Category Archives: Safety Recommendations

Alcohol Awareness Month

By Member T. Bella Dinh-Zarr, PhD, MPH

April is Alcohol Awareness Month. First introduced in 1987 by the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc., this time is set aside to increase public awareness for alcohol-related issues and to encourage communities to focus on ways to address this public health problem. In 2016, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 10,497 people across the United States were killed by drivers with blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) of .08 g/dL or higher. That means that every 50 minutes, a person is killed in an alcohol-impaired crash in the United States.

Impaired Driving PreventableAt the NTSB, we find this tragic and unacceptable, because every one of these crashes is preventable.

Next week, the Lifesavers National Conference on Highway Safety Priorities will take place in San Antonio, Texas. More than 2,000 highway safety professionals from across the United States will gather to meet, learn, and share their proven-effective programs to increase the safety of America’s roadways, including implementing impaired driving prevention programs, improving enforcement strategies, and encouraging legislative changes. I’m especially excited to be attending the conference this year, not only because it’s being hosted in my home state, but also because I will be speaking on a panel focused on lowering the illegal BAC from .08 to .05 percent in states across our nation. A take-home message that I hope all Lifesavers attendees will remember is that a .05 BAC is a broad prevention strategy which deters even drivers with high BACs from getting behind the wheel.

Reducing drinking and driving deaths takes a comprehensive approach, and lowering the illegal BAC limit is just one part of the impaired-driving-prevention equation. Other important solutions can be found below, through our past blogs, safety recommendations, and efforts to address alcohol-impaired driving. With one-third of all traffic fatalities related to impaired driving, and more than 10,000 American lives lost every year, our work is far from over.

We have accomplished a great deal when it comes to reducing alcohol-impaired driving, ChooseOnebut there is much more to be done to save lives and prevent injuries. The way I see it, the solution—this month and every month—is simple: if we separate drinking from driving, we will save lives.

Reaching Zero: Actions to Eliminate Substance-Impaired Driving Forum

Most Wanted List Progress Report: Highway Safety

This Super Bowl Sunday, Don’t Count on a Hail Mary

National Impaired Driving Prevention Month

How Employers Can Make our Roads Safer

Thank You for Your Service

Carrollton, Kentucky, 29 Years Later: So Much Work Still To Do

Alcohol Awareness Month—It’s Time to Separate Drinking from Driving

 

Focus on Distracted Driving

By Chairman Robert Sumwalt

April is Distracted Driving Awareness Month, a time set aside to raise awareness about the dangers surrounding distracted driving. We continue to see far too many crashes in all transportation modes involving cognitive, visual, and manual distraction. Almost every driver has a portable electronic device, and if those devices are used while a person is driving, they pose a significant risk—not only to that driver, but to the public, as well.

Although distraction has always had the potential to interfere with vehicle operation, new technologies have made it easier to become distracted, and therefore easier to become a risk to ourselves or others. William James wrote in 1892 that “All our life, so far as it has definite form, is but a mass of habits.” Today, constant connectivity has become a mass of habits for many. But when it comes to driving, our eyes, minds, and hands should be on the driving task.

Distraction causes thousands of lives to be lost every year on our roads and it contributes to hundreds of thousands of injuries. We began calling for a ban on driver use of portable electronic devices in 2011. See the links below for some of the other steps we’ve taken to raise awareness about distracted driving and facilitate solutions.


Videos

Events

Roundtable: Act to End Deadly Distractions

Roundtable: Disconnect from Deadly Distractions

Forum: Attentive Driving: Countermeasures to Distraction

Blogs

Act to End Distracted Driving: One Life at a Time

Act to End Deadly Distractions

Today’s Actions, Tomorrow’s Consequences

Addressing Dangers on the Roads: This is no April Fools!

Protect Your Business by Protecting Your Employees

Cognitive Distraction and the Hands-Free Device Myth

Deadly Addictions


The ability to multitask is a myth. Humans cannot operate a vehicle while doing other things without risking the safety of themselves and those around them. Hands-free is not risk free—research shows a driver’s level of cognitive distraction is about equal for hands-free or hand-held communication.

