Tag Archives: accident

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

8 Injured by Arresting Cable Failure on Aircraft Carrier

By ThinkReliability Staff

An aircraft carrier is a pretty amazing thing. Essentially, it can launch planes from anywhere. But even though aircraft carriers are huge, they aren’t big enough for planes to take off or land in a normal method. The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) has about 500′ for landing planes. In order for planes to be able to successfully land in that distance, it is equipped with an arresting wire system, which can stop a 54,000 lb. aircraft travelling 150 miles per hour in only two seconds and a 315′ landing area. This system consists of 4 arresting cables, which are made of wire rope coiled around hemp. These ropes are very thick and heavy and cause a significant risk to personnel safety if they are parted or detached.

This is what happened on March 18, 2016 while attempting to land an E-2C Hawkeye. An arresting cable came unhooked from the port side of the ship and struck a group of sailors on deck. At least 8 were injured, several of whom had to be airlifted off the ship for treatment. We will examine the details of this incident within a Cause Map, a visual form of root cause analysis.

The first step in any problem investigation is to define the problem. We capture the what, when, and where within a problem outline. Additionally, we capture the impacts to the goals. The injuries as well as the potential for death or even more serious injuries are impacts to the safety goal. Flight operations were shut down for two days, impacting both the mission and production/ schedule goal. The potential of the loss of or (serious damage to) the plane is an impact to the property goal. (In a testament to the skill of Navy pilots, the plane returned to Naval Station Norfolk without any crew injuries to the flight crew or significant damage to the plane.) The response and investigation are an impact to the labor goal. It’s also useful to capture the frequency of these types of incidents.   The Virginian-Pilot reports that there have been three arresting-gear related deaths and 12 major injuries since 1980.

The next step in the problem-solving process is to determine the cause-and-effect relationships that led to the impacted goals. Beginning with the safety goal, the injuries to the sailors resulted from being struck by an arresting cable. When a workplace injury results, it’s also important to capture the personal protective equipment (PPE) that may have impacted the magnitude of the injuries. In this case, all affected sailors were wearing appropriate PPE, including heavy-duty helmets, eye and ear protection. This is a cause of the injuries because had they NOT been wearing PPE, the injuries would have certainly been much more severe, or resulted in death.

The arresting cable struck the sailors because it came unhooked from the port side of the ship. The causes for the detachment of the cable have not been conclusively determined; however, a material failure results from a force on the material that is greater than the strength of the material. In this case the force on the arresting cable is from the landing plane. In this case, the pilot reported the plane “hit the cable all at once”, which could have provided more force than is typical. The strength of the cable and connection may have been impacted by age or use. However, arresting cables are designed to “catch” and slow planes at full power and are only used for a specific number of landings before being replaced.

Other impacted goals can be added to the Cause Map where appropriate (additional relationships may result). In this case, the potential damage to the plane resulted from the landing failure, which was caused by the detachment of the arresting cable AND because the arresting cable is needed to safely land a plane on an aircraft carrier.

The last step of the Cause Mapping process is to determine solutions to reduce the risk of the incident recurring. More investigation is needed to ensure that the cable and connection were correctly installed and maintained. If it is determined that there were issues with the connection and cable, the processes that lead to the errors will be improved. However, it is determined that the cable and connection met design criteria and the detachment resulted from the plane landing at an unusual angle, there may be no changes as a result of this investigation.

It seems unusual that an investigation that resulted in 8 injuries would result in no action items. However, solutions are based on achieving an appropriate level of risk. The acceptable level of risk in the military is necessarily higher than it is in most civilian workplaces in order to achieve desired missions. Returning to the frequency from the outline, these types of incidents are extremely rare. The US Navy currently has ten operational aircraft carrier (and an eleventh is on the way). These carriers launch thousands of planes each year yet over the last 36 years, there have been only 3 deaths and twelve major injuries associated with landing gear failures, performing a dangerous task in a dangerous environment. Additionally, in this case, PPE was successful in ensuring that all sailors survived and limiting injury to them.

To view the outline and Cause Map of this event, click on “Download PDF” above.

 

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

For the first time, autonomous car is at fault for a crash

By Kim Smiley

On February 14, 2016, the self-driving Google car was involved in a fender bender with a bus in Mountain View, California.  Both vehicles were moving slowly at the time and the accident resulted in only minor damage and no injuries.  While this accident may not seem like a very big deal, the collision is making headlines because it is the first time one of Google’s self-driving cars has contributed to an accident.  Google’s self-driving cars have been involved in 17 other fender benders, but each of the previous accidents was attributed to the actions of a person, either the drivers of other vehicles or the Google test driver (while they were controlling the Google car).

