Propeller Accident Statistics

[PGIC]

Originally Posted by Anchorhandler

I couldnt find accurate leisure boating statistics in the UK but over the pond, each year the USCG produce a very useful breakdown of accidents showing type of incident and casualty numbers.
Deprecated Browser Error
I appreciate it refers to the US and should be taken only as a rough guide but here are a few of the more interesting statistics.

2012 saw a total of 651 fatalaties and only one of those was caused by a prop strike...
2011 saw 758 reported deaths with 5 being caused by prop strikes ....
2010 saw 672 deaths with one as a result of prop strikes ....

You misinterpreted the statistics. You are not alone, this often happens. The U.S. Coast Guard records accidents as a series of three events, such as Event 1 = Struck Submerged Object, Event 2 = Person Overboard, Event 3 = Struck by Propeller.

The statistics you cite are only for Event 1, sometimes called the Primary Event. Note - Primary event does not mean it caused the persons worst injuries, it means it was the first event in the sequence. The actual number of reported propeller fatalities that met USCG criteria to be listed were:

2012 - 19 deaths

2011 - 35 deaths

2010 - 27 deaths

We explain the three event method further and show overlays of the USCG's 2012 data you linked at:
USCG Releases Recreational Boating Statistics 2012 :: Propeller Guard Information Center

As to the number of kill cord preventable accidents, USCG prepared a report a few years ago. Its not real easy to read, but pretty thorough.
http://www.regulations.gov/contentSt...ontentType=pdf

A much older USCG report is easier to read, but certainly not very current. See the image on the 1979 document on this page.
Propeller Safety History Repeats Itself, Repeats Itself …. :: Propeller Guard Information Center

We (PGIC) are just completing an an extensive history of kill cord and propeller safety in the UK. It identifies many accidents and should provide some insight into the frequency of kill cord injuries and fatalities in the UK.

Also please note we have remained neutral on the mandatory wear issue, however we have been outspoken on trying to get USCG to make it mandatory for new small boats to include emergency kill switches (kill cords). They have been arguing about making them a requirement in new boats for decades.

gary

[PGIC]

Originally Posted by PGIC

We (PGIC) are just completing an an extensive history of kill cord and propeller safety in the UK. It identifies many accidents and should provide some insight into the frequency of kill cord injuries and fatalities in the UK.

We just finished the UK History of Boat Kill Cords and Propeller Safety I spoke of earlier. It is about a 20 page pdf available from this post:

UK History of the Boat Kill Cord & Propeller Safety Movement :: Propeller Guard Information Center

gary

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by PGIC

We just finished the UK History of Boat Kill Cords and Propeller Safety I spoke of earlier. It is about a 20 page pdf available from this post:

UK History of the Boat Kill Cord & Propeller Safety Movement :: Propeller Guard Information Center

gary

I'd like to point out this is a personal opinion, and in no way indicative of any Ribnet official policy.

I note your neutrality on the wear issue. However, you've just 'released' a 'UK' document which in about 90% of the accidents either happened outside the UK, were totally irrelevant to this discussion or contain such tenuous links to propellers that they are even irrelevant to the document itself. The Daily Mail could write a more relevant article. Corpses of drowned people struck by propellers after drowning? People sucked into canal boat propellers?

This isn't a platform for you to campaign for prop guards.

[paddlers]

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

I'd like to point out this is a personal opinion, and in no way indicative of any Ribnet official policy.

I note your neutrality on the wear issue. However, you've just 'released' a 'UK' document which in about 90% of the accidents either happened outside the UK, were totally irrelevant to this discussion or contain such tenuous links to propellers that they are even irrelevant to the document itself. The Daily Mail could write a more relevant article. Corpses of drowned people struck by propellers after drowning? People sucked into canal boat propellers?

This isn't a platform for you to campaign for prop guards.

+1

[PGIC]

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

I note your neutrality on the wear issue. However, you've just 'released' a 'UK' document which in about 90% of the accidents either happened outside the UK, were totally irrelevant to this discussion or contain such tenuous links to propellers that they are even irrelevant to the document itself. The Daily Mail could write a more relevant article. Corpses of drowned people struck by propellers after drowning? People sucked into canal boat propellers?

This isn't a platform for you to campaign for prop guards.

If you are saying the history I wrote is an opinion. That is probably at least partially true as most histories are written from someone's viewpoint, but the history mostly consists of lists of accidents and events. Those accidents and events certainly are not our opinion. They are history.

I am not sure of the percent of the accidents happening outside the UK. I will try to count them when I get some time.

To me, geographical lines don't seem very relevant when UK boaters, swimmers, and divers are being struck by props. People from the UK are in the same accident often involving the same boats and the same drives, it just happened outside the UK.