Changing attitudes and behavior takes a sustained awareness effort, better laws, and high‑visibility enforcement of those laws. This combined approach has resulted in widespread seat belt use and gains against drunk driving. We’ve begun to make an impact on the distracted driving habit using these techniques, and you can do your part just by disconnecting for the drive.

Refusing to Take “No” for an Answer

By Chairman Robert L. Sumwalt

On July 17, 1996, about 12 minutes after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York, Trans World Airlines (TWA) flight 800 (TWA-800), a Boeing 747-131, crashed in the Atlantic Ocean near East Moriches, New York. The accident killed all 230 people on board, and the airplane was destroyed. The NTSB’s investigation of this accident was the most extensive, complex, and costly air disaster investigation in US history, and was the subject of high public interest and front-page headlines for years.

On August 23, 2000, a little more than 4 years after the crash, the NTSB determined the probable cause to be an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. Because multiple potential sources were identified, the singular source of ignition for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but the likely source was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter the vapor-laden fuel tank through the fuel-quantity–indicating system in the CWT.

twa 800 4

On December 13, 1996, while the investigation was still ongoing, the NTSB issued the first of three sets of safety recommendations to the FAA. We based these initial recommendations on early findings of the investigation to address the threat of a fuel tank exploding on an airliner. Two recommendations included the development of design or operational changes to prevent explosive fuel-air mixtures in the fuel tanks—including the development of nitrogen-inerting systems. A nitrogen-inerting system replaces the air in an empty fuel tank with nitrogen, creating an environment in which neither a fire nor an explosion can occur. A total revision to FAA regulations for wiring and maintenance, including those of fuel-quantity–indicating systems, also resulted from our findings in this accident investigation.

The FAA’s initial response to our inerting recommendations was to convene a group of industry experts, who found that the costs of implementing the recommendations was too high to be practical. We disagreed and urged the FAA to consider other options. The FAA tried again, tinkering around the edges of the problem, focusing on the wiring and electrical systems in aging aircraft. We welcomed these improvements but reiterated that the agency was ignoring the core issue—the hazard posed by potentially explosive aircraft fuel tanks. To its credit, the FAA chose to apply some “out of the box” thinking, and, together with Boeing, developed a system on the airplane to address the threat.

That innovative technology, called a molecular sieve, separates air into nitrogen and oxygen, the two primary gases. The oxygen is vented overboard while the nitrogen is used to inert the fuel tank. The FAA performed in-depth analysis of the technology, and Boeing produced several prototype systems for testing and evaluation. These tests showed the system to be effective, have minimal operational challenges, and to be reasonably priced. Boeing began installing these systems on some of the new airplanes it was producing.

On November 23, 2005, the FAA proposed a new regulation that required newly manufactured and in-service airliners to reduce the chances of a catastrophic fuel-tank explosion. A final rule was enacted by in 2008, and 100 percent compliance with the rule became mandatory on December 26th of 2017—21 years after the NTSB first recommended fuel-tank inerting to the FAA.

The enactment of the fuel-tank flammability rule is a major safety improvement, addressing a critical safety problem at the heart of many aviation accidents over 45 years. However, its enactment was clearly far from easy; it took the persistent advocacy of the NTSB and the efforts of FAA and Boeing staff unsatisfied with cursory cost-benefit analyses. It took the commitment of senior management at the FAA and DOT—including the Director of the Certification Service, Associate Administrator of Safety, the FAA Administrator, and the Secretary of Transportation—to implement this needed safety regulation.

The traveling public is safer today because these organizations, working together, refused to take “no” for an answer.

Most Wanted List Progress Report: Rail Safety

By: Chairman Robert L. Sumwalt

 The NTSB is releasing a series of blogs highlighting the progress the transportation community is making in each mode to advance issues on our 2017–2018 Most Wanted List. This series sheds light on the progress made and what needs to be done going forward to improve transportation safety. This is the fourth and final blog of the series.