The accident in question occurred after the Google car found itself in a tricky driving situation while attempting to merge.  The Google car had moved over to the right lane in anticipation of making a right turn.  Sandbags had been stacked around a storm drain, blocking part of the right lane.  The Google car stopped and waited for the lane next to it to clear so that it could drive around the obstacle.  As the Google car moved into the next lane it bumped a bus that was coming up from behind it.  Both the driver of the bus and the Google car assumed that the other vehicle would yield.  The test driver in the Google car did not take control of the vehicle and prevent the car from moving into the lane because he also assumed the bus would slow down and allow the car to merge into traffic. (Click on “Download PDF” to view a Cause Map that visually lays out the causes that contributed to this accident.)

Thankfully, this collision was a relatively minor accident. No one was hurt and there was only relatively minor damage to the vehicles involved. Lessons learned from this accident are already being incorporated to help prevent a similar incident in the future. Google has stated that the software that controls the self-driving cars has been tweaked so that the cars will recognize that buses and other large vehicles may be less likely to yield than other types of vehicles. (I wonder if there is a special taxi tweak in the code?)

It’s also worth noting that one of the driving factors behind the development of autonomous cars is the desire to improve traffic safety and reduce the 1.2 million traffic deaths that occur every year.  The Google car may have contributed to this accident, but Google cars have so far generally proved to be very safe.  Since 2009, Google cars have driven more than 2 million miles and have been involved in fewer than 20 accidents.

One of the more interesting facets of this accident is that it raises hard questions about liability.  Who is responsible when a self-driving car causes a crash? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently determined that for regulatory purposes, autonomous vehicle software is a “driver” which may mean that auto manufacturers will assume greater legal responsibility for crashes.  NHTSA is working to develop guidance for self-driving vehicles, which they plan to release by July, but nobody really knows yet the impact self-driving cars will have on liability laws and insurance policies.  In addition to the technology issues, there are many legal and policy questions that will need to be answered before self-driving cars can become mainstream technology.

Personally, I am just hoping this technology is commercially available before I reach the age where my kids take away my car keys.

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

Investigators Blame “Human Error” for Train Collision

By Kim Smiley

On February 9, 2016, two commuter trains collided head-on in Upper Bavaria, Germany.  Eleven people were killed and dozens were injured.  Investigators are still working to determine exactly what caused the accident and the train dispatcher is currently under investigation for involuntary manslaughter and could face up to five years in prison if convicted.

Although the investigation is still ongoing, some information has been released about what caused the crash.  The two trains collided head-on because they were both traveling on the same track toward each other in opposite directions.  Running two trains on the same track is common practice in rural regions in Germany and these two trains were scheduled to pass each other at a station with a divided track. The drivers of both trains were unaware of the other train.  The accident occurred on a bend in a wooded area so the drivers could not see the other train until it was too late to prevent the collision.

The dispatcher failed to prevent a situation where two trains were running towards each other on the same track or to inform the drivers about the potential for a collision.  Investigators have stated that the dispatcher sent an incorrect signal to one of the trains due to “human error”.  After realizing the mistake – and that a collision was imminent – the dispatcher issued emergency signals to the trains, but they were too late to prevent the accident.

All rail routes in Germany have automatic braking systems that are intended to stop a train before a collision can occur, but initial reports are that the safety system had been manually turned off by the dispatcher.  German media has reported that the system was overridden to allow the eastbound train to pass because it was running late, but this information has not been confirmed.  Black boxes from both trains have been collected and analyzed.  Technical failure of the trains and signaling equipment have been ruled out as potential causes of the accident.

The information that has been released to the media can be used to build an initial Cause Map, a visual root cause analysis, of this issue.  A Cause Map visually lays out the cause-and-effect relationships and aids in understanding the many causes that contributed to an issue. The Cause Map is built by asking “why” questions. A detailed Cause Map can aid in the development of more effective solutions.

One of the general Cause Mapping rules of thumb is that an investigation should not stop at “human error”.  Human error is too general and vague to be helpful in developing effective solutions. It is important to ask “why” the error was made and really work to understand what factors lead to the mistake.  Should the safety system be able to be manually overridden?  Is the training for dispatchers adequate?  Does there need to be a second check on decisions by dispatchers?  Should two trains traveling in opposite directions be sharing tracks?  I don’t know the answers, but these questions should be asked during the investigation.  Charging the dispatcher with involuntary manslaughter may prevent HIM from making the same mistake again, but it won’t necessarily reduce the risk of a similar accident occurring again in the future.  To really reduce risk, investigators need to dig into the details of why the error was made.