As to being irrelevant, I AGREE there are many non-RIB accidents in there. I said it was a UK history, not a UK RIB history. If you want a UK RIB history, you are very welcome to try to sort out the rib accidents and events you think are relevant to RIBs. It will take you hundreds of less hours to do that than to begin from zero. Plus we included many references that may no longer be available anywhere else.

I am ABSOLUTELY NOT campaigning for guards. I am campaigning for being aware of your history so you do not keep repeating it. There are many other ways to address the problem. One is open discussion without attacking the comments of others.

gary

[Nos4r2]

Fair comment.

I stand by my view that a UK citizen killed in the Bahamas is a Bahamian (?) incident etc though.
As a direct comparison,if there was an earthquake in the Bahamas , it wouldn't be an incident here and it doesn't count as part of our history.
The inclusion of the patenting of sterndrives and the invention of RIBs is also irrelevant.

Once you remove all the non-killcord related things, plus the above, there's very little there.

[Poly]

Gary, what would be interesting - for those of us who don't have time to read all that - would be a summary table:

Incident........ Location........... Swimmer/Diver/Occupant..... KC preventable....

I suspect from a quick skim that there are few kill cord preventable accidents in UK waters - which is the point about new kill cord rules being largely pointless: prop safety and education would have more effect on overall safety.

[PGIC]

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

I stand by my view that a UK citizen killed in the Bahamas is a Bahamian (?) incident etc though.
As a direct comparison,if there was an earthquake in the Bahamas , it wouldn't be an incident here and it doesn't count as part of our history.
The inclusion of the patenting of sterndrives and the invention of RIBs is also irrelevant.

The UK (as does the U.S. and several other developed countries) has a history of its citizens holidaying / vacationing in water tourism destinations in less developed countries (diving, snorkeling, swimming, sight seeing) where they are maimed or killed by boat propellers. Once those accidents happen, local authorities in those less developed nations make life heck for the surviving family members by suppressing investigations into what really happened because they want tourism dollars to keep flowing. They also continue to operate in the same manner (no marked swimming areas, no spotters when backing up, not even having a first aid kit on a large sail cats, etc.) which results in history repeating itself.

While that may not be a topic for this forum, it is a topic the more developed countries of the world need to be addressing (in my opinion).

The patent was included because it covered a protective duct around the propeller.

I am not sure why your country invented the RIB is not relevant in RIBnet or in a discussion of RIB kill cord incidents.

gary

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by Poly

I suspect from a quick skim that there are few kill cord preventable accidents in UK waters - which is the point about new kill cord rules being largely pointless: prop safety and education would have more effect on overall safety.

It's agree with this. For example last week I took my boat out with 250s full time commercial skipper...we both saw and noted a commercial boat...with two crew and no passengers..with no life jackets and no cord attached.....And they are 'professional'..... you can regulate all you want...but you can't regulate the human factor.

[Observer]

It is sad to see so many fellow RIB owners/users in denial.

It is possible to debate the pros and cons of various measures that may be put forward to improve safety and to constructively analyse them.

It is impossible, IMO, but it appears to be happening, to argue that no novel technical solution can possibly yield any improvement and that the existing systems, which have self-evidently failed to be effective in a material number of cases is "the best we can do".

This is both logically absurd and, from a social responsibility perspective, simply unacceptable. As a user group we must either wake up and smell the coffee or face regulation we really will find objectionable and, possibly, counter-productive. FFS, we could at least engage in debate with an open mind.

[PGIC]

Originally Posted by Poly

Gary, what would be interesting - for those of us who don't have time to read all that - would be a summary table:

Incident........ Location........... Swimmer/Diver/Occupant..... KC preventable....

I tried to cut out everything that was not in the UK and eliminated the narrowboats, canal boats, and other events.

http://www.propellersafety.com/wordp...-kill-cord.pdf

As it mentions, this is not a complete list of accidents. It is intended for use as an EXAMPLE of how these accidents happen and as a REMINDER (history) of some of the previous accidents. It is NOT a STATISTICAL REPORT of how frequently they happen.

Others are welcome to view the list and say they think it only includes "X" kill cord preventable accidents. They just need to be very aware it does not include all of them.

gary

[Leapy]

Originally Posted by Observer

It is sad to see so many fellow RIB owners/users in denial.

It is possible to debate the pros and cons of various measures that may be put forward to improve safety and to constructively analyse them.

It is impossible, IMO, but it appears to be happening, to argue that no novel technical solution can possibly yield any improvement and that the existing systems, which have self-evidently failed to be effective in a material number of cases is "the best we can do".

This is both logically absurd and, from a social responsibility perspective, simply unacceptable. As a user group we must either wake up and smell the coffee or face regulation we really will find objectionable and, possibly, counter-productive. FFS, we could at least engage in debate with an open mind.