DSC02887
Chairman Sumwalt and Robert Hall, Director, NTSB Office of Railroad, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Investigations talk with attendees at the Most Wanted List midpoint meeting

On November 14, 2017, the day before our Most Wanted List (MWL) progress meeting, we concluded our investigation into the April 2016 Amtrak train derailment in Chester, Pennsylvania. As I offer the closing words of this blog series highlighting the progress made  to address issues on our list, the NTSB is presently investigating the December 2017 Amtrak train derailment in DuPont, Washington, and the February 2018 Amtrak train and CSX freight train collision near Cayce, South Carolina. And, on February 15, I testified before the US Congress regarding the urgency for the industry to fully implement positive train control (PTC) by year’s end. That same day, we also issued three urgent safety recommendations to address findings from our investigations into the Cayce accident and the June 2017 Long Island Rail Road accident in Queens Village, New York.

At our midpoint meeting, I joined members from our Office of Rail, Pipeline, and Hazardous Materials Investigations to lead a discussion on rail safety. While there has been progress with implementing some of the NTSB’s recommendations, the Chester and DuPont derailments and the Cayce collision tragically illustrate that more needs to be done – and quickly!

A deficient safety management system and impairment were factors in the fatal Chester accident. And, like many accidents we’ve investigated, distraction played a role. When the accident occurred, the dispatcher was speaking to his spouse on a landline. We’ve recommended that Amtrak prohibit such calls while dispatchers are on duty and responsible for safe train operations.

The Chester accident also illustrated the fact that drug use by rail workers has been on the rise in recent years, playing a part in seven accidents in the last 3 years and nine accidents in the last decade, compared to only one accident in the prior decade. In the Chester accident, a backhoe operator who was killed had cocaine in his system, and two different opioids were discovered in the track supervisor’s system. During our investigation, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) moved quickly to require random urine drug screening for maintenance‑of‑way workers, effective April 2018. Additionally, the Amtrak locomotive engineer tested positive for marijuana, although there was no operational evidence that his prior drug use impaired his performance on the morning of the accident. What it did show, however, is that despite DOT random drug testing requirements for locomotive engineers, such a program did not deter his use of an illicit drug.

Fatigue and medical fitness are other significant MWL issues for rail, and we’re disappointed that the FRA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration have withdrawn an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that would’ve supported sleep apnea screening for railroads and for commercial highway carriers. Clearly, there’s still important work to do on these issues.

Regarding another significant MWL issue for rail, strengthen occupant protection, the FRA has made progress toward developing a performance standard for keeping window glazing in place during an accident. Unfortunately, meaningful improvements related to the safety of corner posts, door designs, restraint systems, and locomotive cab crashworthiness have been slow.

The MWL’s safe transport of hazardous materials issue area focuses on transporting energy products in safer tank cars, built to the DOT-117 rather than DOT-111 and CPC 1232 standards. We are pleased to see that the more robust DOT-117 standard is being used for transport of crude oil. Ethanol transport, however, still widely relies on the DOT-111 and CPC 1232 standards. We urge stakeholders to move to using the DOT-117 standard when carrying ethanol as soon as possible, ahead of the mandated deadlines.

There has been little, if any, progress to improve transit safety oversight since we released the current MWL. To exercise effective oversight, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) must continue to use the authority it gained with the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act and Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act to promulgate safety rules.

Finally, on the issue of expanding recorder use, the industry is moving forward with installing inward-facing video cameras on passenger trains, which is a step in the right direction. However, we would like to see the FRA move forward on requiring the installation and that the requirement be expanded to include audio recording, and we believe that the freight rule should follow suit. The FTA still has no such requirements for transit rail.

As I offer the last thoughts on our MWL midpoint meeting blog series, I want to thank all those who attended for taking the time to offer suggestions and share their perspectives on the issues affecting the safety of our nation’s transportation system. As we move into the second year of this MWL cycle, I challenge our stakeholders to target one or more recommendations on which they can make measurable progress before this year is over. We all want to have the safest transportation in the world, and it will take us working together to accomplish it.

 

Most Wanted List Progress Report: Aviation Safety

By Member Earl F. Weener

The NTSB is releasing a series of blogs highlighting the progress the transportation community is making in each mode to advance issues on our 2017-2018 Most Wanted List. This series sheds light on the progress made and what needs to be done going forward to improve transportation safety. This is the third blog of the series.  

