F PB98-917002

 NTSB/SS-98/01

NATIONAL

TRANSPORTATION

SAFETY

BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20594

SAFETY STUDY

PERSONAL WATERCRAFT SAFETY

7002
National Transportation Safety Board. 1998. Personal watercraft safety. Safety Study

NTSB/SS-98/01. Washington, DC. 98 p.

Personal watercraft (PWC) are a type of recreational boat that has become increasingly

popular in recent years. Manufacturers estimate that about 200,000 PWC are sold each year

and that more than 1 million are in current operation. Although the overall number of recreational boating fatalities has been declining in recent years, the number of personal

watercraft-related fatalities has been increasing. PWC are the only type of recreational vessel

for which the leading cause of fatalities is not drowning; in PWC fatalities, more persons die

from blunt force trauma than from drowning. The National Transportation Safety Board

initiated this study to more closely examine fatalities and injury in addition to accident

characteristics associated with PWC accidents. The study was not designed to estimate how

often PWC accidents occur, nor are the results of the study necessarily representative of all

PWC accidents. The Safety Board analyzed 814 (one-third) of the 1997 reported accidents

and examined all of the data for the 1996 reported accidents, which the Board believes

provided a substantial number of accidents to identify the most important safety issues

associated with PWC accidents. The safety issues discussed in the report include (a)

protecting PWC riders from injury; (b) PWC operator experience and training; and (c) boating

safety standards. The study also addressed the need for recreational boating exposure data.

Safety recommendations concerning these issues were made to the manufacturers of PWC, the

U.S. Coast Guard, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, the U.S. Power Squadrons, BOAT/U.S., the

National Association of State Boating Law Administrators, the Personal Watercraft Industry

Association, and the States and Territories.

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency dedicated to promoting aviation, railroad, highway, marine, pipeline, and hazardous materials safety. Established in 1967, the agency is mandated by

Congress through the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 to investigate transportation accidents, determine the

probable causes of the accidents, issue safety recommendations, study transportation safety issues, and evaluate the

safety effectiveness of government agencies involved in transportation. The Safety Board makes public its actions

and decisions through accident reports, safety studies, special investigation reports, safety recommendations, and

statistical reviews.

Information about available publications may be obtained by contacting:

National Transportation Safety Board

Public Inquiries Section, RE-51

490 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20594

(202)314-6551

Safety Board publications may be purchased, by individual copy or by subscription, from the National Technical

Information Service. To purchase this publication, order report number PB98-917002 from:

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, Virginia 22161

(703)605-6000
Personal Watercraft Safety

Safety Study

NTSB/SS-98/01

PB98-917002

Notation 7002

May 19, 1998

National Transportation Safety Board

490 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20594
Contents iii

Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... v

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

Personal Watercraft .................................................................................................................................. 6

Operating Characteristics of Personal Watercraft...................................................................................... 9

Purpose of the Study................................................................................................................................11

Chapter 2: Methods and Accident Results............................................................................ 13

Methods................................................................................................................................................. 13

Accident Results..................................................................................................................................... 16

Type of Accident ............................................................................................................................ 16

Number of Vessels Involved ........................................................................................................... 18

Accident Cause .............................................................................................................................. 18

Speed ............................................................................................................................................. 20

Alcohol Involvement in PWC Accidents ........................................................................................ 21

Age of Operator ............................................................................................................................. 21

Operator Experience and Training ................................................................................................. 22

Persons On Board .......................................................................................................................... 23

Riding Time That Day ................................................................................................................... 23

Chapter 3: PWC Operations...................................................................................................... 27

PWC Operator Experience and Education/Training................................................................................ 27

Experience of Operators Who Rented PWC............................................................................................ 33

State Operating Restrictions................................................................................................................... 36

Minimum Operator Age................................................................................................................. 36

Distance Restrictions...................................................................................................................... 38

Personal Flotation Devices ..................................................................................................................... 38

Chapter 4: Injury Analysis......................................................................................................... 41

Injury Coding......................................................................................................................................... 41

Injured Persons....................................................................................................................................... 42

Fatalities ................................................................................................................................................ 42

Types of Injuries..................................................................................................................................... 43

Lower Extremity Injuries................................................................................................................ 45

Head Injuries.................................................................................................................................. 46

Spinal Injuries................................................................................................................................ 48

Protecting PWC Riders From Injury ....................................................................................................... 49

Chapter 5: Boating Safety Standards..................................................................................... 51

Coast Guard Exemptions........................................................................................................................ 51

Industry Standards ................................................................................................................................. 52

Discussion.............................................................................................................................................. 53
iv Contents

Conclusions........................................................................................................................................56

Recommendations...........................................................................................................................57

Appendixes ........................................................................................................................................61

A: State Definitions of Personal Watercraft..........................................................................................61

B: Summary of NASBLA 1997 Survey on PWC..................................................................................65

C: Preliminary Data on 1997 PWC Fatalities.......................................................................................72

D: Summary of Data Sources Provided by the States and Territories....................................................74

E: U.S. Coast Guard Boating Accident Report Form............................................................................76

F: NTSB Supplemental Questionnaire.................................................................................................80

G: Status of Safety Recommendations M-93-2 Through -6 Issued to the States....................................83

H: Minimum Age Requirements of States for PWC Operation.............................................................86

I: Comparison of Personal Watercraft Model Acts of the PWIA and NASBLA ...................................88

J: State Requirements for Wearing Personal Flotation Devices............................................................96

Conversion Factors for

International Standard (SI) Units

To convert from to multiply by

mile, U.S. statute kilometer (km) 1.609344

mile, nautical meter (m) 1852.0

foot (ft) meter (m) 0.3048

yard (yd) meter (m) 0.9144

inch (in) centimeter (cm) 2.54

cubic centimeter (cc or cm3) cubic inch (in3) 0.06102374

pound (lb) kilogram (kg) 0.4535924

knot (nautical mile per hour) meter per second (m/s) 0.5144444

horsepower (550 ft .

 lbs/s) (hp) watt (W) 745.6999
Executive Summary v

Executive Summary

Personal watercraft (PWC) are a type of recreational boat that has become increasingly popular in recent years. Manufacturers estimate that about 200,000 PWC are

sold each year and that more than 1 million are in current operation. PWC now account

for more than one-third of the new recreational boat sales in the United States.

Although the overall number of recreational boating fatalities has been declining in

recent years, the number of personal watercraft-related fatalities has been increasing. At

the time of the National Transportation Safety Board’s 1993 recreational boating safety

study, there were only 26 personal watercraft fatalities a year, and the Safety Board did

not believe that separate consideration of PWC was warranted. However, in 1994, the

number of PWC fatalities began to increase noticeably because the number of PWC in operation increased. Preliminary numbers for 1997 indicate 83 PWC fatalities. PWC are the

only type of recreational vessel for which the leading cause of fatalities is not drowning; in

PWC fatalities, more persons die from blunt force trauma than from drowning. The increase in

fatalities and the distinctive way in which fatalities occur prompted the Safety Board to

examine the nature of PWC accidents.

The Safety Board initiated the current study to more closely examine fatalities and

injury in addition to accident characteristics associated with PWC accidents. The study

was not designed to estimate how often PWC accidents occur. For PWC accidents that

occurred between January and June 1997, the Safety Board requested that State marine

accident investigators provide the Safety Board with copies of their accident reports and

complete a supplemental questionnaire prepared by the Safety Board specifically for this

study. The goal of the supplemental questionnaire was to obtain additional information

concerning the accident characteristics and details concerning personal injury that have not

previously been available from State boating accident reports. State accident reports and

supplemental information were the sources of the Safety Board’s accident information.

The Safety Board also reviewed State reports of PWC accidents that occurred in

1996. A total of 49 States and Territories provided either copies of their boating accident

report forms, automated boating accident report database files, or summary information

for 1996 and/or 1997.

Because the States voluntarily provided the Safety Board with accident reports

and supplemental questionnaire information, and because of the incomplete nature of

much of the information, the Safety Board does not claim that the results of the study are

representative of all PWC accidents. The Safety Board analyzed 814 (one-third) of the

1997 reported accidents and examined all of the data for the 1996 reported accidents.

Consequently, the Board believes that a substantial number of accidents was available to

identify the most important safety issues associated with PWC accidents. Further, the

Safety Board’s analysis did not show any biases in the types of accidents in the half-year of
vi Executive Summary

1997 accidents compared to the full year of 1996 accidents. The Safety Board’s interest

in truncating the 1997 data collection period to 6 months was based on a goal of providing

the results of this study prior to the 1998 summer boating season.

Based on the analysis of the data reviewed, the safety issues discussed in this

report include the following:

• protecting personal watercraft riders from injury,

• operator experience and training, and

• boating safety standards.

The study also addressed the need for recreational boating exposure data.

As a result of this study, recommendations were issued to the manufacturers of

personal watercraft, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, the U.S.

Power Squadrons, BOAT/U.S., the National Association of State Boating Law

Administrators, the Personal Watercraft Industry Association, and the States and

Territories. The recommendations focus on the safe operation of personal watercraft.
Chapter 1 Introduction 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

On June 29, 1997, a 25-year-old male lost control of a rented personal watercraft

(PWC)1 while operating at Four Bear Water Park near Shelby Township, Michigan. The

vessel entered a lifeguard-supervised swimming area and struck six children, ages 5 to 12.

It hit a seventh person on the beach before coming to a stop. One child sustained severe

lacerations to the head, bruising of the upper torso, and remained in a coma for 3 days.

Injuries to the other children included a serious laceration above the right eye; loss of two

front teeth and facial bruising; lacerations to the head; bruising of the upper torso;

abdominal laceration; and abrasions to the leg, arm, and chest.

The investigating officer concluded that the accident was caused by excessive

speed and an inability to control the vessel. The PWC operator had never previously

driven such a vessel and had been riding less than 1 hour on the day of the accident. The

rental agent had provided verbal instructions but had not required the operator to demonstrate any ability to handle the 55-hp, 580-cc Bombardier Sea-Doo.2

 The rental agent

provided verbal instruction in English on how to operate the vessel, which was translated

for the Spanish-speaking operator.