I'm not sure there's many - if any - in denial there's a problem, there's been lots of debate about it and there's been no shortage of suggestions that may better "the best we can do", although there remains an aspect of 'not yet invented or proven or practical' with some of the potential improvements already identified.

Whilst you might think that's logically absurd and simply unacceptable, the reality, at the moment, is that the collective brains trust on this forum - or anywhere else as I've noticed - hasn't identified a more stable, reliable and durable solution than that which currently exists if fitted and used correctly. Or have you any new suggestions to share?

Car safety has improved immeasurably in the last forty years. Sadly, many folks still die or are seriously injured and a significant number of those don't wear seat belts in spite of regulation, advertising or awareness. Humans?

[DGR]

Originally Posted by Observer

It is sad to see so many fellow RIB owners/users in denial.

It is possible to debate the pros and cons of various measures that may be put forward to improve safety and to constructively analyse them.

It is impossible, IMO, but it appears to be happening, to argue that no novel technical solution can possibly yield any improvement and that the existing systems, which have self-evidently failed to be effective in a material number of cases is "the best we can do".

This is both logically absurd and, from a social responsibility perspective, simply unacceptable. As a user group we must either wake up and smell the coffee or face regulation we really will find objectionable and, possibly, counter-productive. FFS, we could at least engage in debate with an open mind.

That's not what most of us are saying. What we ARE saying is that there is a perfectly good solution, called the kill cord, which is the simplest solution out there, as long as you use it.

You can throw all the technology you like at the issue, but you can't make it fool-proof, and some will still find a way to get round it if they want to. Also, technology has the propensity to bite you (and fail) at exactly the wrong moment - in the face of that, a simple mechanical switch and a bit of 'string' attached to you in a sensible, unobtrusive way must be the most reliable option.

In terms of electrical bits, on my RIB I've replaced two starter solenoids, two GPS units, 3 bilge pumps, a fist mike and a battery in 8 years - my kill cord switch still works everytime I check it... I like reliability.

[jyasaki]

Originally Posted by PeterM

For example last week I took my boat out with 250s full time commercial skipper...we both saw and noted a commercial boat...with two crew and no passengers..with no life jackets and no cord attached.....And they are 'professional'

I don't think that's unusual at all. It's people who are very familiar with being on the water who are most likely to take the safety aspect for granted. Followed, I suspect, by those ignorant to the dangers.

I see "professional" watermen here (US west coast) all the time who are at risk (in the context of this discussion): fishing vessels motring with skipper and crew working the deck (no PFD's); single-handed fishing boats with no kill cord; things like that.

I suspect that the recreational sector is likely worse, based solely on the facts that a) there are more of them, and b) the experience and educational level is substantially lower.

jky

[PGIC]

Originally Posted by Leapy

the reality, at the moment, is that the collective brains trust on this forum - or anywhere else as I've noticed - hasn't identified a more stable, reliable and durable solution than that which currently exists if fitted and used correctly. Or have you any new suggestions to share

Even limiting the discussion to RIBS and kill cord preventable accidents, the topic is still pretty broad.

We are not specifically recommending the approaches below, but they are among those that seem worthy for discussion. Many of them are cut from a tool we started to develop to help individuals pick the best propeller safety approach for them.

It basically teaches about five categories of propeller risk reduction activities:

1. Propeller Injury Avoidance Devices (guards, interlocks, kill switches, etc.)
2. Educational and Training Opportunities
3. Behavioral Modifications
4. Alternative Propulsion Systems
5. Warnings

Then provides boaters with a survey asking questions in 5 areas:

1. Boat Specifications
2. Operator Experience and Environment
3. Water Conditions
4. Activities On and Near My Boat
5. Exposure Time and Boater Fatigue

and provided some tools to help them sort through the existing solutions to find the approaches best suited for their highest risks.

Narrowing all that down quickly to RIB kill cord preventable approaches the same five categories of risk reduction approaches exist. The link below to Risk Proofing My Boat reasonably covers items 2 though 5 which you already probably pretty well understand, so I will focus on number 1 (devices).
http://www.propellersafety.com/wordp...ofing-boat.pdf

Devices:

1. Propeller guards may be needed or required in certain situations (small rescue boats, youth sail club support boats, youth scouting, open water swimming canoe or kayak event support boats, dive boats, life guard training, some military situations, lifeboats, yacht tenders, SOLAS, etc.)

2. Yamaha UK Pro announced a new guard last year and made some pretty extreme claims about its performance. They said they were available for all Yamaha outboards. It is our understanding that similar guards are now sold by Propeller Solutions in the UK.

3. Kill cords

4. Virtual kill cords (wearable tags like MariTech Virtual Lifeline and CAST, AutoTether, and CoastKey).

5. Safety Propellers (RingProp, Australian Environmental Safety Propeller, PowerTech! Safety Prop, MagBlade Max Thrust & Slip Stream Propellers).

6. We have suggested several inventions ourselves. Among them are:
A. Integrating a virtual kill cord with a life jacket (boat operator wears life jacket which automatically acts as a virtual kill cord)
B. Sense capacitance of people in the boat to detect man overboard situation
C. Detect screams
D. Man overboard detection without the use of lanyards or wearable tags
E. Automatically detecting a vessel circling with no one on board, and shut it down.

Details for most of these inventions are on our site and they have been placed in the public domain for anyone to use.

We also encourage the use of Public Service Announcements as part of an educational campaign about the dangers of propellers. The U.S. Coast Guard had a great one, but the industry made them take it down because they thought it showed boating in a bad light.

As others have mentioned, adding technology is not always a great idea vs. traditional kill cords. But for those who refuse to use kill cords in their current state of development, technology is an alternative.

Please note - kill cords may not be effective in some situations - operator falls overboard and is immediately struck by the propeller, not struck by the circling boat.

Also Please note - although this post focuses on devices, the other four categories of propeller risk reduction activities also offer excellent opportunities to reduce the risk of a kill cord preventable accident on a RIB.

gary

[Leapy]

Originally Posted by PGIC

Even limiting the discussion to RIBS and kill cord preventable accidents, the topic is still pretty broad.

Gary ...pretty extensive, but I still can't get away from the fact that a properly maintained kill cord is stable, reliable and durable, costs no more than a few pounds, takes seconds to fit and must have millions of man years of usage and proof behind it.

I must be getting very old, very quickly, coz, I just don't understand what's wrong with a killcord: and that's in spite of having spent most of a career involved with automotive safety systems

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by Leapy

Gary ...pretty extensive, but I still can't get away from the fact that a properly maintained kill cord is stable, reliable and durable, costs no more than a few pounds, takes seconds to fit and must have millions of man years of usage and proof behind it.

I must be getting very old, very quickly, coz, I just don't understand what's wrong with a killcord: and that's in spite of having spent most of a career involved with automotive safety systems

+ It's pointless trying to make anything idiot proof, someone will always come along & invent a better class of idiot. Kill cords work, if used correctly, end of story

[9D280]

Originally Posted by PGIC

We have suggested several inventions ourselves. Among them are:

I fully understand where you are coming from, and I applaud the forward thinking and the ""bubble solution" sheet on the website - I have used it to sanity check my own practices - but the biggest problem you have is that human race is it's own worst enemy and technology can (and will) be overridden. I can think of numerous industrial accident examples where the machine interlocking had been overridden because it either "failed safe" or weas deemed a nuisance by the operator.

Par Exemple:

Originally Posted by PGIC

A. Integrating a virtual kill cord with a life jacket (boat operator wears life jacket which automatically acts as a virtual kill cord)

You assume thr operator & all the crew will put one on, and what happens if you take your auto killcord lifejacket, and come & borrow my boat, completely forgetting that mine isn't fitted with the other half of the gizmo becasue you are so used to not putting a KC on?

Originally Posted by PGIC

B. Sense capacitance of people in the boat to detect man overboard situation

With the amount of spray floating around in an open boat I supect that might be quite difficult to get to work reliably if at all.

Originally Posted by PGIC

C. Detect screams

How do you differentiate that from seagulls?

Originally Posted by PGIC

D. Man overboard detection without the use of lanyards or wearable tags

Possibility - I suppose you could mount an IR motion sensor on the A- frame, but would salt spray & trhe resulting dried crust o nthe sensor confuse it? - and on a "working" boat (e.g fishing etc) how soon before it gets bypassed? (see commnets in above posts ref. KCs)

Originally Posted by PGIC

E. Automatically detecting a vessel circling with no one on board, and shut it down.

Again, another good suggestion, but having looked at my "snail trail form Saturday's cruise I did a complete lap (was sweeper boat and turned back to check) 6 times and that's not taking the milling around i nthe harbours waiting for the group to sort itself out - How many laps before it trips?

OK ,so it doesnlt trip at low speed for amnoevering / docking - Then you have the rudder vs speed equation and in the case of outboards what boat is the engine bolted to?

OK, so the dealer sets it up when new. Then the engine is sold and either trips at the slightest provocation, or some poor bloke with a big old displacement craft dies under his own prop because it hasn't been re-programmed and doesn't kick in below 15 knots.... etc



I'm trying to illustrate that although technology can solve a lot of problems, NOTHING can be made human proof...

<edit> as said above- <\edit> no matter how foolproof you make something, someone will come up with a better fool.


Education has to help.

[Nos4r2]

I must go, my scream detector is going off

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

I must go, my scream detector is going off

Rule #2 is galloping over the horizon, hotly pursued by #3 I've tried to avoid the whole killcord debate, as it's a circular argument & in the end Darwin always wins.