DSC02888 copy
Member Earl Weener and John DeLisi, Director, NTSB Office of Aviation Safety, talk with attendees during the aviation session of the Most Wanted List midpoint meeting

Aviation is one of the safest forms of transportation—largely due to government-industry collaboration efforts such as the Commercial Aviation Safety Team and the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee. We have seen no passenger fatality in the domestic operation of a U.S. airline (Part 121) since 2009, and the accident rate is trending slightly downward in General Aviation-GA (Part 91 and Part 125). While we celebrate the safety gains made across the commercial aviation industry, there is still work to be done across all sectors, especially in GA.

On November 15, the NTSB brought together government, industry, and advocacy representatives from the transportation safety community to get a progress report on our Most Wanted List (MWL) of transportation safety improvements. Aviation Safety Director John DeLisi and I led the aviation portion of the discussion.

 

 

We learned that industry is taking the lead to improve safety, and, while some Federal Aviation Administration initiatives have been helpful, more may be needed. Yet the best path to getting NTSB recommendations adopted, most agreed, was encouraging a more aggressive voluntary, collaborative approach to safety.

Our focus on preventing Loss of Control (LOC) In Flight in General Aviation (GA)—the only aviation-specific issue on the MWL—was the primary focus of our conversations. Successfully resolving this problem requires continuing collaboration, which, so far, appears to be occurring widely and effectively. The GAJSC is one organization helping to facilitate this collaborative approach. At the mid-point meeting, we also announced that the NTSB will be collaborating with the FAA, industry associations, flight schools, technology manufacturers, and others in an upcoming April 24, 2018, roundtable on LOC solutions. The number of LOC and fatal LOC accidents are both trending down as of 2016, our last complete year of data. We won’t call that progress yet, but we might look back one day and say that it was.

The changes to Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations reforming small aircraft certification standards have enabled streamlined adoption and installation of new technologies, such as AOA indicators that would prevent LOC, without a lengthy and costly supplemental FAA flight certification. Private industry can now do what it does best: innovate.

We also discussed another MWL issue, Expand Recorder Use to Enhance Safety. In particular, the NTSB would like to see more cockpit cameras, which aid in accident investigations and provide useful data for developing policies/procedures to prevent accidents. However, privacy issues, data protection challenges, and fears of punitive actions by companies appear to still hinder progress in this area.

Just as we have seen tremendous benefits in crash survivability on our highways with the use of seat belts and air bags, the aviation community so too must also recognize the significant safety benefits of enhanced occupant protection systems, such as five-point shoulder harnesses. While helicopter pilots appear to be buckling up, others in GA are not—including passengers. Child restraint systems (“car seats”) should also be used in planes; yet, they widely are not. The NTSB reported at this meeting that we are collecting more data on if/how seat belts are used in our accident investigations.

Progress is being made on the carriage of lithium-ion (LI) batteries. Heat from one battery can propagate to nearby batteries before a fire breaks out, introducing a challenge for fire detection and suppression. However, we expect the FAA to complete testing related to this risk within this MWL cycle. We also await the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration actions to harmonize its regulations with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s technical instructions regarding segregating lithium batteries carried as air cargo from other flammable cargo.

Just before the beginning of this MWL cycle, in 2016, the new flight and duty regulation went into effect, a huge win for managing fatigue in commercial aviation. We continue to fight for the small wins. We still need to apply the same level of safety to cargo flights, but we have seen progress toward applying it to maintenance personnel.

And, in 2017, the FAA communicated that they’ll research the prevalence of impairing drug use – OTC, illicit, and prescription – throughout aviation. Previously, we had studied their presence in pilots in fatal accidents, which revealed an alarming rate of OTC use in fatal accidents. It may be too early to discuss any changes to medical fitness in aviation due to BasicMed. However, one of the related concerns is the loss of flight time data that we previously gathered as part of the medical certification process.

After our progress report meeting, I felt optimistic that the improvements being made, especially by industry, will serve to make aviation even safer. I encourage all stakeholders and the general flying public to consider areas where we still need to make progress. Everyone has a role to play in improving aviation safety—whether you are a pilot, an operator, or sitting in the seats.

The Invaluable Service of Air Tankers

By Jeff Marcus and Clint Crookshanks

One enduring image of the fight against forest fires, like those that devastated California last year, is of a large airplane flying low and dropping red fire retardant. These firefighting air tankers are invaluable, and they operate in extreme environments.

2016 Pilot Fire Image by Cy Phenice
2016 Pilot Fire Image by Cy Phenice

Over the years, we’ve investigated several accidents involving firefighting aircraft, identifying issues and making recommendations to ensure the safety of these important assets. For example, in 1994, we investigated an accident in which a retired Air Force Lockheed C-130A Hercules, which had been converted into a firefighting airplane and was under contract to the US Forest Service (USFS), crashed while battling a fire in the Tehachapi Mountains near Pearblossom, California, killing all three flight crewmembers. In June 2002, another retired Air Force Lockheed C-130A Hercules, also converted into a firefighting aircraft and under contract to the USFS, crashed while dropping fire retardant near Walker, California, killing the three flight crewmembers onboard. Just a month later, a retired Navy Consolidated Vultee P4Y-2 Privateer, again under contract to the USFS to fight forest fires, crashed while maneuvering to deliver fire retardant near Estes Park, Colorado, killing both flight crewmembers. We determined that the probable cause in each of these accidents was in‑flight structural failure due to fatigue cracking in the wings, and we concluded that maintenance procedures had been inadequate to detect the cracking.

Firefighting operations inherently involve frequent and high-magnitude low-level maneuvers with high acceleration loads and high levels of atmospheric turbulence. A 1974 NASA study found that, at that time, firefighting airplanes experienced maneuver load factors between 2.0 and 2.4—almost a thousand times more than those of aircraft flown as airliners. The NASA study concluded that, because the maneuver loading in firefighting airplanes was so severe relative to the design loads, the aircraft should be expected to have a shortened structural life. Repeated and high‑magnitude maneuvers and exposure to a turbulent environment are part of firefighting service, and these operational factors hasten fatigue cracking and increase the growth rate of cracking once it starts.

Aerial firefighting is an intrinsically high-risk operation; however, the risk of in‑flight structural failure is not an unavoidable hazard; rather, fatigue cracking and accelerated crack propagation should be addressed with thorough maintenance programs based on the missions flown. Aircraft maintenance programs, which are typically developed by airplane manufacturers, usually point out highly stressed parts that should be inspected for signs of fatigue cracking, and they give guidance on how often these parts should be inspected. When specifying a maintenance program, manufacturers typically consider the expected loads that an airplane will encounter; however, in the past, for many aircraft used in firefighting operations, very little, if any, ongoing technical and engineering support was available because the manufacturer no longer existed or did not support the airplane, or the military no longer operated that type of aircraft. The maintenance and inspection programs being used for the firefighting aircraft mentioned above did not account for the advanced age and the more severe stresses of the firefighting operating environment.

As a result of our investigations, we issued safety recommendations to the USFS to hire appropriate technical personnel to oversee their airtanker programs, improve maintenance programs for firefighting airplanes and to require its contractors to use these programs. The USFS responded promptly and effectively, substantially improving the safety of its firefighting operations. The USFS hired a team to build out its Airworthiness Branch, to lead their effort to comply with the NTSB recommendations, and with this staff of engineers and technicians made needed revisions to the contracting, oversight, and operations of the USFS program using airplanes to fight forest fires. The agency hired aircraft engineering companies that performed in‑depth stress analyses on the firefighting airplanes in operation. The results were used to improve maintenance programs by identifying parts of the aircraft structure in need of continuing inspections and proposed the time and use intervals needed between inspections to prevent fatigue cracks from developing into catastrophic structural failures. The USFS also outfitted firefighting aircraft (tankers as well as helicopters and lead aircraft) with equipment that measures and records the actual flight loads experienced while fighting forest fires, then used that data to further improve the inspection program for airplanes in use and to develop programs for new types of airplanes being introduced to fight forest fires.

