Propeller Accident Statistics

[9D280]

Children children... We are drifting somewhat from the original subject.

I'm even beginning to regret joining in.

So. Can I summarise:
- people die by propellers
- the human race is its own worst enemy
- tech can always be improved
- the more you complicate a system the more likely it is to break or get bypassed
- nothing is the answer to everything.

Everyone happy?

So, can we all just calm down & get back to designing the super deadman or teaching the world about kill cords or whatever your solution is instead of wasting time here arguing with each other!

In the words of a large retail establishment: "every little helps"

[Observer]

Originally Posted by 9D280

Children children... We are drifting somewhat from the original subject.

I'm even beginning to regret joining in.

So. Can I summarise:
- people die by propellers
- the human race is its own worst enemy
- tech can always be improved
- the more you complicate a system the more likely it is to break or get bypassed
- nothing is the answer to everything.

Everyone happy?

So, can we all just calm down & get back to designing the super deadman or teaching the world about kill cords or whatever your solution is instead of wasting time here arguing with each other!

I can agree with most of that, if we can all agree:

- tech can always be improved

nothing is the answer to everything

but imperfect or incomplete answers are better than no answers at all.

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by 9D280

Wot he sedd

Careful, you don't want to sound too much like a voice of reason

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by Observer

but imperfect or incomplete answers are better than no answers at all.

I can agree with that too, if we can agree that answers with more imperfections than the current solution are pointless.

I also agree that tech can always be improved,as long as it's feasable and realistic.

[kubcat]

Trying to get back on track, a free publication called Sydney Afloat which is targeted at Sydney boaters, has dedicated this months editorial to propellor accidents.

The rest of the publication has letters in regards to prop guards and some prop guard advertisements as well which seems to be our solution combined with education.

We have had a Prop Aware promotion in New South Wales for a few years now. Stickers are provided free to be stuck on transoms to remind people that there is a prop near there. It is obvious to us, but maybe not to our inexperienced guests.

Note that all vessels above 5hp must have a licensed operator in New South Wales. With a licence renewal and boat registration you get a pamphlet reminding us of the proper navigation lights and another highlighting the dangers of propellors.

The editorial in Sydney Afloat talks about workplace accidents and fines imposed by Workcover (a government department that looks after the safety if workplaces).

Here is a link

http://www.afloat.com.au/afloat-maga...d#.Ua5zycsayK0

And here is an excerpt from the editorial.

"On 31 July 2009, the UNSW School of Biological Earth and Environmental Sciences was conducting a field trip in Darling Harbour in an outboard powered RIB. The licensed boat operator was turning at about 10-12 knots, lost control of the RIB, and three passengers were ejected. A student (Ms. Gall) among those ejected was struck by the boat propeller. The University was sued by WorkCover NSW in the NSW Industrial Relations Commission for failing to comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 2000, and fined $100,000.

This case follows the Australian Military (ADFA) being fined $210,000 for not using propeller guards in response to the organisation being sued by COMCARE (Oliver Minchin incident, see Letters)."

Warning: This publication does have some rather political views sometimes.

[captnjack]

Originally Posted by Poly

How about:

1. Clip round leg like most people here do.
2. Modify dry suit to add a secure fixing.
3. Use the "dog leash" method described by 250kts in the other thread
4. Use a belt (such as your weight belt).
5. Wear a life jacket when on the boat and clip to that. If you are feeling safety conscious a lifejacket is probably wise anyway. It would cost less than $300.

1) doesn't allow me to assist passengers or weigh anchor while the engine idles in neutral or very slowly in forward (to maintain a fixed position or take up the anchor line tension for instance) with a kill device on me. Basically I am stuck at the helm instead of being able to move even 1m away.
2) ditto
3) ditto
4) Not going to wear a 12kg weight belt all day just to have a place to attach a kill cord which is perfectly functional - just limited in function around my wrist.
5) Don't need a life jacket with a drysuit on + lots of exceptionally bouyant undergarments (note 12 kg weight belt + ~7kg backplate with lead on that too = 19+ kgs of positive buoyancy which is actually more than a life jacket). And I'd need 2 sets of life jackets then anyway. One giant one (for everyone aboard) for most days when I'm wearing drysuits, a second normal sized one for the occasional days when we're not in drysuits/diving.

Kill cords work. Their functionality for you is obviously fine. I use mine whenever I can, but the reality is that occasionally I have to unclip or give them helm over to someone else. And the kill cord isn't always reclipped as it should be. A point which many other people noted as well, sometimes its forgotten etc. A completely waterproof unpowered RFID "fob" without which the engine cannot run would be fanastic for me as a kill switch and potentially do double duty as a security device - the exact same functionality is already built into many auto keys.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Observer

Self-evidently, no. This is an "opinion".

My "opinion" is that there is a general failure of members on this forum to acknowledge and accept a responsibility to seek new methods of mitigating the risks posed by runaway open boats and propeller strikes by propeller driven boats generally.

really? 4 different threads: hundreds of posts, thousands of views, various ideas discussed for improving kill cords, emphasis that the existing system works when used. Majority of people seem to use a cord all or the vast majority of time. Has someone presented a working, demonstrable, affordable system or do you expect individuals to invest in their own solution? Since you feel so strongly will you be developing an improved system? Are there a significant number of cases where the existing system when used correctly is ineffective? I'm not aware of them - so in my opinion that solution is to get people to use the existing system - something that many people on ribnet feel passionately about and are actively trying to promote, and something that people can do today. There are various "low tech" solutions that have been suggested to make the existing solution more likely to be used.

I consider that responsibility for seeking solutions weighs particularly on owners of RIBs because my perception is that RIBS are disproportionately involved in leisure boat accidents.

does the evidence support your hypothesis? my gut feel is that there are more fatalities from diving, canoeing/kayaking and sailing than ribs - I don't have the data to determine if that is more per hour of activity. In any case I expect we are all more likely to die in the car on the way to / from the boat than on the boat.

If you feel that the criticism is aimed at you, then please feel free to feel offended.

Tim, you need to differentiate disagreeing with my opinion from calling me (or anyone else) a disgrace. Your closing statement suggests you intend to offend - I've already made clear that we won't tolerate that.

You've obviously not read the various threads on this though - as if you did you will see that I "started" the one on 'improved' engine kill systems!

However this thread is not about kill cords (take that discussion over here: http://www.rib.net/forum/f8/high-tec...ight=kill+cord). This thread is about "propellor" accident stats. I think it is legitimate to question and understand the stats because:

(1) Other claims would have us believe that we need regulation because this is very common. It appears from PGIC's reports that it is rate in UK waters - so UK regulations would have no impact of brits abroad.

(2) PGIC's data seems to suggest (as I suspected) that most prop injuries do not happen from a MoB / absence of a kill cord - they strike people who were intentionally in the water. If you are going to solve a problem / improve a technology its best to understand the issue first.

Rather than dismissing PGIC (which might have been tempting considering he is promoting his own agenda that at least has some loose association to his commercial interests) this thread was split out to encourage that the data might be presented and understood properly by all who were considering the risks they might encounter: neither overstated nor ignored. Unfortunately you've detracted from discussing the problem.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by captnjack

1) doesn't allow me to assist passengers or weigh anchor while the engine idles in neutral or very slowly in forward (to maintain a fixed position or take up the anchor line tension for instance) with a kill device on me. Basically I am stuck at the helm instead of being able to move even 1m away.

I understand your issue. I've been in the same situation. I've also seen more experienced helmsmen handle much bigger boats without needing to leave the helm. Perhaps it is not our kill cord which is at fault but our general systems of work?

5) Don't need a life jacket with a drysuit on + lots of exceptionally bouyant undergarments (note 12 kg weight belt + ~7kg backplate with lead on that too = 19+ kgs of positive buoyancy which is actually more than a life jacket). And I'd need 2 sets of life jackets then anyway. One giant one (for everyone aboard) for most days when I'm wearing drysuits, a second normal sized one for the occasional days when we're not in drysuits/diving.

mmm... you wouldn't convince the "health and safety" folks over here with that argument. If you are wearing a dry suit the recommendation here would be for a 275N jacket - [which is more than your 19kg]. I know that divers rarely wear lifejackets - whether that is well thought through might be a different debate. Many people here will have multiple jackets for different scenarious e.g. foam bouyancy aid for rescue boat work, standard lifejacket for summer, 275N for winter...

Kill cords work. Their functionality for you is obviously fine. I use mine whenever I can, but the reality is that occasionally I have to unclip or give them helm over to someone else. And the kill cord isn't always reclipped as it should be. A point which many other people noted as well, sometimes its forgotten etc.

