year’s event.

During the week-long event, Chairman Christopher Hart, Member Earl Weener, and 10 NTSB staff will provide accident case studies, share lessons learned, and give presentations on various safety issues related to general aviation.

As in years’ past, the NTSB will host an information booth in the Federal Pavilion. NTSB personnel will be on hand to address questions related to our recommendations and what we have seen from our crash investigations. Additionally, during this week NTSB investigators will discuss the recent Safety Alert issued by the NTSB on “Arriving at Major Fly-In Events” and, in another session, steps for avoiding construction and maintenance errors for experimental aircraft. We also use this event as an opportunity to stay abreast of the latest industry developments, so we can remain smart about our own recommendations for safety improvements.

Many of the NTSB presentations at EAA AirVenture, including mine, will focus on the actions pilots must take to avoid loss of control accidents.

Loss of aircraft control is the most common cause of general aviation accidents. Between 2008 and 2014, about 47 percent of fatal fixed-wing general aviation accidents in the United States involved pilots losing control of their aircraft in flight, resulting in 1,210 fatalities. As a result, preventing loss of control in flight in general aviation is one of the issues on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List of transportation safety improvements.

While airline accidents have become relatively rare in the United States, general aviation accidents occur at much higher rates than airline accidents. The rate of accidents has been declining in commercial aviation, but the general aviation accident rate has remained largely unchanged. The NTSB has investigated, on average, about 1,366 general aviation accidents each year over the last five years. We must change this deadly trend of accidents—and events like this give us an important opportunity to work toward that goal.

I will be making a presentation on several NTSB recommendations that address the underlying causes of some loss of control accidents, including:

  1. Incompatibilities of modifications to airplanes
  2. Guidance for amateur builders of kit airplanes
  3. Pilot knowledge of how their “glass cockpit” displays react to common failure modes like a blocked pitot tube
  4. Clarification of policies regarding the use of marijuana by general aviation pilots
  5. Information for pilots on the side effects of some common over-the-counter medications available without a prescription
  6. Impairments to pilot’s night vision caused by cataracts

The last three topics relate to Impairment and Medical Fitness for Duty, other concerns for the pilot community that are also on our Most Wanted List. Other NTSB presentations at EAA AirVenture will discuss additional safety issues related to loss of control accidents, including weather issues.

I look forward to attending and presenting at EAA AirVenture this year, and I encourage all pilots and aviation enthusiasts to attend, as well. If you will be attending, please stop by the NTSB booth in the Federal Pavilion or attend one of the NTSB presentations.

To view our complete schedule of presentations, visit our website.

Jeff Marcus is an aviation transportation safety specialist in NTSB’s Office of Safety Recommendations & Communications.

Getting to Know Crash Avoidance Technologies

By Earl Weener, PhD

Member Weener views occupant crash testing.
Member Weener reviewing occupant crash testing technologies.

The NTSB’s Most Wanted List features the top ten safety improvement areas the Board emphasizes each year. Board Members select two or three Most Wanted List items on which to focus. This year, I chose to promote the availability of collision avoidance technologies in highway vehicles because existing and emerging crash avoidance technologies can prevent crashes, reduce injuries, and save lives. In fact, two separate NTSB studies on rear-end collisions, one in 2001 and one in 2015, make this point clear.

I met recently with automakers and vehicle safety researchers in Michigan, where I had the opportunity to experience several different safety technologies. In one vehicle, I felt the force of its autonomous emergency braking system as the car stopped to avoid a vehicle directly in our path. Another car warned me when I drifted out of the marked lane and even provided steering assist to get me back between the lines. Crash avoidance technologies such as autonomous emergency braking, lane departure warning, and blind spot monitoring are well known to the NTSB, but experiencing the effectiveness of these safety features in action was enlightening.

I also toured safety research facilities where automotive professionals test vehicles and their components to improve occupant protection and crash avoidance technologies. Some of these technologies safeguard pedestrians by alerting the driver to a person immediately in front of or behind the vehicle; some actually stop the vehicle in time to avoid a potentially deadly impact. Pedestrian safety was examined in a recent NTSB forum and remains a serious focus for NTSB.

As an engineer, I respect the dedication of the engineers and scientists developing and improving cutting edge technologies that meet and even exceed National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards. I commend automakers who commit substantial resources to the innovation of these vital technologies.

I am impressed by the safety first mindset of the companies I visited. Automakers are adopting a safety-based mode of operation, focusing on organization-wide responsibility for the safety of their products. These companies are even working cooperatively on vehicle-to-vehicle communication capabilities. As one executive told me, automakers “don’t compete on safety” and believe that other aspects of their products should distinguish them from the crowd. I was glad to see that, in 2017, even more vehicles will include some safety technologies as standard equipment. This is good news, especially considering NTSB’s position that crash avoidance technologies should be standard equipment in every model of every automaker.

Existing crash avoidance technologies can reduce the unacceptable losses on our roads.

As these technologies become part of the transportation system, I have a few words of encouragement:

  • Traffic safety organizations: help spread the word about the importance of crash avoidance technologies.
  • Automobile manufacturers: inform dealers and their staff about vehicle safety features.
  • Automobile dealers: educate consumers about the benefits and proper use of these important safety technologies.
  • Consumers: learn about the technologies and consider test driving a vehicle equipped with some of the latest safety features.
  • Parents and guardians: consider the importance of these technologies for our newest and youngest drivers.

The most important safety feature in any vehicle is a vigilant, sober, and well-rested driver who is fully focused on driving. A single lapse in judgment, moment of distraction, or poor choice can have lifelong consequences. Fortunately, more vehicles offer features designed to step in to protect us.

As more consumers demand crash avoidance technologies, embrace their use and provide feedback to automakers, these lifesaving technologies will continue to improve. Road safety is everyone’s responsibility, and the growing availability and enthusiastic adoption of these technologies by safety-conscious drivers will save lives.

Earl F. Weener is an NTSB Board Member

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 117,131 other followers

%d bloggers like this: