Emergency Locator Beacons & Recreational Boats: Preliminary Data Analysis

1. Emergency locator beacons & recreational boats: Preliminary data analysis Presentation to NBSAC Jeff Ludwig & Harry Hogan CG-BSX-2 May 2014

2. Overview of Presentation 1 Background 2 Analysis of SAR data 3 Discussion of ELBs 4 Recommendation/options 5 Concluding comments

3. background

4. Background • NBSAC recommended that USCG consider options that might require recreational boats to carry emergency beacons >3 NM from shore • Coast Guard personnel have done some preliminary data analysis in support of this initiative • This brief summarizes work done to date

5. Weighing the costs and benefits Benefits Costs Lives saved ELB costs Property saved False alerts Reduced search

6. Background • The Coast Guard, working with NBSAC members, has developed a model to calculate the costs and benefits of possible regulatory options—better data will help us make an informed decision • In parallel, we have done an analysis of SAR data from a single year (FY 2011) • We have focused on distress beacons (EPIRBs and PLBs)

7. Study team roles • CG-BSX-2 working with guidance from CG-SAR and NBSAC members performed the technical analyses • NBSAC members offered policy perspectives given in this brief

8. Search and Rescue Satellite-aided Tracking

9. Rescue Coordination Centers (RCC) • Receive SARSAT Distress Alerts from MCCs • Coordinate the Rescue Response

10. Distress beacons (EPIRBs and PLBs) • Provide near real-time recognition and location of distress signals • For modern units with GPS receivers, provide precise location of distress • Registered units (NOAA) enable quick resolution of possible false alerts • Designed to “reduce the search in search and rescue”

11. Reducing search in SAR • Reduces cost of SAR missions • Reduces time until rescue and, therefore, reduces likelihood of fatalities (for several reasons, one shown at right)

12. The system saves lives! • Of the 207 saves in the US in year 2011, 122 people were rescued from the water, 14 from aviation incidents, and 71 in land situations where they used their PLBs • Saves from recreational vessels ≧ 3 NM offshore are a fraction of the 122 total

13. Analysis of SAR data

14. Analysis Approach • We started with one year (2011) and examined available SAR data • CG’s Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) System • ~ 20,000 SAR cases listed in MISLE • Limited analysis to recreational vessels • Limited analysis to ≧ 3 NM offshore • 738 cases and 1,074 sorties remained

15. Approach (continued) • Established what CG assets responded and the amount of time spent • Tallied the number of Lives Lost • Monetize using both CG “reimbursable standard rates” and $9.1 million value of statistical life

16. Illustrative standard rates (2013) Search and rescue can be expensive!!

17. SAR $ value estimates For each SAR sortie: • Transit Time + Search Time + Assist Time = SAR Time • SAR Time * Inside Gov’t Rate = SAR $ value

18. Numerical example (case 531149 - ELB) Note: Standard rates shown are for 2011

19. Numerical example (case 559811 – VHF/FM) Note: Standard rates shown are for 2011

20. Comparison of notification types • Cases/sorties were grouped by notification method • Telephone - home, cell, or 911 • VHF/FM radio • Satellite Phone • Miscellaneous • Unspecified • ELB - EPIRBs, PLBs • Lives Lost per notification method was multiplied by $9.1 million

21. Means of notification: cases 390 252 5 19 60 12

22. Means of notification: sorties

23. $ Comparison with Lives Lost value added

24. Results • ELBs compare favorably with other distress notification methods (FY 2011 SAR data) • Note: One EPIRB case had a very high total ($436,577)—off the coast of Costa Rica. If this case deleted, the average value per EPIRB case lowered to $26,682

25. Key findings Discussion of ELBs

26. Lives lost/lives at risk • Although sample size small for EPIRB cases data suggests that use of EPIRBs may result in reduced fatalities • Finding was important in view of assumed value of statistical life

27. Items omitted in this analysis • Make case stronger • Value of property saved • Rescues < 3 NM from shore • Non-fatal injuries • Reduced exposure for SAR assets • Make case weaker • Cost of EPIRB/ELB • Cost of false alarms

28. Rescue assets are also at risk!

29. Collision of CG C-130 and USMC Helo 29 October 2009 Reduced exposure for SAR assets is not a hypothetical benefit

30. Cost benefit model • Model developed • Some key data needs remain for full implementation. Examples include: • Exposure data (number of vessels, number of trips) on recreational vessels that venture 3 NM offshore • Mishap probabilities • Larger data base on fatalities as function of notification type

31. Opportunities • It is appropriate to revise MISLE database to enable more efficient searches • MISLE narratives could also be improved, particularly for noteworthy cases • Discrepancy between reported carriage of EPIRBs (13.2% of boating days from National Survey) and use for notification (1.62%) bears further research

32. Findings consistent with study of F/V casualties • F/V regulations requiring universal EPIRB carriage, and cold water protection where necessary, have reduced loss of life by more than half • Survival rates where emergency equipment was used were more than twice the rate where not (65% compared to 28%)

33. EPIRB/ELBs may be of particular value in “wet” cases • So-called “wet” cases (e.g., capsizings) present particular challenges for notification and location because fixed VHF radios might be compromised affording little/no opportunity for distress communications

34. Illustrative “saved by the PLB” survivor story Name: Gary Mallow MD Product Name: AquaLink PLB Date of Rescue: July 2010 Saved By: CGC Drummond and helicopter Lives Saved: 4 people We had departed from Ft. Lauderdale to Freeport on Friday and had an uneventful and very pleasant trip over. It was during our return that things got bad. We had an engine alarm go off on the port engine and out of precaution I shut down one engine. We were approximately 40 miles out from Ft Lauderdale when we lost all of our electronics and power but still limping on one engine and it was getting late in the afternoon and still far out. We had a hand held radio but too far out to contact anyone. So with limited power and no electronics or power I activated the AquaLink. Within 30 minutes we had the coast guard helicopter circling us and a short time later the CGC Drummond was there. We had an escort by the Drummond and then US Tow helped the rest of the way as we ran out of fuel on the good engine. I bought the AquaLink never thinking I would have to use it, but the first trip with it on board it was a life saver. My thanks to everyone at your company. Behind every statistic on lives saved is a human story worth telling!

35. Recommendations & Concluding comments

36. Moving Forward • Results of initial analyses supported by this analysis—it appears that either mandating carriage of these devices or “in lieu of” requirements offers real benefits • Additional outreach initiative to explain benefits of ELBs appropriate • Fruitful area for continued research • Enhancements to MISLE appropriate—detailed list available

37. Enhancing the Resolution • Continue similar research to increase sample size for cost-benefit determinations • Future NRBS should capture “affected population” data (i.e.# of boats > 3NM) • Work with partners to publicize benefits of ELBs; integrate with “safety culture” messages • Enhance MISLE database • NBSAC should continue to monitor developments

38. Questions