I concede all of that but I would start with asking how you might make your existing systems of work safer: reduce need to unclip (e.g. does the helm need to weigh anchor or could someone else, could you kill the engine, could you unclip the cord from controls when not in use - forcing you to reconnect to restart etc).

A completely waterproof unpowered RFID "fob" without which the engine cannot run would be fanastic for me as a kill switch and potentially do double duty as a security device - the exact same functionality is already built into many auto keys.

How would you know it was working? If its easy you could implement it and report back. You presumably still need to swap "devices" between helmsmen when you go for a dive (otherwise engine stops). That introduces the risk that the other helm doesn't attach it to themselves and it remains on the boat when they do not. You said earlier that it was likely you would forget and take it for a dive - that will leave the boat disabled - it will need a means to override (i.e. a means of failure!). How far do the 'autokeys' work?

From PGIC's reports it looks like as a diver you are much more likely to get hit by a prop when you are in the water intentionally than after falling overboard. I may be misguided but that phenomenon with divers, skiers, swimmers etc worries me far more than forgetting the kill cord and falling out. Is it possible that one high profile problem masks other higher risk issues?

[PGIC]

Originally Posted by kubcat

Trying to get back on track, a free publication called Sydney Afloat which is targeted at Sydney boaters, has dedicated this months editorial to propellor accidents.

The editorial in Sydney Afloat talks about workplace accidents and fines imposed by Workcover (a government department that looks after the safety if workplaces).

Here is a link

Editor's column - Exposed propellers are now both a safety...and financial hazard

Thanks for posting the Afloat link, that reminds me I have better things to do than offer any more suggestions in this environment. See ya next year.

gary

[Cookee]

Originally Posted by PGIC

We have thought it through quite a bit, thank you.



For those who think scream detection is silly, we suggest you see some of the work done in this field:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...%2C37&as_sdtp=


gary

None of that work was done in a marine environment with a running outboard and is therefore irrelevant, the cost and complexity to make that work would clearly be well beyond and realistic commercial investment - even if it was a realistic answer.

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

Seconded.

So far all I've heard is babble.

+1!

For anyone that has read the whole thread I think I find myself on the side of reason - None of the posts suggesting alternatives or additions to kill cords have come up with something that is cost effective, likely to be adopted by engine manufacturers, reliable and practical - even scream detection!

[9D280]

Originally Posted by PGIC

Thanks for posting the Afloat link, that reminds me I have better things to do than offer any more suggestions in this environment. See ya next year.

gary

You realise that in one line you have probably destroyed what respect you had built up? I had given you the benefit of the doubt, but that one sentence has just wiped your "professional approach" clean off the page.



You shot my sounder idea down. Fair enough, it was a bit of a brainstorming moment.
OK, I admit I haven't had time to trawl the US patent databese etc, but 2007 was 5 years ago. Playboxes now recognise you instead of just knowing what you are doing with your arms & legs - Lowrance now do an HD side scan. Think the thought might be worth a wee re-visit?

I am now tempted to go find a cheap fishfinder with a depth alarm and mount it facing backwards on my transom. What do you reckon I can get it to squeal at an appropriate moment if someone is floating behind the boat?

If you're worried about signal clarity because of the prop spinning then you have just ignored the whole original point of protecting people behind the boat at start up.....




Another thought I'd be really curious on your opinion - do you think the reason these things aren't developed is for the same reason as that famous case of the burglar successfuly suing the place he was burgling for letting him fall through a roof panel? -At what point will the safety kit / engine / boat builder find themselves in court because some unlucky swimmer was killed because they swam by the back of the boat when the kit was fitted and the swimmer's family has a "no win no fee" lawyer?

Ever noticed any GPS built after about 1995 will open with a splash screen that essentially says "don't actually use me to navigate with"?



All the best with the tech. No injury or death is good, however it happens. Let's just try & make sure the way forward is workable.

[jyasaki]

Originally Posted by 9D280

Children children... We are drifting somewhat from the original subject.

I'm even beginning to regret joining in.

So. Can I summarise:
- people die by propellers
- the human race is its own worst enemy
- tech can always be improved
- the more you complicate a system the more likely it is to break or get bypassed
- nothing is the answer to everything.