Clint Crookshanks, an NTSB aviation structural engineer and aircraft accident investigator who worked on these airtanker accidents, helped the USFS review its contractors’ maintenance and inspection program documents and provided advice on how they could better address our recommendations. On November 5, 2010, the USFS issued its first iteration of a Special Mission Airworthiness Assurance Guide for Aerial Firefighting and Natural Resource Aircraft, which contained the method, schedule, and standards for ensuring the airworthiness of firefighting aircraft. The USFS has revised the guide twice since then, with the latest revision issued on November 6, 2015. The guide now includes standards for USFS aircraft contracts, which are required for all aircraft used in USFS firefighting missions, satisfying our recommendations. Since these improvements were implemented, no aircraft performing aerial firefighting missions for the USFS have experienced an in‑flight structural failure.

We continue to work with the staff at the USFS to improve the safety of firefighting flights. At the beginning of January 2018, Clint attended a meeting in Missoula, Montana, to discuss the current and future large airtankers on contract to the USFS. Our recommendations are still relevant to the USFS and its contract operators and were the basis for most of the discussion at the Missoula meeting. The current USFS contract requirements have ensured that all contractors have effective maintenance and inspection programs that account for the extreme operating environments seen in aerial firefighting. Aircraft providing aerial firefighting services contain equipment that records the loads on the aircraft and even provides an alarm in real-time when a flight’s loads may have overstressed the airplane. In addition, the data recorded is downloaded and supplied to Wichita State University for mission profile development. British Aerospace, which originally manufactured the jet powered BAe 146 and RJ-85 airplanes currently used for USFS firefighting operations, provides technical support for these airplanes’ operators. The US Air Force also provides firefighting service using C-130 airplanes equipped with a Mobile Airborne Firefighting System (MAFFS) to assist the USFS on an as needed basis. The manufacturer of the C-130, Lockheed-Martin, is working with the Air Force to continually monitor and analyze the loads on airplanes used in the firefighting mission.

 

San Bernardino, CA, Wildfire- Image by Ben Cottman
San Bernardino, CA, Wildfire Image by Ben Cottman

The importance of keeping these unique aircraft and their crews safe and functional becomes even more evident during every forest fire season. The lessons we’ve learned from our accident investigations have been used to identify needed changes that have made it possible to more reliably and safely fight forest fires from the air and protect life and land.

 

Jeff Marcus is an Aviation Transportation Safety Specialist in the NTSB Office of Safety Recommendations and Communications. Clint Crookshanks is an aviation structural engineer and aircraft accident investigator in the NTSB Office of Aviation Safety.

 

 

Most Wanted List Progress Report: Highway Safety

By Member T. Bella Dinh-Zarr, PhD, MPH, and Robert Molloy, PhD

The NTSB is releasing a series of blogs highlighting the progress the transportation community is making in each mode to advance issues on our 2017–2018 Most Wanted List. This series sheds light on the progress made and what needs to be done going forward to improve transportation safety. This is the second post of the series. 

 

DSC02894
Member Dinh-Zarr talks with attendees during the highway session of the Most Wanted List midpoint meeting

We’re now midway through the 2017–2018 Most Wanted List cycle, and we’re eager to learn how this year will measure up to previous years. The past 2 years have resulted in an increase in highway traffic fatalities­­—from 32,000 roadway deaths per year in 2014 to more than 37,000 in 2016­­—so clearly, improvements are vital. We checked in with stakeholders on the progress they’re making to address the most pressing issues, and they’ve updated us on their successes and struggles. Here’s where we stand.

Install Collision Avoidance Technologies

Collision avoidance technologies can reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the nation’s roadways now. Today, automatic emergency braking (AEB) and forward collision warning systems already work to reduce rear-end crashes in equipped vehicles, and we’ve been working to encourage industry and vehicle manufacturers to adopt such systems. In 2017, we cohosted a roundtable with the National Safety Council on commercial vehicle (heavy-duty truck) use of advanced collision avoidance technologies and learned that truck manufacturers are beginning to see high customer demand for forward collision avoidance systems on their trucks. During the roundtable, one manufacturer indicated they were making the technologies standard on their trucks, while another mentioned that over 60 percent of their customers purchase vehicles with technology. In addition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is making progress on evaluation and testing collision avoidance technologies. We continue to advocate for connected vehicle technology because these technologies can further aid in collision avoidance, especially in situations where vehicle resident sensors are weak. Safety should never be considered a barrier to innovation, but rather, an integral component of it.