A similar accident occurred on Lake Brantley in Seminole County, Florida, on

April 5, 1997. A 16-year-old male PWC operator lost control of the vessel and fell off.

The vessel continued to travel, hit one of a series of floating buoys that defined the

Sweetwater Beach swimming area, struck two swimmers, and stopped only after striking a

post at a nearby dock. The Kawasaki personal watercraft, weighing over 500 pounds,

caused a scalp laceration to a 5-year-old and a closed head injury to a 7-year-old.

The Michigan accident was investigated by the Shelby Township Police Department;

the Florida accident was investigated by an officer of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish

Commission. Both accidents were documented on State boating accident report forms and

 

1

 The Personal Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA) defines a personal watercraft as a vessel that

uses an inboard motor powering a water jet pump as its primary source of power. The vessel is designed

to carry from one to three persons and to be operated by a person sitting, standing, or kneeling on the

vessel rather than by the conventional manner of sitting or standing inside the vessel. A State’s definition

of PWC may also include the length of the vessel and horsepower. (States’ definitions of PWC are given

in appendix A.)

2

 The accident information was provided by the investigating police officer based on the National

Transportation Safety Board’s supplemental questionnaire. (The questionnaire, which was developed by

the Safety Board for use in its study on personal watercraft, is discussed in chapter 2.)
2 Chapter 1 Introduction

submitted to the United States Coast Guard for inclusion in the Coast Guard database.3

According to the Coast Guard’s most recent reporting year, 1996, there were 57 PWC-related

fatalities, 1,831 persons injured, and more than 4,000 PWC involved in accidents. Table 1–1

presents a 10-year summary of recreational boating and PWC information from Coast Guard

statistics, except as noted.

Although the number of recreational boating fatalities has been declining, the number

of PWC-related fatalities has been increasing (table 1–1, and figures 1–1 and 1–2). The increase in PWC fatalities is proportional to the increase of PWC in operation. Coast Guard

information indicates that 8,005 recreational boating accidents were reported for 1996, of

which 2,868 involved PWC. Personal watercraft in use in 1996 represented 7.5 percent of the

State-registered recreational boats, yet PWC accounted for 36 percent of the 1996 reported

recreational boating accidents, 36 percent of the total number of vessels involved, and more

than 41 percent of the persons injured in those boating accidents.

Coast Guard statistics on 1997 recreational boating accidents have not been

compiled; however, preliminary information from the National Association of State

Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA)4 indicates there were 83 PWC fatalities in 1997

(additional data from a 1997 NASBLA survey are given in appendix B, and preliminary

data by States are in appendix C).5 Including NASBLA’s preliminary numbers in the

National Transportation Safety Board’s study on personal watercraft serves two purposes.

First, PWC fatalities decreased in 1996; by considering 1997 numbers, it is evident that

the decrease in 1996 did not indicate a reversal in the increasing number of fatalities for

1991 through 1995. Second, the Safety Board’s study collected and analyzed injury information on 27 fatalities that occurred during the first 6 months of 1997; NASBLA’s

preliminary numbers for 1997 indicate that the 27 fatalities analyzed are about one-third of

the expected number for that year.

 

3 The Coast Guard’s boating accident report database (BARD) contains accident information from State

boating law administrators and law enforcement officers, from Coast Guard reports, and from accident reports

filed by individual boat operators.

4

 NASBLA is a professional association consisting of State, commonwealth, and provincial officials

having responsibility for administering and/or enforcing State boating laws. The Coast Guard has a

Memorandum of Understanding with NASBLA, and the two organizations hold intergovernmental

sessions to coordinate boating safety resources that are distributed to the States by the Coast Guard

through the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (Wallop-Breaux). Information on the 1997 fatalities came

from Safety Board staff conversations with the NASBLA representatives and from the following

publication: Small Craft Advisory. Dec. 1997/Jan. 1998. Lexington, KY: National Association of State

Boating Law Administrators; 13(2): 8-13.

5

 The Safety Board emphasizes that the 1997 numbers are preliminary and that State counts may

change as accident data for 1997 are fully assessed. NASBLA data in past years have differed somewhat

from Coast Guard data. For example, NASBLA data for 1996 report 56 PWC fatalities, 1,316 injured

persons, and 3,079 PWC involved in accidents, whereas Coast Guard data report 57 PWC fatalities, 1,831

persons injured, and 4,099 PWC involved in accidents.
Chapter 1 Introduction 3

Table 1–1. Number of recreational boats, personal watercraft (PWC),

accidents, persons injured, and fatalities, 1987 through 1996.

Year

Number of

State-registered

recreational boats(a)

Number of PWC

in use(b)

Number of PWC

sold(c)

1987 9,963,696 92,756 29,000

1988 10,362,613 126,881 48,000

1989 10,777,370 178,510 64,000

1990 10,996,253 241,376 72,000

1991 11,068,440 305,915 68,000

1992 11,132,386 372,283 79,000

1993 11,282,736 454,545 107,000

1994 11,429,585 600,000 142,000

1995 11,735,000 760,000 200,000

1996 12,095,689 900,000 191,000

Number of recreational

boating accidents

(includes accidents

involving PWC)(d)

Number of persons

injured in recreational

boating accidents

(includes PWC-related)

Number of recreational

boating fatalities

(includes PWC-related)

1987 6,746 3,051 1,036

1988 6,718 3,476 946

1989 6,063 3,635 896

1990 6,411 3,822 865

1991 6,573 3,967 924

1992 6,048 3,683 816

1993 6,335 3,559 800

1994 6,906 4,084 784

1995 7,863 4,064 830

1996 8,005 4,427 709

Number of PWC

involved in the

recreational boating

accidents

Number of persons

injured in the

PWC-involved

accidents

Number of

PWC-related fatalities

1987 376 156 5

1988 650 254 20

1989 844 402 20

1990 1,162 532 28

1991 1,513 708 26

1992 1,650 730 34

1993 2,236 915 35

1994 3,002 1,338 56

1995 3,986 1,631 68

1996 4,099 1,831 57

(a) Actual numbers may be higher because some States do not include State-registered personal watercraft in their

estimates of the number of recreational boats, and some States do not identify personal watercraft in boating

regulations.

(b) Estimates of the National Marine Manufacturers Association.

(c) Estimates of the Personal Watercraft Industry Association.

(d) The U.S. Coast Guard database indicates the total number of reported recreational boating accidents, but it does

not indicate the number of accidents by vessel type because an accident may involve more than one vessel type.

The 1996 recreational boating accidents include 2,868 accidents involving PWC and a total of 11,306 vessels.

Source: U.S. Coast Guard statistics, except where noted otherwise.
4 Chapter 1 Introduction

Figure 1–1. Recreational boating fatalities (including PWC-related fatalities),

1988–1996. (Source: U.S. Coast Guard. Data for 1997 are not yet available.)

Figure 1–2. Personal watercraft fatalities, 1988–1997. (Source: Data through

1996 are from the U.S. Coast Guard, which does not yet have final data for

1997. The number of fatalities shown for 1997 is based on preliminary data

from the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators.)
Chapter 1 Introduction 5

The number of PWC accidents involving injury varies by State. California

reported 385 PWC-related accidents during the 1996 boating season, resulting in 298

injured persons, 8 fatalities, and $508,000 in property damage. Although PWC accounted

for 16 percent of the registered vessels and 14 percent of the fatalities in California, they

were involved in 45 percent of all recreational boating accidents and 55 percent of the

persons injured. Collisions with another vessel made up the majority of recreational

boating accidents (69 percent), and of these collisions, 71 percent involved one PWC

colliding with a second.6 Similarly, Florida had 751,153 registered vessels in 1996, 9

percent of which were PWC, yet PWC accounted for 37 percent of the accidents (464 of

1,260), 48 percent of the persons injured (389 of 804), and 7 percent of the fatalities (4 of

59).7 In Minnesota, PWC accounted for 3 percent of the number of boats (23,844 of

758,666), yet they were involved in 29 percent of the accidents (41 of 139), 45 percent of

the persons reported as injured (22 of 49), and 17 percent of the fatalities (2 of 12).8 The

Safety Board could not determine whether PWC are over-represented when compared to

other types of recreational boats or if usage type varies by type of boat because accurate

data on usage and exposure time for different types of recreational boats are not available.

(Exposure data are discussed further in chapter 2).

PWC injury reports taken from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System

(NEISS) of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and analyzed by the Centers for

Disease Control (CDC) showed that over a 6-year period, the number of PWC in operation increased nearly three-fold (from 241,500 in 1990 to an estimated 760,000 in 1995),

while the number of PWC-related injuries increased four-fold (2,860 in 1990 to an estimated 12,000 in 1995).9

 According to the CDC analysis, the rate of PWC-related injuries

(injuries per number of PWC) requiring emergency medical treatment was 8.5 times higher

than the rate of injuries from motorboats.

The Safety Board notes that many PWC accidents analyzed for this study involved

injury but no reported property damage. The Board suspects that PWC-related injuries

are not reported on boating accident forms but are being treated at local hospital emergency rooms (and are thereby entered in the NEISS data of the CDC).

 

6

 State of California, Department of Boating and Waterways. 1997. California boating accident report

for 1996. Sacramento, CA. 40 p.

7

 Personal watercraft accident summary for 1997, obtained March 18, 1998, from the Florida Web

site: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/law.

8

 Data from the Minnesota personal watercraft accident summary for 1996 provided to the National

Association of State Boating Law Administrators, September 8-9, 1996, Lexington, KY. Annual totals

verified by Boating Law Administrator, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

9 Branche, Christine M.; Conn, Judith M.; Annest, Joseph L. 1997. Personal watercraft-related

injuries: a growing public health concern. Journal of the American Medical Association. 278(8): 663-665.

August 27. (The CDC analysis used the Coast Guard estimate for the number of PWC in operation; the

number of injuries was from CDC’s analysis of 624 hospital reports taken from a national, stratified

sample.)
6 Chapter 1 Introduction

During 1992–93, the Marine Index Bureau (MIB) Foundation conducted a study

of boating accidents based on data from boating claims submitted to insurance companies.10

 Of the 104 identified insurers, MIB sampled data from 13 insurers that accounted

for 61 percent of the total insured boating population at that time. For 1992, MIB estimated that there were 95,849 reportable accidents based on insurance data; Coast Guard

data indicate 6,048 reported accidents, or 6.3 percent of the MIB estimate. Comparisons

of injury were much closer: MIB estimated 4,039 persons injured; the Coast Guard reported 3,683 (91 percent of the MIB estimate). For accidents involving injury, the MIB

and the Coast Guard appear to have similar data. Property damage accidents without injury may be reported to insurance companies but might not be reported on boating

accident forms.

Personal Watercraft

Personal watercraft are a type of recreational boat designed for riding entertainment

(figure 1–3). Because PWC are powered by an engine and intended for the transport of

person(s) on water, they fall within the Coast Guard category for motorboats. Although the

Coast Guard tracks statistics on a recreational vessel type (Class A inboard motorboat) that

includes personal watercraft, the Coast Guard has no official definition of personal watercraft.11

The first commercially successful personal watercraft, the Jet Ski, was introduced

by Kawasaki in 1974. Models from the late 1970s and early 1980s were designed for a

one-person, stand-up operation. During the mid-1980s, the sit-down style became

popular, and it now accounts for 97 percent of the units sold. Most PWC sales are controlled by five companies12 that actively market between 30 and 40 different models

designed for one, two, or three persons. Current PWC sales run about 200,000 units per

 

10 The Marine Index Bureau Foundation is a nongovernmental 501(c)(3) nonprofit entity. Its work on

the Recreational Boating Accident Register was funded by the Coast Guard and by the insurance industry.

11 The Coast Guard boating accident statistics report for 1996 describes personal watercraft in the

glossary: “Craft less than 13 feet in length designed to be operated by a person or persons sitting, standing

or kneeling on the craft rather than within the confines of a hull.” (U.S. Department of Transportation,

U.S. Coast Guard. 1998. Boating statistics 1996. Washington, DC. 39 p.) The Coast Guard has no

regulatory definition of personal watercraft.

12 The major manufacturers of personal watercraft are Kawasaki, Yamaha (WaveRunner), Polaris,

Bombardier (Sea-Doo), and Arctic Cat, Inc./Tiger Shark.
Chapter 1 Introduction 7

Figure 1–3. A late-model personal watercraft.

(Photo courtesy of the Personal Watercraft Industry Association.)
8 Chapter 1 Introduction

year, and the 1998 models range in cost from $4,799 to $9,399. PWC constituted more

than one-third (36 percent) of all new recreational boats sold in 1997 and represent $1.2

billion of annual sales.13

Engine power of the 33 different 1998 models of PWC ranges from 62 to 135 hp, engine displacement ranges from 639 to 1131 cc with two or three cylinders, and the vessels

range from 87 to 126 inches in length.14 Most models are designed to accommodate two or

three riders, but results of a PWC owner survey15 indicate that 68 percent of PWC riding is

done alone. The typical personal watercraft sold in 1997 had a dry weight of about 450

pounds and a fuel capacity of 10 gallons.16 With a single rider, PWC operating weight would

be about 700 pounds.

The PWC owner survey was commissioned by the Personal Watercraft Industry

Association (PWIA)17 in early 1996. Owners from all 50 States who purchased their vessels between 1991 and 1995 were surveyed; a total of 11,500 surveys were mailed and

2,800 persons responded. Survey results indicated that PWC owners (a group not synonymous with PWC operators) average 41 years of age and have an average household

income of $95,400. In addition, 71 percent are married, 40 percent are college graduates,

85 percent are male, 68 percent have owned a powerboat prior to their PWC purchase,

and 73 percent of the time the owner is the operator. The PWIA survey reported that the

average owner uses the vessel about 7 days per month during the boating season, and on a

typical riding day an average of three different people operate the vessel. In a different

survey, of the readers of Watercraft World magazine, the average owner was found to use

the vessel 36.5 days per year.18

 

13 Information about sales came from BOAT/U.S. Magazine, November 1997, page 5. The United

Kingdom, as a comparison, has about 17,000 PWC.

14 Trailer Boats. 1998. PWC buyers guide. Carson, CA: Poole Publications, Inc.: 27(3): 58-66 (p. 66).

15 Bowe Marketing Research. 1996. PWIA owner usage, attitude and demographic research. Survey

of PWC owners commissioned by the Personal Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA) and presented at

the PWIA Board of Directors meeting July 23, 1996.

16 Calculation of typical weight was determined by averaging 43 PWC from model year 1997.

17 The Personal Watercraft Industry Association was formed in 1987 as an affiliate of the National

Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA). Regular membership of the PWIA is open to manufacturers

of PWC who are also members of the NMMA.

18 This number is not inconsistent with 7 days per month if the boating season is considered to be 5–6

months per year. The reader survey was conducted by Mediamark Research, Inc., and reported in PWIA

literature.
Chapter 1 Introduction 9

Operating Characteristics

of Personal Watercraft

As with most types of boats, the speed and performance of PWC have increased over

the years: 16 models introduced in the 1998 model year have engines with 100 hp or more.19

By comparison, Kawasaki’s early Jet Ski, introduced in 1974, had an output of 32 hp. Faster

models can exceed 60 mph in their stock configuration, and after-market modifications, such as

three-bladed impellers or flame arrestors to increase air intake, can further increase the highend speed capability. The PWIA reports that 25 percent of all owners have made mechanical

changes or modifications to their PWC; 18 percent have made engine performance

modifications.20

A PWC uses a moveable nozzle connected to a jet pump, rather than a propeller, to

power the vessel. This distinction affects the operating and handling characteristics of the vessel. The most notable distinction is “off-throttle steering,” a trade term for the situation that

exists when an operator releases the throttle and then attempts to execute a turn. The term is

an oxymoron because there is little or no steering capability when the throttle is off. Turning

the PWC handlebars changes the angle of water exiting the jet pump, but without power to the

jet pump, there is little or no directional thrust. As stated in the owner’s safety manual of one

PWC manufacturer, “Remember, releasing the throttle completely eliminates the ability to steer

21 the watercraft." This operating characteristic is likely to be counterintuitive to novice operators, particularly in situations of potential collision. When a new rider realizes there is danger

of hitting another vessel or object, the operator’s typical response based on experience with

other motor vehicles is to first let off the throttle and then attempt to steer away from the hazard. But closing off the throttle leaves the vessel coasting in the original direction based on the

effects of momentum, and without throttle there is very limited steering control. Personal watercraft have no braking mechanism; they coast to a stop and, while coasting, there is no

turning ability. Executing a controlled-speed turn is the correct response to avoid a collision,

but to a new operator this may feel like speeding toward a hazard.

 19 In 1996, PWC Magazine listed 10 models with 100 hp or more (PWC Magazine. January 1996: 24-

27). In early 1998, Trailer Boats magazine listed 16 models of PWC that have 100 hp or more (Trailer

Boats. 1998. PWC buyers guide. Carson, CA: Poole Publications, Inc.: 27(3): 58-66 (p. 66). March). A

750-cc engine has 100 hp, but unlike other motorboat engine types, the jet-pump engine horsepower at the

crankshaft is not the same as the effective power of the propulsion unit. Horsepower ratings of jet-pump

vessels and propeller driven boats may not be comparable.

20 Bowe Marketing Research. 1996. PWIA owner usage, attitude and demographic research. Survey

of PWC owners commissioned by the PWIA and presented at the PWIA Board of Directors meeting July

23, 1996.

21 Polaris 1997 SLTX Owner’s Safety and Maintenance Manual. Minneapolis, MN: Polaris

Industries, Inc. 86 p. (p 45).
10 Chapter 1 Introduction

Steering difficulties were evident in many of the PWC accident reports examined

for the study.

22 For example, a 15-year-old male was operating a PWC and his mother

was a passenger. The Florida Marine Patrol accident description states, “[Operator] was

attempting to make a turn south through a cut in the mangroves . . . . He was not real familiar with operating a jet ski with a passenger. When he attempted to make a left turn he

let off the throttle which caused the PWC to lose steering capabilities. The forward momentum of the PWC took [operator] and passenger into the mangrove shoreline.

[Operator] received a puncture wound to the left side of his neck . . . .” Another accident

involving a mother and son on a Texas lake illustrates the consequences that can result

from steering difficulties. The 24-year-old PWC operator attempted to spray water on his

onlooking mother, lost control of the watercraft, and the vessel hit her in the back. She

died the next morning. In a Minnesota accident, the investigator wrote: “He [operator] let

up on the throttle, lost ability to steer, powered up again, but too late.” Examples of investigator or witness statements on boating accident reports confirm steering problems,

although the statements are not recorded in any systematic manner.

Several operating characteristics distinguish PWC. It is expected that PWC operators will fall overboard as a normal part of operation. For this reason, most models

have safety lanyards or “kill switches” that are connected to the operator’s wrist to ensure

that the vessel stops when the operator falls off. It is also expected that PWC will roll

over in the water; in effect, they capsize on a regular basis. PWC owners manuals include

procedures for uprighting a capsized vessel.23 According to an international group working on PWC guidelines, in traditional boats, falling overboard would be considered the

first event of a boating accident, and capsizing and swamping are also considered to be

boating accidents or emergency situations. But for PWC, these are expected events; consequently, PWC are designed and constructed with somewhat different objectives than

traditional boats.24

 

22 Problems of operator control are also discussed in chapter 5.

23 For example: Polaris 1997 SLTX Owner’s Safety and Maintenance Manual. Minneapolis, MN:

Polaris Industries, Inc. 86 p. (p 51).

24 Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC). [n.d.]. Guidelines for the

use of certain powered craft, such as waterscooter, personal watercraft, waterbike, Jetski, Waverunner,

Seadoo, on controlled waters. Report on Working Group 6, Supplemental Bulletin 86. Brussels, Belgium:

General Secretariat of PIANC. 21 p.
Chapter 1 Introduction 11

Purpose of the Study

The Safety Board conducted a study in 1993 on recreational boating safety.

25 At that

time, there were only 26 PWC fatalities a year, and the Board did not believe that a separate

consideration of PWC was warranted. The 1993 study evaluated Coast Guard data on boating

accidents that occurred between 1986 and 1991; the Coast Guard only began tracking PWC as

a separate vessel category beginning in 1988. For 1988 through 1991, PWC fatalities totaled

20, 20, 28, and 26, respectively. In 1994, however, the number of fatalities began to increase

noticeably because the number of PWC in operation increased. PWC are the only type of recreational vessel for which the leading cause of fatalities is not drowning; in PWC fatalities,

more persons die from blunt force trauma than from drowning. The increase in fatalities and

the distinctive way in which fatalities occur prompted the Safety Board to examine the nature

of PWC accidents.

The Safety Board initiated the current study to more closely examine fatalities and

injury in addition to accident characteristics associated with PWC accidents. The study

was not designed to estimate how often PWC accidents occur. Chapter 2 explains the

methods used to conduct this safety study and summarizes the scope of information

collected. Chapter 3 discusses particular recreational boating safety issues as they relate

specifically to PWC, including PWC operating experience, rental operations, and State

operating restrictions. Chapter 4 presents the results of the Safety Board’s analysis of

injuries and discusses those results within the context of available research concerning

PWC. Chapter 5 discusses PWC design issues and engineering standards that affect the

safety of the vessels. The Safety Board’s conclusions and recommendations for improving

the safety of PWC are presented at the end of the report.

 

25 National Transportation Safety Board. 1993. Recreational boating safety. Safety Study NTSB/SS93/01. Washington, DC. 104 p.

Chapter 2 Methods and Accident Results 13

Chapter 2

Methods and Accident Results

Methods

The Safety Board examined 1,739 PWC accident reports for accidents that occurred

during an 18-month period, January 1996 through June 1997. For accidents that occurred in

1997, the Safety Board analyzed injury information for persons involved in PWC accidents. A

summary of the 1997 and 1996 data sources by State is shown in appendix D.

Coast Guard statistics on recreational boating safety are derived from State boating accident reports. It is the operator’s responsibility to report an accident, but marine

law enforcement officers patrol waterways, investigate accidents, and also file boating accident reports. Current regulations in Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR) Part

173 require the operators of recreational boats, including PWC, to file a boating accident

report to State boating law officials if the vessel is involved in an accident that results in

(1) loss of life, (2) personal injury requiring more than immediate first aid medical treatment, (3) complete loss of vessel or property damage exceeding $500, or (4) the

disappearance of any person on board a vessel. Operators use Coast Guard form CG3865 to report a boating accident (appendix E).

For PWC accidents that occurred between January and June 1997,26 the Safety Board

requested that State marine accident investigators complete a supplemental questionnaire

prepared by the Safety Board specifically for this study (appendix F). The goal of the

supplemental questionnaire was to obtain additional information concerning the accident

characteristics and details concerning personal injury that have not previously been available

from State boating accident reports. State accident reports and supplemental information were

the sources of the Safety Board’s accident information.

For the January–June 1997 period, the Safety Board received boating accident reports

and questionnaire responses from 37 participating States and Territories. Boating accident

reports were not always accompanied by supplemental questionnaires. Also, because of

concerns over personal privacy issues, five jurisdictions27 did not provide the Safety Board

with copies of their boating accident reports but did provide supplemental questionnaires.

 

26 The Safety Board is aware that January to June does not encompass the typical PWC boating

season; however, this timeframe provided an adequate number of 1997 accidents for analysis.

27 California, Delaware, Nevada, Washington, and the Territory of Puerto Rico.
14 Chapter 2 Methods and Accident Results

Consequently, the boating accident reports and the supplemental questionnaires represent

two different but substantially overlapping sets of data, which contain information on a

total of 814 PWC accidents involving 1,218 operators.

The Safety Board also reviewed State boating accident reports of PWC accidents

that occurred in 1996. A total of 49 States and Territories provided the Safety Board

either copies of their boating accident report forms, automated boating accident report

database (BARD) files, or summary information for 1996 and/or 1997. Several States

also provided reports of their own analyses on the subject of PWC accidents. Figure 2–1

shows the participating States that provided 1996 and/or 1997 data.

Much of the boating accident information used in the Safety Board’s analysis came

from the same source from which the Coast Guard derives its recreational boating

statistics, namely, State boating accident reports filed with the Coast Guard by State

marine accident investigators. The Coast Guard’s data on 1996 recreational boating

accidents became available while this report was being prepared. In addition to that data,

the Safety Board had access to paper copies of State boating accident reports and was

able to examine the narrative descriptions of the accidents and diagrams of vessel actions.

Each of the 925 PWC State boating accident reports for 199628 was reviewed to determine the

number that involved steering problems or loss of control (220, or 24 percent), rental status

of the PWC (192, or 21 percent), alcohol involvement (48, or 5 percent), and explosions

(5).

For each person involved in a PWC accident that occurred during the January–

June 1997 study period, information from the State’s boating accident report and the

Board’s supplemental questionnaire was coded into a statistical database. For each case

record, there were variables containing information about the accident, the persons

involved, and their injuries.29 The reporting source (investigator report or operator report

reviewed by an investigator) was also coded. Investigators record accident cause on State

accident reports, but the lists of causes vary among States. The Safety Board used the list

of causes on the Coast Guard’s boating accident form (see appendix E) as its basis for

coding accident cause because this list provided a reasonable overlap for the various lists

of causes used by the States. In order to distinguish “no fault” from “no cause listed,” the

Safety Board also coded “no fault” as an accident cause. Accident results are discussed in

the next section of this chapter. The Safety Board’s analysis of these results and their relationship to PWC operating issues are presented in chapter 3.

 

28 The 925 PWC State boating accident reports account for about 32 percent of the 1996 recreational

boating accidents that involved PWC.

29 Most accident reports contained incomplete information for several variables; consequently,

frequency measures for accident results indicate the responses reported for that variable in proportion to

the total cases.
Chapter 2 Methods and Accident Results 15

Figure 2–1. States that provided personal watercraft accident data for 1996 and/or 1997. (Guam

and the U.S. Virgin Islands provided data for 1996 and 1997; Puerto Rico provided data for 1997.

The District of Columbia, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands did not participate.)

The Safety Board also reviewed 176 PWC injury reports from the Consumer

Product Safety Commission (CPSC) database of product-related injuries.30 The injury reports originated from numerous sources: the Medical Examiners & Coroners Alert

Program, Underwriters Laboratory, American Trial Lawyers Association, Consumers Union, and consumer complaints. The CPSC added a product code for PWC in 1989; 110

fatalities were recorded for 1989 through 1996.31 CPSC data provided accident examples

of issues identified in the Safety Board’s study, but CPSC information is illustrative in nature and is not a representative sample of accidents.

 

30 National Injury Information Clearinghouse, July 1989 through December 1996.

31 Total fatalities by year: 2 in 1989, 14 in 1990, 6 in 1991, 10 in 1992, 3 in 1993, 34 in 1994, 29 in

1995, and 12 in 1996.

Provided 1996 but not 1997 data

Provided 1997 (Jan.-June) data

Did not participate

Provided 1996 and 1997 (Jan.-June) data
16 Chapter 2 Methods and Accident Results

Because the States voluntarily provided the Safety Board with accident reports and

supplemental questionnaire information, and because of the incomplete nature of much of

the information, the Safety Board does not claim that the results of the study are representative of all PWC accidents. The Safety Board analyzed 814 (one-third) of the 1997

reported accidents and examined all of the data for the 1996 reported accidents. Consequently, the Board believes that a substantial number of accidents was available to identify

the most important safety issues associated with PWC accidents. A split-half comparison

of 1996 data indicates that there were slightly fewer PWC involved in accidents in the first

half of the year (44 percent compared to 56 percent), but that the distribution by accident

type did not vary. The Safety Board’s interest in truncating the 1997 data collection period to 6 months was based on a goal of providing the results of this study prior to the

1998 summer boating season.

Accident Results

The following paragraphs summarize PWC accident data by topic. The results are

based on information from the State boating accident reports for the January–June 1997

study period and the questionnaires provided to the Safety Board. The implications of

these results are discussed in chapter 3.

Type of Accident. Type of accident was indicated for 616 of the 814 PWC

accidents in the January–June period (figure 2–2). The most prevalent type of accident

was vessel collision (378 of the 814 accidents, or 46 percent), followed by falls overboard

(87 of the 814 accidents, or 11 percent) and collision with an object (62 of the 814

accidents, or 8 percent). Type of accident was not indicated for 198 (24 percent) of the

814 accidents.32

Vessel collision included collisions between two PWC or between a PWC and a

boat. Many accident descriptions reviewed by the Safety Board were associated with

PWC traveling together, despite laws in many States that prohibit operating in close

proximity and despite operating instructions from PWC manufacturers that caution against

such behavior. For example, a Florida investigator stated, “Operators of V1 [vessel 1] and

V2 were riding their rented personal watercrafts in a parallel course . . . . Operator of V1

cut in front of V2 and misjudged his clearance, running over the top of V2.” Often,

 

32 States and Territories that provided supplemental questionnaires without accompanying boating

accident reports account for a substantial portion of missing information (182 of the 198 accidents).
Figure 2–2. Types of personal watercraft accidents, January–June 1997.(Data were available for 616 of the 814 accidents.)

the lead PWC turns into the path of another PWC or slows to a stop and is hit by a secondPWC following too closel

y. In another Florida accident, “V1 and V2 were traveling

closely together just off the idle zone . . . . V2 stated that he was traveling near V1 and

apparently came around and struck V1 starboard bow.” In another case, “V1 was startingto overtake V2. V2 started to make a right turn as the operator was losing his balance.Before the operator of V2 could regain control, V1 struck V2 in the rear starboard quarter.” When PWC travel together in close proximit

y, the operator in the rear vessel has

only a fractional second of response time to react to course changes of the lead vessel.

15 6 2 3 2 6

62

7

87

23 10 6 9

Grounding

Capsizing

Swamping

Fire

Sinking

Skier

Collision with vessel

Collision with object

Collision float

Overboard

Falls on boat

Struck by boat

Struck by propeller

Hit and run

0

100200

Number of ac
18 Chapter 2 Methods and Accident Results

Figure 2–3. Number of vessels involved in the

personal watercraft accidents, January–June 1997.

(Data were available for 804 of the 814 accidents.)

Number of Vessels Involved. The number of vessels was reported for 804 of

the 814 PWC accidents. Two vessels were involved in the majority of the accidents

(figure 2–3), most of which (390 accidents) involved two PWC. Single-vessel accidents

accounted for one-third of the 814 PWC accidents.

Accident Cause. Accident cause was attributed to 845 of the 1,218 PWC operators involved in the accidents (figure 2–4). More than one cause could be attributed to

a single operator.33 To code the causes for analysis, the Safety Board used the cause categories on the Coast Guard boating accident form; causes reported by the State

investigators that did not fit within the Coast Guard categories were coded “other.” The

Safety Board was able to determine who completed the accident report for the accidents

involving 859 of the 1,218 operators; of these 859 operators, 91 percent (782) were completed by State marine accident investigators. Inattention (attributed to 307 operators),

 33 The accident report forms indicated 485 accidents with a single cause, 227 with two causes, 123

with three causes, 9 with four causes, and 1 with five causes.

Number of Vessels Involved

n=804

3-4 vessels 0.7%

(6)

1 vessel 32.3%

(260)

2 vessels 66.9%

(538)
Figure 2–4. Accident causes attributed to the personal watercraft operatorsinvolved in the January–June 1997 accidents. Causes were assigned to 845 ofthe 1,218 operators; more than one cause could be attributed. (“Other” includesthese causes: vision (7), passenger (7), improper loading (1), and causes, asdescribed by the investigator or operator, that did not fit within the Coast Guardcause categories.)

inexperience (attributed to 296 operators), and inappropriate speed for the operating co

nditions (attributed to 246 operators) were the most frequently cited causes that

contributed to the PWC accidents. One or more of these three causes were associatedwith 70 percent of the 814 accidents. A fourth cause, improper lookout (153), was ass

ociated with about one-fifth of the accidents. “Not at fault” was indicated for 92 operators.

Accident cause was not indicated for any operator in 419 accidents.34

34 State accident investigation forms indicate the number of vessels involved in an accident. Using

this count and narrative information, the Safety Board could often determine the number of PWCinvolved. An operator was counted for each PWC even if there was no accident information about thatvessel (for example, in hit-and-run accidents or unknown operators who left the scene). Causalinformation associated with these operators was unavailable. Additionall

y, five States provided supplemental questionnaires without accident reports (182 accidents); accident cause was not available for

these cases.

11

153

42

20 17

15

92

150

Weather

Inappropriate speed

Improper lookout

Water hazard

Alcohol

Equipment/machine

Inexperience

Inattention

Congested waters

No fault

Other

0

50

100150200

Number attributed t
Figure 2–5. Speed attributed to the personal watercraft operator at the time ofthe accident. (This measure differs from speed as an accident cause.Investigator assessment of speed was assigned to the PWC operator ratherthan to the vessel or accident. Data were available for only 114 of the1,218 PWC operators involved in the January–June 1997 accidents.)

Speed. The accident cause speed, better defined as inappropriate speed for the

conditions, was attributed to 20 percent of the operators (246 of 1,218). However, theactual speed at the time of the accident was quantified for only 114 cases reported. Figure2–5 shows the proportion of speed ranges reported: half were traveling faster than 20 mphand half were traveling 20 mph or slower.35

35 Four categories of speed are included in most State boating accident reports; <10 mph, 10-20 mph,

21-40 mph, and >40 mph.

24

32

9

<10 mph 10-20 mph 21-40 mph >40 mph

0

102030

Number of oper
Chapter 2 Methods and Accident Results 21

Alcohol Involvement in PWC Accidents. The accident investigator’s narrative

reports or witness statements contained information regarding alcohol involvement, if any,

for 595 of the 1,218 operators. Alcohol use was cited for 59 PWC operators (5 percent of

the 1,218 operators);36 5 of those accidents were fatal. Alcohol was indicated as no factor for

536 operators, and no information on alcohol involvement was given for 623 operators. The

percentage of alcohol involvement in the PWC study cases is substantially lower than the

percentage for recreational boating. Coast Guard data for the previous year’s (1996)

recreational boating fatal accidents indicated 27 percent alcohol-related.

According to NASBLA’s Reference Guide to State Boating Laws,

37 all U.S. jurisdictions (that is, 50 States, 5 Territories, and the District of Columbia) have boating laws

that address operating under the influence (OUI); blood alcohol content (BAC) levels are

0.08 for about one-third (17) of the jurisdictions and 0.10 for 37 jurisdictions.38 One

State, Iowa, has no defined BAC. The Safety Board’s 1993 study of recreational boating

safety indicated that 37 percent of the 451 operators in the study accidents had some level

of alcohol in their system at the time of the accident.39 Based on that finding, the Board

called for State legislation to require drug and alcohol testing when a recreational boat operator

was suspected of being impaired and to require toxicological testing of all recreational boating

fatalities (Safety Recommendations M-93-2 through M-93-6). Appendix G provides the status

of these recommendations.

Age of Operator. Age was reported for 843 of the 1,218 operators: 77 operators

were under age 16, and 281 were 16 to 21 years of age (figure 2–6). More than half of

the accident-involved PWC operators were younger than 30 years of age. These results

strongly suggest that accident-involved PWC operators are a very different group than

PWC owners (average age of 41 years, as indicated by the PWIA owner survey).

 

36 Six cases indicated that the operator had been charged with boating while intoxicated (BWI), 2 cases

documented an accident witness report of alcohol, and blood alcohol content (BAC) testing was recorded for 15

cases.

37 National Association of State Boating Law Administrators. 1997. Reference guide to State boating

laws. 3d ed. Lexington, KY. 82 p., plus appendixes.

38 Illinois, Louisiana, and Vermont have separate BAC levels for youths.

39 National Transportation Safety Board. 1993. Recreational boating safety. Safety Study NTSB/SS93/01. Washington, DC (p. 24). 104 p.
22 Chapter 2 Methods and Accident Results

Figure 2–6. Age of the personal watercraft operators involved in the accidents

that occurred January–June 1997. (Data were available for 843 of the 1,218

operators involved.)

Operator Experience and Training. Experience was reported for half (613) of

the operators.40 Nearly a third of all operators (32 percent) reported that they had

operated a PWC between zero and 10 times prior to the accident: 86 never, 75 once, and

225 between 2 and 10 times. PWC operators with experience of more than 10 times

accounted for 18 percent (220 of the 1,218 operators).

Operator education or training was reported by 712 PWC operators: 84 percent

of those operators reported that they had no training, whereas 16 percent had received

some form of boating instruction. The results concerning PWC operator training are consistent with the Safety Board’s findings in its 1993 study of recreational boating: as few as

7 percent and no more than 22 percent of the persons operating a boat for the first time

had taken a boating safety course.41

 40 The Safety Board recognizes that the data on this topic are based on self-report and may be an

overestimate of the number of PWC operators with experience and training.

41 National Transportation Safety Board. 1993. Recreational boating safety. Safety Study NTSB/SS93/01. Washington, DC (p. 50). 104 p.

Age of PWC Operators Involved in Accidents

n=843

11

66

138

143

107 104

71

59

39

33

28

8

12 or under

13-15

16-18

19-21

22-24

25-27

28-30

31-33

34-36

37-39

40-42

43-45

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Number of operators

Ages 46-63

had 36

operators
Chapter 2 Methods and Accident Results 23

Figure 2–7. Persons on board the personal watercraft

involved in the 814 accidents that occurred January–June

1997. (Data were available from 1,071 of the 1,218 PWC

operators involved in the accidents.)

Persons On Board. Information about the number of persons on board was

available from 1,071 of the 1,218 PWC operators involved in the accidents: 73 percent

were riding alone, and 25 percent were carrying one passenger (figure 2–7). In 1994,

PWC models for two to three riders became popular; however, only a few (2 percent) of

the PWC involved in the 1997 accidents had more than two persons riding the vessel; one

accident report indicated that there were three passengers in addition to the operator.

Riding Time That Day. Information about riding time was available for 420 PWC

operators. Half of all the operators had been riding less than 1 hour before the accident

(figure 2–8). Even though operators of rented PWC accounted for only 23 percent of the

accident-involved PWC operators, 49 percent of the operators who had been riding less

than 1 hour were riding rented PWC. Because fees for rented PWC are typically charged

by the hour, riding time measures are affected by the proportion of rented vessels.

Persons On Board

n=1,071

More than 1 passenger 2.1%

(23)

1 passenger 24.8%

(266)

Operator only 73.0%

(782)
Figure 2–8. Riding time of the personal watercraft operators prior tothe accident. (Data were available for 420 of the 1,218 operatorsinvolved in the accidents that occurred January–June 1997.)

Riding time is an important factor in interpreting accident and injury information. To

accurately compare PWC accidents to accidents involving other types of recreational boats, itis necessary to quantify the usage time by vessel type. If PWC are used more often than othertypes of boats, then their exposure time for incurring an accident would be higher.

A national boating survey conducted in 1988–89 by the American Red Cross o

ccurred at a time when PWC were just becoming popular. The survey reported 45

passenger hours per year for PWC compared to 117 passenger hours per year for all re

creational boats.42 Since 1989, the number of PWC has increased nearly six-fold and now

account for 36 percent of new boat sales. The dramatic rise in popularity of PWC demo

nstrates that boating practices have changed in the intervening years since the Red Cross

42 U.S. Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard. 1991. American Red Cross

national boating survey: a study of recreational boats, boaters, and accidents in the United States.Washington, DC; grant agreement 1801-82. 350 p.

170

38

<1 hour 1-3 hours 3+ hours

0

50

100150

Number of operators
Chapter 2 Methods and Accident Results 25

survey was completed and highlights the need for a current, unbiased measure of boat usage for all recreational boat types (for example, personal watercraft, sailboat, motorboat,

canoe, and rowboat).

The PWC owner survey commissioned by the PWIA documented a high usage

time for PWC: an average of 7 days per month during the 1995 season.43 Another source

of information about usage, the National Recreational Boating Needs Assessment Survey,

was prepared in response to 1997 Congressional hearings for the reauthorization of

transportation trust funds.44 Because the survey data were intended to be one tool to help

in determining the allocation of monies derived from gasoline tax, the survey collected

information only about motorboats, without an interest for other categories of recreational

boats. The survey was conducted through telephone interviews to 1,000 U.S. households;

the results were based on information provided by the 266 that were boating households.

(By comparison, the national boating survey conducted in 1989 by the American Red

Cross surveyed 5,031 households). The National Recreational Boating Needs Assessment

Survey, which distinguished only two categories for motorboat usage (motorboats 18 feet

or less and motorboats 19 feet or more), found that motorboats 18 feet or less were used

an average of 30 days a year and 5 hours a day (150 hours per year).

Estimates of usage time specifically comparing PWC and outboard motorboats

were prepared by industry in 1996 and submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) in support of rulemaking for marine engines.45 Annual time of use for PWC was

77.3 hours per year compared to 34.8 hours per year for outboard vessels; using these

measures of usage time, the exposure factor for PWC was 2.22 times higher than for

outboard vessels. This is a substantially different estimate than the one developed by the

National Recreational Boating Needs Assessment Survey. Given the changes in boating

practices since the 1989 Red Cross boating survey and the differences in estimates of

PWC usage reported by industry, the Safety Board concludes that a rate of injury for PWC

in relation to all recreational boat types cannot be determined because accurate

information on usage by boat type is not available.

 

43 The survey response rate (2,800 replies from 11,500 mailed surveys) represents 26 percent of the

deliverable mail-outs. The survey results did not indicate the proportion of rental agents included in the

survey.

44 Hagler Bailly, Inc. 1997. The national recreational boating needs assessment survey. Final report

prepared for the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC. 36 p., plus

appendixes. Project funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC; Sportfish Restoration

Program grant agreement 14-48-98210-97-G067.

45 Submission by Mercury Marine in response to EPA request for comments concerning Rule—Air

pollution control, gasoline spark-ignition marine engines. Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 194, dated

October 4, 1996, page 52088.
26 Chapter 2 Methods and Accident Results

The Coast Guard has recognized the need for boat usage time and exposure data,

and in 1997 issued a notice seeking application for grants to conduct a comprehensive national boating survey.

46 The Safety Board commends the Coast Guard in recognizing this

need and urges completion of the survey. Once this effort is completed, there is a continuing need to accurately assess recreational boat use. The Safety Board believes,

therefore, that the U.S. Coast Guard should collect recreational boating exposure data

such as “operational use time” or “vessel running time” and update this information on an

annual basis or conduct periodic surveys.

 

46 Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 193, dated October 6, 1997, page 52175.
Chapter 3 PWC Operations 27

Chapter 3

PWC Operations

The Safety Board’s 1993 study on recreational boating addressed several safety

issues, including boater education, operator training, mandatory use of personal flotation

devices (PFDs), and alcohol involvement in boating accidents. The safety issues concerning recreational boating safety, in general, are equally applicable to PWC operations. As

highlighted in chapter 1 of the current study, the number of PWC in use, the number of

PWC-involved accidents, and the number of PWC-related fatalities has almost doubled

since the Safety Board completed the 1993 study. PWC now constitute more than onethird of new recreational boat sales, and they can no longer be considered a small subset of

recreational vessels. Because of the emergence of PWC in the recreational boating arena

in the last few years, the Safety Board deemed it necessary to look at particular boating

safety issues as they relate specifically to PWC, including operator experience, education,

and training; rental operations; State operating restrictions; and use of PFDs.

PWC Operator Experience

and Education/Training

Each year, many first-time PWC operators are exposed to the boating environment. In the Safety Board’s 1997 sample of PWC accidents, nearly half (48 percent) of

the operators of rented PWC had operated a PWC only once or never; 18 percent of the

operators of privately owned PWC had previously operated a PWC only once or never.47

This lack of experience is particularly important for PWC because the vessels have special

operating characteristics, such as the loss of control during off-throttle steering and cut-off

(“kill”) switches activated by the use of safety lanyards to stop the vessel if the operator is

ejected, that underscore the need for training.

Operating a PWC requires a high degree of vigilance. Several PWC models can

exceed 60 mph, but even at a speed of 40 mph, a PWC travels about 20 yards per second.

As speeds increase, the time available to react decreases. PWC are highly maneuverable

vessels that can change course quickly while under power, which presents a particular

problem when several PWC are traveling together.48 The timeframe for perceptually

 

47 Issues specifically related to PWC rental operations are discussed in more detail later in this

chapter.

48 State boating law administrators agree that PWC operations often involve riding close to other

PWC.
28 Chapter 3 PWC Operations

tracking another PWC can also be quite limited under these conditions. Operators of two

PWC traveling at 40 mph on a head-on course will have a response time of 1.3 seconds to

travel 50 yards. Even when the vessels are converging on a 45-degree angle, the response

time is less than 2 seconds.49 The response time must accommodate perceiving the other

vessel, deciding which vessel is burdened to comply with rules of the road, determining the

risk of collision, and executing a response to alter course. Under these conditions, inexperienced operators who are not aware of navigation rules50 that dictate which vessels have

the right of way and, therefore, what direction of turn can be expected for vessels on conflicting routes, are faced with split-second decisions.

California reports that operator inexperience is the leading cause of PWC-related

accidents in that State (a factor in 49 percent of the PWC accidents).51 The second leading cause is operator inattention (47 percent). Florida notes that nearly 50 percent of the

PWC accidents in that State involve operators with less than 20 hours of experience,

which is the category on the State’s boating accident report form that indicates the least

experience (three other categories record increasing levels of experience).52

The Safety Board’s analysis of the 1997 State boating accident reports showed

that 87 percent of the PWC operators had received no boating instruction.53 The NTSB

supplemental questionnaire submitted by the States indicated a similar proportion: 84

percent had completed no type of boating instruction.54 The need for boating instruction

was addressed in the Safety Board’s 1993 safety study of recreational boating; 81 percent

of the operators involved in fatal accidents in that study had received no boating safety

instruction.55 A review of 1996 Coast Guard boating statistics also illustrates that

recreational boaters have a low exposure to safety education. Of the 709 recreational

boating fatalities, educational experience was known for 340: 50 (15 percent) had

 

49 40 mph = 19.5 yd/sec. On a direct course, each vessel traverses 25 yards; on a converging course,

each vessel travels 35.35 yards before intersecting.

50 PWC are subject to inland navigation rules as stated in USCG COMDTINST M16672.2B, dated

August 17,1990.

51 PWC News. 1996. California boating accident statistics and PWC. Sacramento, CA: California

Department of Waterways; p. 2.

52 Shatz, David D.; Norton, Brett D. 1997. Accidents on the waterways: another focus for injury

prevention. Journal of the Florida Medical Association. 84(7): 458-460. October.

53 Training information was reported for 471 of the 1,218 PWC operators: 413 had none, and 58 had

completed State courses, Coast Guard Auxiliary training, Power Squadron training, Red Cross training, or

other (military) training. The duration of the reported training or quality of the course content may have

varied.

54 Responses to a boater education question that was included on the supplemental questionnaire were

reported for 712 of the 1,218 operators; of those responding, 600 (84 percent) had no training.

55 National Transportation Safety Board. 1993. Recreational boating safety. Safety Study NTSB/SS93/01. Washington, DC. 104 p. The Safety Board’s experience indicates that boating accidents involving

a fatality are more likely to be reported than those involving less serious injury. Fatal accidents are also

better documented. The Board used fatal accidents to illustrate the proportion of operators who had

received boating education because it had greater confidence in the boating education data from that

subset than from all accidents.
Chapter 3 PWC Operations 29

Table 3–1. Boating education experience of fatally injured recreational boat

Item 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Number of fatally injured

recreational boat operators 924 816 800 784 830 709

Number of the operators for

whom boating education

information was known 433 396 405 378 400 340

Number of the operators

who had completed some

type of boating education 72 66 86 74 46 50

Percentage of the operators

who had completed some

type of boating education 16.6 16.6 21.2 19.6 11.5 14.7

Source: Data reported by the States to the U.S. Coast Guard.

received operator education, and 290 (85 percent) were known not to have received

operator education. Data for 1991 through 1996 reflect similar proportions regarding the

fatally injured operators who had received boating safety education (table 3–1).

In 1988, no State mandated operator certification or boating safety education. By

1996, 4 States had enacted legislation for some type of certification of recreational boaters

(Alabama, Connecticut, Indiana, and New Jersey),56 and 20 States and Territories had

mandated boater education.57 Thirty-six States and Territories offer boating education in

the public schools; certificates were issued to 242,665 students in 1996.58 State training

 

56 In Alabama, by April 28, 1999, all recreational boat operators age 12 or older must have a license,

but there is no requirement for an operator to take a State boating safety or other recognized course. In

Connecticut, all recreational boaters must now have an operator’s certificate that requires boating safety

training from either the State (a 10-hour course), the Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Power Squadron, or

State-approved private course. In Indiana, a PWC operator must have either a valid driver’s license or a

picture identification card (cost $4) indicating the holder completed an approved boating safety course.

An Indiana driver’s license may be obtained at age 16; the ID card is a provision for PWC operators age

15, the youngest operating age allowed by special provision. In New Jersey, PWC operators must

complete the State’s 8-hour course on boating safety basics, or a substantially similar course, and pass an

examination before they can operate a PWC on State waters.

57 NASBLA lists the District of Columbia and 17 States that require boating education for young operators: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Utah

and Puerto Rico also require mandatory safety education for young operators. Connecticut, Maryland, and

New Jersey require boating education for all ages. (National Association of State Boating Law

Administrators. 1997. Reference guide to State boating laws. 3d ed. Lexington, KY (p. 19). 82 p., plus

appendixes.)

58 National Association of State Boating Law Administrators. 1997. Reference guide to State boating

laws. 3d ed. Lexington, KY (p. 16). 82 p., plus appendixes.
30 Chapter 3 PWC Operations

programs have shown substantial growth in recent years, but only a small fraction of the

estimated 78 million persons exposed to recreational boating on an annual basis have been

trained.59

Although no State or Territory requires a special boating license to operate a

PWC, 16 jurisdictions have special boating education requirements to operate a PWC.60

Effective June 23, 1993, PWC operators in Connecticut were required to take a safe handling course to obtain a certificate for PWC operation; there are no exceptions.

Mandatory education requirements include 10 hours of basic boating safety and an additional 2.5 hours of instruction concentrating on PWC safety. Even though there has been

a substantial increase in the number of PWC operations, there have been no fatalities attributable to PWC operations in Connecticut in the past 10 years. The boating law

administrator for Connecticut indicates that accidents and injuries have decreased over the

last 5 years. Training is typically offered by the States’ marine safety officers. Michigan’s

marine education program61 certified 50,554 students in classroom courses in 1996.62

That State also conducts a PWC education/enforcement program that began in 1995; it involves 30 marine officers assigned to PWC patrol who review regulations, discuss safety,

and give equipment demonstrations. Even with a growth in PWC operations, that State

has seen a decrease in both PWC accidents and fatalities; PWC accidents accounted for 45

percent of all boating accidents in 1995 and dropped to 41 percent in 1996.

On October 23, 1997, the Coast Guard issued a notice in the Federal Register requesting comments on a proposed Federal requirement for education in recreational boating. On

March 20, 1998, the Coast Guard extended the comment period until May 29, 1998.63 The

Safety Board submitted comments supporting the need for operator education and training

for recreational boaters and PWC operators, and reiterating the conclusions and recommendations of its 1993 study on recreational boating safety. The lack of education

reported for the PWC operators in the current study provides further support for the need

for education of recreational boat and PWC operators.

 

59 The U.S. Coast Guard uses 78 million as an estimate of one-quarter of the Nation’s population.

That proportion was taken from the 1988–89 American Red Cross survey of recreational boaters.

60 The following States and Territories require PWC education: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,

Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,

Wisconsin, U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. Nevada requires PWC education only of PWC

operators who rent the vessel. (National Association of State Boating Law Administrators. 1997.

Reference guide to State boating laws. 3d ed. Lexington, KY (p. 21). 182 p., plus appendixes.)

61 Michigan’s course is only 1 hour long; most States require 6 to 8 hours of classroom instruction.

62 Small Craft Advisory. Dec. 1997/Jan. 1998. Lexington, KY: National Association of State Boating

Law Administrators; 13(2): 20.

63 Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 54, dated March 20, 1998, page 13585.
Chapter 3 PWC Operations 31

Table 3–2. Topics for a prototype personal watercraft course developed

by the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators.(a)

Operational characteristics:

Jet propulsion, including off-throttle steering

Re-boarding

Lanyard/cut-off switch

Fuel reserves tank

Equipment limitations

Maneuvering

Preparation:

Pre-departure checklist—

Gasoline fumes

Safety equipment

Electrical systems

Laws and regulations:

Equipment—

Noise limits

Equipment limitations

PFD wearage

Optional equipment: goggles, gloves, footwear, sunscreen, tow lines, high-impact PFDs

Operator responsibilities—

Wake, speed, proximity to others: courtesy, requirements

Proximity to shoreline and shoreline facilities, limited duration

Proximity to wildlife, environmental effects

Towing water skiers: observer, vessel capacity

Nighttime operation (not recommended, unlawful)

Sudden maneuvering

Courtesy and common sense

Accident prevention as it relates to PWC

(a) The NASBLA Education Committee conducts a structured review of the content of personal watercraft

courses. The Coast Guard recognizes courses approved by NASBLA.

NASBLA, BOAT/U.S., the National Safe Boating Council, and the National Water

Safety Congress support recreational boating education. NASBLA’s Education

Committee has a review process designed to standardize training information by approving

boating safety curriculums. NASBLA has also developed a model PWC boating course

that addresses the topics shown in table 3–2. This course outline may be used by the

individual States to pattern the courses they develop, and it serves as a guide to educational organizations that work within the local communities to provide training. In

addition to NASBLA’s education efforts, the PWIA has also been developing model PWC

education requirements. PWIA advocates mandatory education for PWC operators and

has mandatory education as an element of its model legislation.64

 

64 The PWC model legislation is discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
32 Chapter 3 PWC Operations

PWC manufacturers provide safety information in printed and video formats with

every PWC sold, and dealers are asked to review these safety techniques with customers.

The PWIA has also developed classroom material used in several State safety education

courses. One manufacturer recently introduced a PWC training program that requires

dealers to deliver a boating safety presentation (video and law review) to all purchasers of

new PWC.65 The product cannot be warranty-registered until the customer receives the

information. The Safety Board commends industry efforts to provide PWC owners with

point-of-purchase education and training. However, this point-of-purchase information

may not reach relatives and friends of the PWC owner who may use the vessel. In its

1993 study on recreational boating, the Safety Board recommended that each State

Implement minimum recreational boating safety standards to reduce the number and

severity of accidents; consider requirements such as mandatory use of personal flotation

devices for children, demonstration of operator knowledge of safe boating rules and

skills, and operator licensing. (M-93-1).66

Although some progress has been made in responding to the Safety Board’s recommendation, as shown by the 4 States that now require boater certification and the 20

that mandate boating education, the Safety Board continues to believe that if more recreational boaters were trained, the number of persons killed and injured in recreational

boating accidents, including those involving PWC, would be reduced. Therefore, the

Safety Board is reiterating Safety Recommendation M-93-1 in this report. Because twothirds of PWC owners also owned a powerboat prior to purchasing a PWC (as discussed

in chapter 1), it is reasonable to believe that powerboat operators taking a recreational

boating education course may someday be PWC owners or operators. To reach the

maximum number of persons who may operate a privately owned PWC, recreational

boating education courses should provide some level of PWC training. This is not to say

that all boaters should take a PWC course, but rather that all recreational boating courses

should address PWC safety issues. Therefore, the Safety Board believes that the States,

NASBLA, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, the U.S. Power Squadrons, and BOAT/U.S should

include information on the safe operation of PWC in all recreational boating courses.

 

65 Polaris Industries, Inc.

66 Safety Recommendation M-93-1 has been classified “Closed—Acceptable Action” for 7 States,

“Open—Acceptable Response” for 28 States, “Open—Response Received” for 4 States, “Open—Awaiting

Response for 9 States, and “Closed—Unacceptable Action” for 4 States.
Chapter 3 PWC Operations 33

Experience of Operators

Who Rented PWC

The Safety Board is concerned about persons who rent PWC. Nearly one-quarter

of the PWC operators involved in the 1997 accidents analyzed by the Safety Board for this

study (292 of 1,218, or 24 percent) were operating rented PWC.67 Accident case analysis

showed that 68 percent of the operators of rented PWC were under age 25, and 73 percent had been riding less than 1 hour at the time of the accident; 84 percent of the

accidents involved collision with another vessel.

There was limited reporting of PWC renters who received safety information (110

of 292 rentals), but for those for whom the information was reported, the safety

information was usually transmitted by verbal instruction (56 percent). In the Michigan

accident discussed in chapter 1, the rental agent’s verbal instructions were translated for

the Spanish-speaking operator; the translation may have been quite effective, but the

situation raises a question about whether the rental agent was sure that the operator

understood the procedures necessary for safely operating the vessel. Only one out of

three PWC renters included in the Safety Board’s accident analysis indicated that the

rental agent had required them to demonstrate PWC riding ability. To encourage all rental

businesses to be responsible partners in safe boating, the PWIA provides a free education

package for PWC rental businesses. The package includes a videotape, waterproof

checklist, safety posters, and safety literature.

Nearly half of the rented PWC in the Safety Board’s accident sample were operated by out-of-state residents (table 3–3). If the PWC was rented, 48 percent of the

operators reported they were not State residents (132 of 277); for nonrented PWC, only

11 percent of the accident operators resided outside the State (80 of 757). Out-of-state

operators may be less familiar with the recreational waterways in which they are operating

the PWC and with the local boating regulations.

Operators of rented PWC were twice as likely as operators of personally owned

PWC to have ridden the vessel less than 1 hour before the accident occurred. Table 3–4

shows that 73 percent of rental-operator accidents occurred within the first hour of operation (102 of 139) compared with 39 percent for nonrental operators (107 of 272).

However, this finding may be confounded by the fact that PWC are rented by the hour and

some portion of renters will rent the vessels for only an hour. As mentioned earlier in this

chapter, about half of the operators of rented PWC had previously operated a PWC only

once or never (table 3–5); this underscores the need for PWC education and training.

 

67 Boating accident report forms of all States contain a field to designate whether or not the vessel was

rented. Rental information was provided for 85 percent (1,034 of the 1,218) of the PWC operators

involved in the accidents that occurred during the January–June 1997 study period.
34 Chapter 3 PWC Operations

Table 3–3. Residency of personal watercraft operators involved in the

January–June 1997 study cases, by rental status of the personal

watercraft.(a)

Residency of operator

Personal watercraft

not rented

Personal watercraft

rented Total

Out of State 80 132 212

In State 677 145 822

Total 757 277 1,034

(a) Information about the residency of the personal watercraft operator plus rental status of the vessel was provided

by 1,034 of the 1,218 operators involved in the accidents.

Table 3–4. Number of hours operators had ridden the personal watercraft

prior to the accident, by rental status of the personal watercraft.(a)

Riding time

Personal watercraft

not rented

Personal watercraft

rented Total

Less than 1 hour 107 102 209

1–3 hours 134 32 166

More than 3 hours 31 5 36

Total 272 139 411

(a) Information about hours of operation plus rental status of the personal watercraft was provided by 411 of the

1,218 PWC operators involved in the accidents that occurred in the January–June 1997 study period.