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

Are Your Vehicle’s Tires Safe?

By ThinkReliability Staff

Four vehicle accidents between February and May of 2014 took 12 lives and injured 42 more. While the specifics of the accidents varied, all four were due to tread separations on tires. Later that year the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) hosted a Passenger Vehicle Tire Safety Symposium to address areas of concern regarding passenger vehicle safety due to tire issues. A special investigation report, which was adopted October 27, 2015, provides a summary of the issues and industry-wide recommendations to improve passenger vehicle safety.

There are multiple issues causing safety concerns with tires, and multiple recommendations to mitigate these safety risks. When dealing with a complex issue such as this, it can help to visually diagram the cause-and-effect relationships. We can do this in a Cause Map, or visual root cause analysis. This analysis begins with an impact to the organization’s goals. According to the NTSB report, tire-related accidents cause more than 500 deaths and 19,000 injuries every year in the US. Customer service (customers being members of the public who purchase and/or use tires) is impacted due to a lack of understanding of tire safety. The regulatory goal is impacted due to a lack of tire registration, and the production goal is impacted due to a low recall completion rate. Lastly, the property goal is impacted due to tires that are improperly maintained.

Cause-and-effect relationships are developed by beginning with an impacted goal (in this case, the deaths and injuries) and asking “why” questions. In this case, the deaths and injuries are due to tire-related accidents, of which there are about 33,000 every year in the US. Tire-related accidents includes accidents that are due to tire issues (such as tread separation) caused by improper maintenance or an unrepaired manufacturing issue with a tire (specifically those resulting in a tire recall). While the NTSB is recommending the promotion of technology that may reduce the risk of tire-related accidents, they also made recommendations that can reduce the risk of these accidents in the near term.

From 2009-2013, there were 3.2 million tires recalled in 55 safety campaigns. However, 56% of recalled tires remain in use, because of very low recall work completion rates. In a typical tire recall, only about 20% of recalled tires are returned to the manufacturer. (In comparison, about 78% of recalled cars are repaired.)   Many tires aren’t registered, and if they aren’t, it’s difficult to reach owners when there are recalls. Independent dealers and distributors, which sell 92% of tires in the US, aren’t required to register tires. While it is possible for consumers to look up their own tires to determine if they’ve been recalled, it’s difficult. The full tire identification number may not be printed in an accessible location, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) website for tire recalls was found to be confusing.

The NTSB has recommended that tire manufacturers include the full tire identification number on both the inboard and outboard side walls of each tire so it can be more easily found by consumers. The NTSB has also recommended that the NHTSA, with the cooperation of the tire industry and Congress, if necessary, improve its recall site to allow search by identification number or brand and model, and improve registration requirements and the recall process.

Regarding improper maintenance, the report found that 23% of tire-related crashes involved tire aging and that 50% of drivers use the wrong tire inflation pressure, 69% have an underinflated tire, 63% don’t rotate their tires, and 12% have at least one bald tire. The report found that consumers have an Inadequate understanding of tire aging and service life and recommends developing test and best practices related to tire aging, and developing better guidance for consumers related to tire aging, maintenance and service life.

The NTSB has issued its own Safety Alert for Drivers, which includes the following guidance:

– Register new tires with the manufacturer

– Check your tire pressure at least once a month

– Inflate your tires to the pressures indicated in your vehicle owner’s manual (not on the tire sidewall)

– When checking tire pressure, look for signs of damage

– Keep your spare tire properly inflated and check it monthly for problems

– Rotate, balance and align your tires in accordance with your vehicle owner’s manual

– If you hear an unusual sound coming from a tire, slow down and have your tires checked immediately

To view the Cause Map, including impacted goals and recommendations, click on “Download PDF” above. Or, click here to read the NTSB’s executive summary.

 

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

5 killed and dozens injured when duck tour boat collides with bus

By Kim Smiley

Five people were killed and dozens more injured when an amphibious Ride the Ducks tour boat collided with a charter bus in Seattle on September 24, 2015.  The circumstances of the accident were particularly unfortunate because two large vehicles carrying tour groups across a busy bridge were involved.  Traffic was mangled for hours as emergency responders worked to treat the high number of victims, investigate the accident and clear the roadway.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating the accident to determine exactly what led to the collision and if there are lessons learned that could help reduce the risk of a similar crash in the future.  Potential issues with the duck boat are some of the early focuses of the investigation.  In case you are unfamiliar, duck boats are amphibious landing craft that were used by the U.S. Army during World War II that have been refurbished for use as tour vehicles that can travel on both water and land to give visitors a unique way to experience a city.  Their military designation DUKW was changed to the more user-friendly duck boat moniker that is used by many tour companies throughout the world.

Eyewitnesses of the accident have reported that the duck boat unexpectedly swerved while crossing the bridge, slamming into the driver’s side of the tour bus.  Reports are that the left front wheel of the duck boat locked up and the driver lost control of the vehicle.  NTSB investigators have stated that the duck boat didn’t have a recommended axle repair done that was recommended in 2013 and that they are working to determine whether or not this played a role in the accident.

Investigators are also looking into whether or not Seattle Ride the Ducks was notified of the repair.  Photos of the wrecked duck boat show that the front axle sheared and the left wheel popped off the vehicle, but it hasn’t been conclusively determined whether the damage was the cause of the accident or occurred during the accident.  The issues with the axle certainly seem like a smoking gun, but a thorough investigation still needs to be performed and the process will take up to a year.  If there was a mechanical failure on the duck boat unrelated to the already identified axle issue, that will need to be identified and reviewed to see if it applies to other duck tour vehicles.

This severity of this accident is raising concerns about the overall safety of duck tours.  The duck boat involved in this accident underwent regular annual inspections and was found to meet federal standards.  If a mechanical failure was in fact involved, hard questions about the adequacy of standards and inspections will need to be asked.  The issue of the recommended repair that was not done also raises questions about how the recommendations are passed along to companies running duck boat tours as well as incorporated into inspection standards.

Click on “Download PDF” above to see an outline and Cause Map of this issue.

Uncategorized

Indian Point Fire and Oil Leak

By Sarah Wrenn

At 5:50 PM on May 9, 2015, a fire ignited in one of two main transformers for the Unit 3 Reactor at Indian Point Energy Center. These transformers carry electricity from the main generator to the electrical grid. While the transformer is part of an electrical system external to the nuclear system, the reactor is designed to automatically shut down following a transformer failure. This system functioned as designed and the reactor remains shut down with the ongoing investigation. Concurrently, oil (dielectric fluid) spilled from the damaged transformer into the plant’s discharge canal and some amount was also released into the Hudson River. On May 19, Fred Dacimo, vice president for license renewal at Indian Point and Bill Mohl, president of Entergy Wholesale Commodities, stated the transformer holds more than 24,000 gallons of dielectric fluid. Inspections after the fire revealed 8,300 gallons have been collected or were combusted during the fire. As a result, investigators are working to identify the remaining 16,000 gallons of oil. Based on estimates from the Coast Guard supported by NOAA, up to approximately 3,000 gallons may have gone into the Hudson River.

The graphic located here provides details regarding the event, facility layout and response.

Step 1. Define the Problem

There are a few problems in this event. Certainly, the transformer failure and fire are major problems. The transformer is an integral component to transfer electricity from the power plant to the grid. Without the transformer, production has been halted. In addition, there is an inherent risk of injury with the fire response. The site’s fire brigade was dispatched to respond to the fire and while there were no injuries, there was a potential for injury. In addition, the release of dielectric fluid and fire-retardant foam into the Hudson River is a problem. A moat around the transformer is designed to contain these fluids if released, but evidence shows that some amounts reached the Hudson River.

As shown in the timeline and noted on our problem outline, the transformer failure and fire occurred at 5:50 PM and was officially declared out 2.25 hours later.

As far as anything out of the ordinary or unusual when this event occurred, Unit 3 had just returned to operations after a shutdown on May 7 to repair a leak of clean steam from a pipe on the non-nuclear side of the plant. Also, it was noted that this is the 3rd transformer failure in the past 8 years. This frequency of transformer failures is considered unusual. The Wall Street Journal reported that the transformer that failed earlier this month replaced another transformer that malfunctioned and caught fire in 2007. Another transformer failed in 2010, which had been in operation for four years.

Multiple organizational goals were negatively impacted by this event. As mentioned above, there was a risk of injury related to the fire response. There was also a negative impact to the environment due to the release of dielectric fluid and fire-retardant foam. The negative publicity from the event impacts the organization’s customer service goal. A notification to the NRC of an Unusual Event (the lowest of 4 NRC emergency classifications) is a regulatory impact. For production/schedule, Unit 3 was shutdown May 9 and remains shutdown during the investigation. There was a loss of the transformer which needs to be replaced. Finally, there is labor/time required to address and contain the release, repair the transformer, and investigate the incident.

Step 2. Identify the Causes (Analysis)

Now that we’ve defined the problem in relation to how the organization’s goals were negatively impacted, we want to understand why.

The Safety Goal was impacted due to the potential for injury. The risk of injury exists because of the transformer fire.

 

 

The Regulatory Goal was impacted due to the notification to the NRC. This was because of the Unit 3 shutdown, which also impacts the Production/Schedule Goal. Unit 3 shutdown as this is the designed response to the emergency. This is the designed response because of the loss of the electrical transformer, which also impacts the Property/Equipment Goal. Why was the electrical transformer lost? Because of the transformer fire.

For the other goals impacted, Customer Service was because of the negative publicity which was caused by the containment, repair, investigation time and effort. This time and effort impacts the organization’s Labor/Time Goal. This time and effort was required because of the dielectric fluid and fire-retardant foam release. Why was there a release? Because the fluid and foam were able to access the river.

Why did the fluid and foam access the river?

The fire-retardant foam was introduced because the sprinkler system was ineffective. The transformer is located outside in the transformer yard which is equipped with a sprinkler system. Reports indicate that the fire was originally extinguished by the sprinklers, but then relit. Fire responders introduced fire-retardant foam and water to more aggressively address the fire. Some questions we would ask here include why was the sprinkler system ineffective at completely controlling the fire? Alternatively, is the sprinkler system designed to begin controlling the fire as an immediate response such that the fire brigade has time to respond? If this is the case, then did the sprinkler perform as expected and designed?

The transformer moat is designed to catch fluids and was unable to contain the fluid and the foam. When a containment is unable to hold the amount of fluid that is introduced, this means that either there is a leak in the containment or the amount of fluid introduced is greater than the capacity of the containment. We want to investigate the integrity of the containment and if there are any leak paths that would have allowed fluids to escape the moat. We also want to understand the volume of fluid that was introduced. The moat is capable of holding up to 89,000 gallons of fluid. A transformer contains approximately 24,000 gallons of dielectric fluid. What we don’t know is how much fire-retardant foam was introduced. If this value plus the amount of transformer fluid is greater than the capacity of the moat, then the fluid will overflow and can access the river. If this is the case, we also would want to understand if the moat capacity is sufficient, should it be larger? Also, is the moat designed such that an overflow will result in accessing the discharge canal and is this desired?

Finally, dielectric fluid accessed the river because the fluid was released from the transformer. Questions we would ask here are: Why was the fluid released and why does a transformer contain dielectric fluid? Dielectric fluid is used to cool the transformers. Other cooling methods, such as fans are also in place. The causes of the fluid release and transformer failure is still being investigated, but in addition to determining these causes, we would also ask how are the transformers monitored and maintained? The Wall Street Journal provided a statement from Jerry Nappi, a spokesman for Entergy. Nappi said both of unit 3’s transformers passed extensive electrical inspections in March. Transformers at Indian Point get these intensive inspections every two years. Aspects of the devices also are inspected daily.

Finally, we want to understand why was there a transformer fire. The transformer fire occurred because there was some heat source (ignition source), fuel, and oxygen. We want to investigate what was the heat source – was there a spark, a short in the wiring, a static electricity build up? Also, where did the fuel come from and is it expected to be there? The dielectric fluid is flammable, but are there other fuel sources that exist?

Step 3. Select the Best Solutions (Reduce the Risk)

What can be done? With the investigation ongoing, a lot of facts still need to be gathered to complete the analysis. Once that information is gathered, we want to consider what is possible to reduce the risk of having this type of event occur in the future. We would want to evaluate what can be done to address the transformer, implementing solutions to better maintain, monitor, and/or operate it. Focusing on solutions that will minimize the risk of failure and fire. However, if a failure does occur, we want to consider solutions so that the failure and fire does not result in a release. Further, we can consider the immediate response; do these steps adequately contain the release? Identifying specific solutions to the causes identified will provide reductions to the risk of future similar events.

Resources:

This Cause Map was built using publicly available information from the following resources.

De Avila, Joseph “New York State Calls for Tougher Inspections at Indian Point” http://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-regulatory-commission-opens-probe-at-indian-point-1432054561 Published 5/20/2015. Accessed 5/20/2015

“Entergy’s Response to the Transformer Failure at Indian Point Energy Center” http://www.safesecurevital.com/transformer_update/ Accessed 5/19/2015

“Entergy Plans Maintenance Shutdown of Indian Point Unit 3” http://www.safesecurevital.com/entergy-plans-maintenance-shutdown-of-indian-point-unit-3/ Published 5/7/2015. Accessed 5/19/2015

“Indian Point Unit 3 Safely Shutdown Following Failure of Transformer” http://www.safesecurevital.com/indian-point-unit-3-safely-shutdown-following-failure-of-transformer/ Published 5/9/2015. Accessed 5/19/2015

“Entergy Leading Response to Monitor and Mitigate Potential Impacts to Hudson River Following Transformer Failure at Indian Point Energy Center” http://www.safesecurevital.com/entergy-leading-response-to-monitor-and-mitigate-potential-impacts-to-hudson-river-following-transformer-failure-at-indian-point-energy-center/ Published 5/13/2015. Accessed 5/19/2015

“Entergy Continues Investigation of Failed Transformer, Spilled Dielectric Fluid at Indian Point Energy Center” http://www.safesecurevital.com/entergy-continues-investigation-of-failed-transformer-spilled-dielectric-fluid-at-indian-point-energy-center/ Published 5/15/2015. Accessed 5/19/2015

McGeehan, Patrick “Fire Prompts Renewed Calls to Close the Indian Point Nuclear Plant” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/nyregion/fire-prompts-renewed-calls-to-close-the-indian-point-nuclear-plant.html?_r=0 Published 5/12/2015. Accessed 5/19/2015

Screnci, Diane. “Indian Point Transformer Fire” http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2015/05/12/indian-point-transformer-fire/comment-page-2/#comment-1568543 Accessed 5/19/2015

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

Distraction Related Accidents: Eyes on Road, Hands on Wheel, AND Mind on Task

By  Sarah Wrenn

Admit it – you’ve checked your phone while driving.  We’ve likely all been guilty of it at some point.  And despite knowing that we’re not supposed to do it – it’s against the law in most states and we understand that the distraction increases our risk of having an accident – we still do it.  Why?

On March 31, 2015, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) held its first roundtable discussion on distractions within the transportation industry.  In 2015, the NTSB added “Disconnect from Deadly Distractions” to its “Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements for 2015.”  This list represents the NTSB’s priorities to increase awareness and support for key issues related to transportation safety.  Other critical topics include “Make Mass Transit Safer” and “Require Medical Fitness for Duty.”

Representatives from all modes of transportation, technology, law enforcement, insurance, researchers, advocates, and educators came together for discussion related to distractions facing vehicle operators.

“New technologies are connecting us as never before – to information, to entertainment, and to each other,” said NTSB Member Robert Sumwalt. “But when those technologies compete for our attention while we’re behind the wheel of a car or at the controls of other vehicles, the results can be deadly.”

Digging into the causes

So let’s take a look at some of the causes related to an accident where the operator is distracted.  In addition to the accident occurring because of the distraction, the level of driver expertise is also a factor.  A large effort has been made to raise awareness and provide education to teenage drivers.  This is in part because, as novice drivers, they have a more limited exposure to driving situations and may not have the ability to react as a more skilled driver.

Operators become distracted

We also want to understand the causes that led to the operator being distracted.  There is a distraction type (or mode) that was introduced, the duration of the distraction, and the individual’s inability to ignore the distraction that result in the operator distraction.  While the type of distraction plays a large role in taking the operator’s eyes off the road, hands off the wheel or mind off the task, the duration of the distraction also is a key factor.  For example, while one’s eyes remain on the road during a phone call, the duration of that call disengages the brain from the task for more time than the act of dialing the phone.  This is not to say that one of these actions is more or less impactful; it is important to note that they both play a role in distracting the individual.

It’s not just the text that is distracting

There are three primary forms of distractions – Visual (taking eyes off of the road), Manual (taking hands off of the wheel), and Cognitive (taking mind off of the task).  Visual and manual types of distractions are very easy to define and generally recognized as risky behaviors while operating a vehicle.  Cognitive distractions are less tangible and therefore more difficult to define.  Research and studies generally define cognitive distractions as when the individual’s attention is divided between two or more tasks.  While technology and activities such as texting or talking on the phone are typically identified as the primary forms of distraction, it is interesting to note that cognitive distractions such as allowing your mind to wander while operating a vehicle can be just as risky.  The AAA Foundation released a 2013 study “Measuring Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile.”  The study rates various tasks such as using a hands-free cell phone and listening to the radio according to the amount of cognitive workload imposed upon an operator.  The study concludes that “while some tasks, like listening to the radio, are not very distracting, others – such as maintaining phone conversations and interacting with speech-to-text systems – place a high cognitive demand on drivers and degrade performance and brain activity necessary for safe driving.”

The forum discussed the concept that ability to multi-task is actually a myth, with evidence and data to conclude that for certain types of activities multi-tasking is not only difficult, but impossible.  For example, tasks such as navigation and speech require the use of the same circuits within the brain.  As such, the brain cannot do both tasks at once.  Instead, the brain is switching between these tasks, resulting in a reduction of focus on the primary task (driving) while attempting to perform a secondary task (speaking).  Therefore, attempting to multi-task introduces a cognitive distraction that increases the risk of unsafe driving.

