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

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

BACKGROUND 3

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 4

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

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) 6

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 7

Search and Rescue Satellite- aided Tracking 8

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

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” 10

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) 11

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 12

ANALYSIS OF SAR DATA 13

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 14

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 15

Illustrative standard rates (2013) 16 Type of assetAssetStandard rate ($/hour) Aircraft/HelosHC 130 H/J $20,830 H 65 $11,937 Cutters378 WHEC$15, WPB$5, WYTL$6,739 Small boatsMLB (44, 47, 52)$4,145 UTB$1,693 Search and rescue can be expensive! !

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

Numerical example (case ELB) 18 AssetHU-25RBMTotal Standard rate ($/hr.)$10,364$3,684 Transit time (min)8662 Search time (min)230 Assist time (min)6623 Transit cost ($)$14,855$3,807$18,662 Search cost ($)$3,9730 Assist cost ($)$11,400$1,412$12,812 Subtotal ($)$30,228$5,219$35,447 Lives lost0 Cost of lives lost ($)0 Total cost ($)$35,447 Note: Standard rates shown are for 2011

Numerical example (case – VHF/FM) 19 AssetHC-130H/J87 WPBTotal Standard rate ($/hr.)$14,439$2,601 Transit time (min)37104 Search time (min)1020 Assist time (min)00 Transit cost ($)$8,904$4,508$13,412 Search cost ($)$24,5460 Assist cost ($)$0 Subtotal ($)$33,450$4,508$37,958 Lives lost0 Cost of lives lost ($)0 Total cost ($)$37,958 Note: Standard rates shown are for 2011

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 20

Means of notification: cases

Means of notification: sorties 22

$ Comparison with Lives Lost value added 23 Means of notification CasesSortiesLives lost Lives at risk Average cost Per case Telephone $349,063 VHF/FM $105,360 Satellite phone 5704$47,954 Misc $938,258 Unspecified $177,466 Subtotal7261, $218,466 EPIRB $63,063 Total7381, $215,939

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 24

KEY FINDINGS 25 Discussion of ELBs

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 26

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 27

Rescue assets are also at risk!

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

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 30

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 31

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%) 32

EPIRB/ELBs may be of particular value in “wet” cases 33 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

Illustrative “saved by the PLB” survivor story 34 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!

RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUDING COMMENTS 35

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 36

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 37

38 Questions