In the words of a large retail establishment: "every little helps"

The last goes against your fifth bullet point.


jky

[9D280]

I was summarizing the whole debate...



Incidentally -

Originally Posted by 9D280

I am now tempted to go find a cheap fishfinder with a depth alarm and mount it facing backwards on my transom. What do you reckon I can get it to squeal at an appropriate moment if someone is floating behind the boat?

You know what? I have a transom mounted sounder module. Turning it through 90 degrees to fire aft will take about 4.5 seconds...... Watch this space...

[paddlers]

Will it detect screams ?

[DGR]

The problem with this whole thread is that we aren't the ones who will fund, research, design, manufacture or implement a solution - although I accept that a minority on here are involved in some way due to their day to day work - PGIC for example - but generally......

That's not to say I'm dismissing it - as others have said, if a system as reliable as a kill cord came along, which you couldn't 'forget' to use - then that would be excellent.

I doubt that airbags, ABS, traction control or crumple zones would have been developed by a 'motor' forum to protect drivers and pedestrians - but that's what some seem to be implying that WE (Ribnet) should be doing...

The people to implement this would be the industry itself - boat builders/engine suppliers etc - but there is no incentive for them to do so, as if the kill chord is supplied, but not used, it's user error - i.e. nothing to do with them.

I'm not sure how you would apply pressure to the industry to change. The govt did this for the car industry to reduce the number of road deaths - but do the stats support government action on mandating a new system as part of the CE rating (for example)? I think Nos's review of PGIC's stats shows that the incidence of these injuries is so small (compared to other accidents/injuries) that it simply wouldn't be an H&S priority.

I also want to add that I don't think that the majority on here are at all complacent - but experienced and have an awareness of what might work, or not.

[captnjack]

Originally Posted by Poly

I understand your issue. I've been in the same situation. I've also seen more experienced helmsmen handle much bigger boats without needing to leave the helm. Perhaps it is not our kill cord which is at fault but our general systems of work?
mmm... you wouldn't convince the "health and safety" folks over here with that argument. If you are wearing a dry suit the recommendation here would be for a 275N jacket - [which is more than your 19kg]. I know that divers rarely wear lifejackets - whether that is well thought through might be a different debate. Many people here will have multiple jackets for different scenarious e.g. foam bouyancy aid for rescue boat work, standard lifejacket for summer, 275N for winter...

I'm not a commercial operator, I'd need a much larger and more expensive RIB to actually meet "coding" requirements and at that price I would never turn a profit after insurance and taxes. As a mere recreational boater, my life jacket requirements here are pretty lax. I just need to have them and they need to be "immediately accessible" but they don't need to be worn or even commercial size. With out water temps, if you are in a drysuit (or thick wetsuit) you'll float quite well and actually survive if you got ejected. I'm in ~50F water for over an hour at a time afterall. I've been boarded by our CG a couple times and was recently inspected by our CG "auxillary" (similar to your RNLI) they both seem to think my operation is far better than average. So I'm not really concerned about life jackets honestly.

Originally Posted by Poly

I concede all of that but I would start with asking how you might make your existing systems of work safer: reduce need to unclip (e.g. does the helm need to weigh anchor or could someone else, could you kill the engine, could you unclip the cord from controls when not in use - forcing you to reconnect to restart etc).

I'm generally boating with 2 types of people, my spouse who's too petite and has a bad back. Or novices. The novices always seem to foul the anchor (somehow, don't ask how they do it) so I try to take care of these things myself. We occasionally have a mooring buoys on dive sites, I do assign other people to clip into those (we just use a short bow line with carabiners).

I try not to kill the engine until we are either anchored, tied up to the dock, to clipped to a mooring buoy. Seems like the boat wants to move the most in that moment when you reach for XYZ.

Originally Posted by Poly

How would you know it was working? If its easy you could implement it and report back. You presumably still need to swap "devices" between helmsmen when you go for a dive (otherwise engine stops). That introduces the risk that the other helm doesn't attach it to themselves and it remains on the boat when they do not. You said earlier that it was likely you would forget and take it for a dive - that will leave the boat disabled - it will need a means to override (i.e. a means of failure!). How far do the 'autokeys' work?