Just ignore it

Why don’t we just ignore the temptation to become distracted?

Our brains function by releasing serotonin and dopamine when an action occurs that makes us feel good.  Dr. Paul Atchley of the University of Kansas stated: “There is nothing more interesting to the human brain than other people.  I don’t care how you design your vehicle or your roadways, if you have technologies in the vehicle that allow you to be social, your brain will not be able to ignore them.  There are only two things we love, serotonin and dopamine.  The two reward chemicals that come along with all those other things that make us feel good.  There is really nothing more rewarding to us than the opportunity to talk to someone else.”

Surveys performed by various organizations have revealed a large percentage of people (sometimes 3 out of 4) that will admit to being distracted while driving.  Meanwhile, a staggering percent (upwards of 90%) will rationalize the behavior which is a sign of addiction.

Finally, the level of brain development controls our ability to respond to distractions.  For example, a teenager has a less developed fontal cortex than an adult which means, as Dr. David Strayer of the University of Utah explains: “Teens’ frontal cortex, the parts of the brain that do decision-making in terms of multitasking, are underdeveloped.”  Much of the focus on distracted driving is focused on teens and this is justified as their brain development is not yet complete.  It is, however, important to note that this is not just an issue for teens who can’t be separated from their phones or seniors who don’t understand them; this is an issue that crosses all demographics.  Level of brain development is just one factor.

So what can we do?

At the end of the day, we want to identify solutions that are going to effectively reduce the risk of having accidents related to distractions from occurring.  While there will always be some risk, it is key to take a comprehensive approach to education, technology, and policy.  Programs like EndDD.org and stopdistractions.org are focused on bringing awareness, education, and training to youth and adults about the risks of operating vehicles while distracted.  Technology can also be used in a variety of ways to reduce the risk of these types of accidents.  Sensors can be built into vehicles to identify distractions and provide alerts to drivers or apps can be used to disable functions of technology so the receipt of calls and texts are delayed.  Finally, establishing policies and laws that are realistic and enforceable is important so that individuals are held accountable for risky behaviors before an accident occurs.  No one single solution is going to reach everyone and no one single solution is going to eliminate the risk of deadly accidents.  Each one of these solutions has limitations, but they also have advantages.  With a balanced approach to raise awareness and education, provide resources and tools to drivers, and change the culture of what is acceptable while driving, we can reduce the amount of accidents and save lives.

References:

NTSB Roundtable: Disconnect from Deadly Distractions held March 31, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

AAA Foundation: Measuring Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile, June 2013

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

Lawsuit Questions the Safety of Guardrails

By Kim Smiley

A whistleblower lawsuit claims that tens of thousands of guardrails installed across the US may be unsafe.  The concern is that the specific design of the guardrail in question, the ET-Plus, can jam when hit and puncture cars, potentially causing injury, rather than curling away as intended.

This issue has more questions than answers at this point, but an initial Cause Map can be built to document what is currently known.  A question mark should be added to any cause that is suspected, but has not been proven with evidence.  As more information, both new causes and evidence, becomes available the Cause Map can easily be expanded to incorporate it.

In this example, the primary concern, both from a safety and regulation standpoint, about the guardrails are centered on a design change made in 2005.  The size of the energy-absorbing end terminal was changed from five inches to four.  The modification was apparently made as a cost-saving measure.   The lawsuit alleges that federal authorities were never alerted to the design change so it never received the required review and approval.  It appears that federal authorities were not alerted until a patent case bought up the issue in 2012.

The reduction in the size of the end terminals may have affected how the guardrails function during auto accidents.  The lawsuit claims that five deaths and other injuries from at least 14 auto accidents can be attributed to the new design of guardrails.  The Federal Highway Administration has stated that the guardrails meet crash-test criteria, but three states (Missouri, Nevada and Massachusetts) are taking the concerns seriously enough to ban further installation of the guardrails pending completion of the investigation.

This issue is a classic proverbial can of worms.  Up to a billion dollars could be at stake in the lawsuit and the man who filed the lawsuit could get a significant cut of the payout.  There are potential testing requirement issues that need to be considered if the guardrails are passing crash tests, but causing injuries.  There are concerns over whether the company properly informed the federal government about design changes, which is a particularly sensitive topic following the recent GM ignition switch issues.  All and all, this should be a very interesting topic to follow as it plays out.

To view a high level Cause Map of this issue, click on “Download PDF” above.