End Impairment in Transportation

In 2017, we saw progress on reducing alcohol impairment in transportation. Utah became the first state in the nation to pass a law setting a .05 percent blood alcohol content per se limit, and Nebraska and Oklahoma passed all-offender ignition interlock laws. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published a final rule establishing the Commercial Driver’s License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse, and NHTSA developed training programs addressing the full range of responses to alcohol impairment, from enforcement through adjudication. Yet, we still need more states to strengthen their impaired driving laws and enforcement. We also need improved “place of last drink” (POLD) data to help law enforcement officers deter future violations, and we need better methods to measure impairment by drugs other than alcohol.

Require Medical Fitness, Reduce Fatigue-Related Accidents

In terms of medical fitness, we’ve criticized both the FMCSA and the Federal Railroad Administration because they have withdrawn their advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding obstructive sleep apnea, which could have led to a rulemaking to address this important issue for people in safety-critical positions. In the highway mode, untreated moderate‑to-severe sleep apnea disqualifies drivers from operating large commercial vehicles because it affects driving safety, yet clear guidance is needed to assist medical examiners in identifying the condition. Nevertheless, the FMCSA has made notable progress by developing a National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners that lists all medical professionals who are qualified to certify drivers. This is a step in the right direction.

The FMCSA took another important step to improve safety when it implemented the electronic logging device (ELD) rule in December 2017. The rule requires the use of technology to automatically track driving and duty time. The NTSB advocated for such devices for many years because they enable better enforcement of hours-of-service regulations and can lead to reductions in drowsy driving among truck and bus drivers.

Eliminate Distractions

Our roundtable earlier this year, “Act to End Deadly Distractions,” brought together survivor advocates and experts throughout industry and government to discuss progress on state laws. We are beginning to see states consider legislation that would completely ban the use of hand-held devices, which highlight manual and visual distraction, but public awareness of the cognitive distraction that can result from hands-free device use remains very low.

Strengthen Occupant Protection

The good news this year on occupant protection is that motorcoaches are now built with lap and shoulder belts for all passenger seating positions. Now we’re focusing on all motorcoach passengers properly using those belts and using them every time they ride. We are urging primary enforcement of seat belt laws for all vehicles, including large buses equipped with belts, at every seating position, and we’re calling for safety briefings on motorcoaches similar to those delivered on commercial flights that explain seat belts and other safety features. As for passenger vehicles, some states, such as Massachusetts and New Hampshire, are considering joining the 34 states that already have primary enforcement of mandatory seat belt laws. Primary enforcement of mandatory seat belt laws is proven to increase seat belt use and, thereby, reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the roads. Regarding motorcycles, we are concerned that some states are repealing their helmet laws, because we know reduced helmet use will lead to more traumatic brain injuries and deaths.

Critical topics that touch on these highway safety issues are speeding and roadway infrastructure. Our recent safety study on speeding establishes what many of us already know but may not always apply: speeding increases the risk and severity of a crash. Here again, along with other safety recommendations, we’ve identified available technologies that can save lives but are not currently in use. The importance of infrastructure was highlighted recently by our highway accident report on a motorcoach collision that killed 2 people and injured 14 others. An unrepaired crash attenuator, an unmarked gore area, and out-of-compliance signage were cited in the report, in addition to the lack of seat belt use by most of the occupants.

Expand Recorder Use

Finally, we continue to urge all large highway vehicles be required to be equipped with recorders that capture a standard set of parameters. Event data recorders are vital investigative tools in every transportation mode—they help us do our job better and faster by providing valuable information after a crash so we can figure out what went wrong and make recommendations that prevent future injuries and deaths. Unfortunately, in crashes involving large trucks or buses, we are often left with limited data from the vehicle about the crash. We learn much more from passenger vehicles in crashes than from trucks and buses because of the standards NHTSA has developed (no such standards exist for trucks or buses). These standards are critical for large-vehicle operators, who can use recorders to train their drivers and increase safety.

The Most Wanted List midpoint mark allows us to reflect as well as plan and set new goals for the upcoming year. Although we have a long way to go to reach zero fatalities on our roadways, the efforts highlighted above, innovative partnerships and strategies, and bold actions to advance our recommendations are what we need to make America’s roadways fatality-free.

 

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