I was thinking that when I am off the boat but it might need to be driven by someone else the fob could be clipped to the keys. Yes you could start it with the fob clipped there effectively overriding its purpose. In that sense it wouldn't be any better than the current string. But it would be right there in your hand as you reached for the keys so a bit of a reminder to use it. It'd be easy to test operation, just start the engine at the dock and walk down the dock until the kill switch activates.

Over here auto keys have RFID chips in them. If you don't have the manufacturer's coded key in the ignition it won't start the car. In the past you could brute force the iginition with a home made "key" or even a screwdriver.

Originally Posted by Poly

From PGIC's reports it looks like as a diver you are much more likely to get hit by a prop when you are in the water intentionally than after falling overboard. I may be misguided but that phenomenon with divers, skiers, swimmers etc worries me far more than forgetting the kill cord and falling out. Is it possible that one high profile problem masks other higher risk issues?

This is true, a diver in general is much more likely to get struck than fall or thrown out and hit.

But your own RYA reports are the ones describing how prop guards, rings and such are essentially useless for preventing start up prop strikes. Since I only have 4 people aboard at any one time that's my primary "safety" mechanism - since I don't start the boat until everyone is aboard. We do live boat some sites and I have trained my wife to shut down the engine and have the divers (me and others) swim to nearby the drifting boat in these circumstances. The only time we'd pull up to a diver under power would be an emergency when they are unable to swim themselves the last 4-5m. This would be a challenging and dangerous event. I have practiced a couple times but still never going to be like a real situation.

My interest in a wireless kill switch is mostly because I think it would be "value added" compared to a peice of string. It wouldn't necessarily even be safer, it would just make my boating easier with a comparable level of safety.

For slow speed or startup strikes I would love to see something like a electromagnetic proximity sensor. Basically any human body part within 1-2m of the lower unit would trigger the kill switch. They have something similar for table saws: SawStop - The World's Leading Maker of Safe 10-inch Table Saws » Monitor and Detect
It might even be do-able in freshwater but alas I suspect its not a feasible technology in saltwaters.

[Pikey Dave]

CaptainJack, I too am a diver/RIB owner of over 20 years. A couple of observations on how we normally operate:-
I clip my killcord to the tag on the convenience (pee) zip on my drysuit, it's out of the way & easily accessed.
We never anchor when we have divers in the water, we dive tidal waters, usually wrecks. We "bag off" for our ascent, i.e deploy a delayed SMB which immediately alerts the surface that we are on our way & where we are, the boat shadows the divers.
If we are diving around rocks/islands, we pick up divers with the engines running & in neutral. If we are in open water, we chug over to the surfaced divers & kill the engine when we are a couple of yards away.
We've just changed our car which now has keyless entry (RFID?) I now keep the keys inside my drysuit, when recovering the boat I just walk up to the car & open the door, works fine. I assume this could be applied to a similar remote killcord system.
Personally, I hate & distrust any system designed to STOP a boat from working, especially when I have divers in the water, I see killcords as a necessary evil. It's bad enough jumping out of a perfectly good boat, the idea that the thing might not be there when I get back, is a worry I can do without. I have been adrift twice in the water as a result of engines refusing to start, it's not nice seeing the boat getting blown one way as the tide takes you in the opposite direction. If a killcord system fails, you have a chance of overriding it, by manually pressing the kill switch & starting the engine. An electronic system would require a similar override before I would consider fitting it to my boat, & that would render the whole thing pointless & we are back to square one.

Just my 2 penneth

[captnjack]

We don't actually live boat and "bag up" that much here. Most of our sites are fairly close to shore, the middle of Puget Sound is 300-1200ft deep. So we dive at slack, actually fairly often from a "dead" boat with nobody aboard. In over 13 years of doing this and probably 700 private boat dives I have yet to not make it back to the boat.

I don't rely on neutral when divers are in the water. I almost always shut the engine down.

But I agree, being able to reliably REstart is essential.

[DGR]

The problem wth the car type systems (RF-ID?) is the range. Not all accidents are high speed - what is the minimum turning circle if you fell over the side? If performance is similar to the last car I usesd with that sort of 'keyless entry' system - I could have the system on my lifejcket, and still have the boat run me over repeatedly (or at least once).

RF isn't accurate or discriminate enough - which is the main problem with that tech.

D...

[biffer]

I've been reading these posts and without trying to upset anybody, you're over complicating what should be basic good boatman ship, keep it simple and be professional is all you need