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

Freight Trains Collide Head-On in Arkansas

By Kim Smiley

On August 17, 2014, two freight trains collided head-on in Arkansas, killing two and injuring two more.  The accident resulted in a fire after alcohol spilled from a damaged rail car ignited, prompting evacuation of about 500 people from nearby homes.  The trains were carrying toxic chemicals, but none of the cars carrying the toxic chemicals are believed to have been breached during the accident.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is currently investigating this accident, but an initial Cause Map, or visual root cause analysis, can still be built to help document and illustrate the information that is known.  One of the benefits of a Cause Map is that it can easily be expanded to incorporate information as it becomes available.  The first step of the Cause Mapping process is to fill in an Outline with the basic information for an incident.  In addition, anything that was different at the time of accident is listed.  How the incident impacts the overall goals is also documented on the bottom of the Outline.

Like many incidents, there are a number of goals that were impacted by this train collision.  The safety goal is obviously impacted by two fatalities and injuries.  The property goal is impacted because of the significant damage to the trains and freight.  The labor/time goal is impacted because of the response effort and investigation that are required as a result of the accident. Potential impacts or near misses should also be documented so the potential release of toxic chemicals is considered an impact to the environmental goal.

The second step is to perform the analysis by building the Cause Map.  To build the Cause Map, start with one impacted goal and ask “why” questions.  Each answer is added to the Cause Map.  Each impacted goal should be considered and the cause boxes should all connect at some location on the Cause Map.  Starting with the safety goal in this example, the first question would be: why were two people killed?  This occurred because there was a train collision.  The trains collided because they were traveling toward each other on the same track.  No details have been released about how the trains ended up on the same track.  The trains’ daily recorders (which provide information about the trains’ speed, braking and throttle) have been found and will be analyzed by investigators. The NTSB has stated that they will be looking into a number of factors such as the train signals and fatigue since the accident occurred late at night.

The final step in the Cause Mapping process is to develop solutions that can be implemented to reduce the risk of a similar problem recurring in the future.  Since the investigation is ongoing, talk of solutions is premature at this point.  Once more is known about the causes that contributed to this issue, the lessons that are learned can be used to develop solutions.

Root Cause Analysis - Incident Investigation

300,000 Unable to Use Water after Chemical Spill in West Virginia

By Kim Smiley

Hundreds of thousands of West Virginians were unable to use their water for days after it was contaminated by a chemical spill on January 9, 2014. About 7,500 gallons of 4-methyl-cyclohexane-methanol, known as MCHM, leaked out of a storage tank and into the Elk River.   At the time of the spill, little information was known about MCHM, but officials ordered residents not to use the use the water because the chemical can cause vomiting, nausea, and skin, eye and throat irritation.  The ban on water usage obviously meant that residents should not drink the water, but they were also told not to cook, bathe, wash clothes or brush their teeth with it.

The investigation into this incident is still ongoing, but some information is available.  An initial Cause Map, or visual root cause analysis, can be built now and it can easily be expanded in the future.  A Cause Map is used to illustrate the cause-and-effect relationships between the many causes that contribute to any incident.  In this example, it is known that the MCHM leaked into the river because it was being stored in a tank near the river and the tank failed.  MCHM was being stored in a tank because it is used in coal processing and it was profitable for the company to sell it.

The cause of the tank failure hasn’t been officially determined, but the company who owned the facility has stated that an object punctured the tank after the ground under the tank froze.  (Suspected causes can be included on the Cause Map with a question mark to indicate that more evidence is needed to confirm their validity.)

The tank in question was older, built about 70 years ago.  There were no regulations that required the tank to be inspected while it was being used to store MCHM because the chemical is not currently legally considered a hazardous material.  The tank is also an atmospheric tank so it is exempt from current federal safety inspections because it is not under pressure, cooled or heated.

Many are asking questions about why a tank full of a chemical that can make people sick that was so close to the water supply had so little regulation and no required inspections.  The debate that has been sparked by this accident will force a close review of current regulations governing these types of facilities.

It’s also alarming how little was known about this chemical prior to this accident.  It’s still not well understood exactly how dangerous MCHM is.  Experts have stated that the long term impacts should be minimal, but it would be awfully reassuring to the people living in the area if there was more information about the chemical available.

Companies need to have a clear understanding of the risks involved in their operations if they hope to reduce the risk to the lowest reasonable level and develop effective emergency response plans to deal with any issues that do arise.  As the old saying goes – failure to plan is planning to fail.  Just ask the company involved.  Freedom Industries filed bankruptcy papers on January 17, 2013 as a direct result of this accident.