Table 3–5. Previous personal watercraft operating experience of the

accident-involved operators, by rental status of the personal watercraft.(a)

Number of times person

had previously operated

personal watercraft

Personal watercraft

not rented

Personal watercraft

rented Total

Never 34 49 83

1 40 35 75

2–10 143 74 218

More than 10 198 17 214

Total 415 175 590

(a) Information about previous experience plus rental status of the personal watercraft was provided by 590 of the

1,218 PWC operators involved in the accidents that occurred in the January–June 1997 study period.
Chapter 3 PWC Operations 35

Table 3–6. Cause of personal watercraft accidents January–

June 1997, by rental status of the personal watercraft.(a)

Personal watercraft

not rented

Personal watercraft

rented

Cause of accident(b) Number Percent Number Percent

Weather 9 1 1 0

Inappropriate speed 175 21 53 13

Improper lookout 88 11 59 14

Hazardous waters 36 4 4 1

Alcohol use 18 2 0 0

Equipment/machine 12 1 5 1

Operator inexperience 172 21 109 27

Operator inattention 181 22 105 26

Congested waters 10 1 5 1

No fault 44 5 27 7

Other 88 11 42 10

Total 833 100 410 100

(a) Rental information was available for 1,073 of the 1,218 PWC operators involved in the

accidents that occurred during the 6-month study period.

(b) More than one cause could be attributed to the accident-involved operators.

Reported causes of the accidents involving rented PWC appeared to show a

somewhat different pattern than nonrented PWC (table 3–6). Operators of rented PWC

were somewhat more likely to have accidents reported as resulting from inexperience and

inattention, but they were not as likely to have an accident reported as resulting from

inappropriate speed.

Twenty States have taken steps to address the safety of PWC rental operations

(see appendix B for details). For example, in Oregon and Florida, the minimum age (by

statute) to operate a PWC is 14, but it is 16 for operators who rent PWC. In Wisconsin,

the allowable operating age with training and adult supervision is 12, but 16 for those who

rent a vessel. Idaho law effective July 1996 specifically requires all rental businesses and

agents to educate all PWC renters concerning the safe operation of the vessel and to place

a decal on the vessel that lists safe operating techniques and boating laws. The law requires the renter to take the education (PWC video and instruction provided at the point

of rental) and to carry an acknowledgment-of-education form while operating the PWC.

Violation is an infraction of the law. Florida requires an on-water checkride to be provided by rental agents. Nevada requires not only the renter, but each person who will

operate under the rental contract, to receive instruction in the laws and safe operation of

the PWC. A dozen States specify education or training requirements that rental agents

must provide PWC renters.
36 Chapter 3 PWC Operations

Accident data showed that operators of rented PWC in the study sample had less

PWC experience than did operators of privately owned personal watercraft. Considering

the unique operating characteristics of PWC, this lack of experience creates a safety risk.

Given that the percentage of PWC accidents that occur within the first hour was almost

twice as high for rented PWC as for nonrented PWC (73 percent compared to 39 percent), that half of the accident-involved rental operators had limited or no experience on a

PWC, and that about two-thirds of accident-involved PWC renters had not had to demonstrate their ability to operate the vessel, the Safety Board believes that States should enact

or revise their recreational boating laws, as necessary, to require rental businesses to provide safety instruction training to all persons who operate rented PWC and to require the

operators to demonstrate their ability to operate and control PWC. The Safety Board also

believes that NASBLA, in conjunction with the Coast Guard and the PWIA, should develop a checklist for boat rental businesses to use for evaluating a person’s ability to

operate a PWC.

State Operating Restrictions

Minimum Operator Age. The States’ 1997 PWC accident cases analyzed by the

Safety Board involved 77 PWC operators age 15 or under (6.3 percent of the accidentinvolved PWC operators). Fifty-one States and Territories have established a minimum

age, by statute, for PWC operation. However, there is a wide disparity among State laws

regarding the age at which a young person can operate a PWC. (The minimum age required by each State or Territory, through statute or special provision, is provided in

appendix H.) In most States, provisions exist that allow operators who are younger than

the minimum age by statute to operate a PWC (figure 3–1). For example, boater training

or PWC certification (for PWC operating privileges at a special age) is required in 23

States and 2 Territories. Colorado law, for example, has a minimum PWC operating age

of 16, but the age is lowered to 14 for holders of a PWC training certificate. Thirty States

and 2 Territories have provisions for adult supervision of younger PWC operators.

Recent legislative activity by some States tends to show movement toward raising

the minimum age for operating PWC. For example, California set new minimum age

standards that took effect in January 1998: PWC operators must be at least 16 years old.

But the new law allows persons 12 to 15 years of age to operate a PWC with adult

supervision. Maryland recently set the minimum PWC operator age at 16.68 In a boating

 

68 Maryland regulations are published in Title 8 Department of Natural Resources, Subtitle 18:

Boating—Speed Limits and Operation of Vessels, Chapter 2: Personal Watercraft, Paragraph 5:

Restrictions.
Figure 3–1. Youngest personal watercraft operating age allowed by Statesand U.S. Territories. (Note: This chart reflects the youngest age allowed,either by statute or, for some States, the younger age allowed by specialprovisions such as boater training or adult supervision. “None” accounts forStates and Territories without a minimum age requirement, by statute; “AnyAge” accounts for States and Territories with a minimum age requirementbut allow PWC operation at any age when special provisions are met.)

survey conducted by Virginia,69 where PWC operators can be as young as age 14,70 81percent of the survey respondents believed there should be a minimum age to operate amotorboat: 33 percent believed the age should be 14, and 40 percent believed the ageshould be 16.

The PWIA and NASBLA have developed model acts for PWC that States may use

in their legislative initiatives. The PWIA model act proposes 16 as the minimum operatorage: it has advocated 16 as the minimum operator age since 1988. Twenty-one of the 56States and Territories with statutes that specify a minimum age requirement have set 16 asthe minimum age for PWC operators; 7 States and Territories have an older age requir

ement. The NASBLA model act also proposes age 16; however, that act includes a

provision for 12- to 16-year-olds to operate a PWC if a person age 18 or older is on boardthe vessel. (A comparison of the PWIA and NASBLA model acts, and the complete textof both, are provided in appendix I.)

69 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 1997. Boating education in Virginia.

Richmond.

70 The Commonwealth of Virginia’s General Assembly and Senate passed new PWC age

requirements effective January 1, 1999: persons ages 14 and 15 may operate a PWC with training and age16 without training. A training card must be carried by 14- and 15-year-old operators.

5

2

2

7

2

7

None Any Age Age 10 Age 12 Age 13 Age 14 Age 15 Age 16

05

10

Number of States
38 Chapter 3 PWC Operations

All but five jurisdictions have established a minimum operating age, but many

States have special provisions for training, certification, or adult supervision that substantially lower the minimum age requirement. Of the 28 States and Territories with

statutes that have set a minimum age of 16 years or older, all but 6 have special provisions

that allow PWC operation at a younger age than set by statute. The Safety Board

supports the initiatives by the PWIA and the States to establish State statutes that set 16

as the minimum operating age, and the Board acknowledges efforts to promote safety

through boater education, certification, and supervision. The Safety Board is concerned,

however, that special provisions are being used to lower or negate minimum operator age

requirements and believes that NASBLA should examine the effects of special provisions

on the operator minimum age requirement for PWC.

Distance Restrictions. The Safety Board is also aware that some States have

taken initiatives to impose certain operating restrictions based on distance. California reports that 25 percent of its collisions between two PWC are caused by PWC operators

executing radical maneuvers including wake jumping, turning donuts, or spraying another

vessel.71 For example, Utah requires PWC operators to remain 150 feet from all vessels

when traveling faster than no-wake speed, Maryland has a 6-knot speed limit within 100

feet of shore, and South Carolina requires no wake within 50 feet of docks or anchored

boats. Fourteen States have set 100-foot restrictions for wake jumping; 3 other States

have set the distance at 150 feet (appendix B contains a summary of the States’ PWC operating restrictions). The Safety Board commends the States for their efforts to evaluate

the need for operating restrictions and for imposing those restrictions as necessary.

Personal Flotation Devices

The Safety Board’s accident analysis showed that 97 percent of the PWC operators (971 of 999 reported) were wearing a personal flotation device (PFD). The

various types of PFDs are shown in figure 3–2. Most operators (80 percent, or 425 of

534 reported) wore a type III flotation aid life jacket. Personal watercraft are the only

type of recreational vessel for which the leading cause of death is not drowning; however,

when drowning is involved, it is typically because the rider was not wearing a PFD.

According to Coast Guard data for 1995, 38 percent of PWC fatalities were from

drowning (26 of 68); 20 of the 26 persons who drowned were not wearing a PFD. In

1996, PWC fatalities from drowning decreased to 15 (of 57 PWC fatalities); however, 10

of the 15 who drowned were not wearing a PFD.

 

71 PWC manufacturers consider these behaviors to be inappropriate, as indicated in the PWIA model

act.
Chapter 3 PWC Operations 39 Figure 3–2. Types of personal flotation devices. (Source: The Personal Flotation Device Manufacturers Association.)
40 Chapter 3 PWC Operations

The Safety Board concludes that the high usage of personal flotation devices

among PWC riders in the study sample was reflected in the low number of PWC fatalities

who drowned. Because most PWC operators who drown are not wearing a PFD, PWC

operators should be required to wear a personal flotation device. For 45 States and Territories, operating a PWC is a specific circumstance that requires the wearing of a PFD.

Appendix J contains the requirements for PFD use by State. Two additional States

(Alaska and Vermont) have PFD requirements for use on an open deck, which would include PWC. Eight jurisdictions have not defined requirements for wearing PFDs while

riding a PWC. The Safety Board believes that these jurisdictions (California, Hawaii,

Idaho, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico,)

should enact legislation to require the use of a PFD while operating PWC.
Chapter 4 Injury Analysis 41

Chapter 4

Injury Analysis

The Safety Board’s study of PWC accidents specifically examined injury type and

severity. According to Coast Guard data for 1996, drowning is the leading cause of death

for all recreational boating accidents (500 of 709); however, injuries of blunt force trauma

are more common to the operators and passengers of PWC. Of the 57 deaths attributed

to PWC accidents in the Coast Guard 1996 data, 42 PWC operators or other boaters (74

percent) died from causes other than drowning. This distinction led the Safety Board to

examine the injury characteristics of PWC accidents to see if there were special

considerations for the safe use of these vessels.

Injury Coding

For the 1997 PWC accidents resulting in injury, marine investigators indicated injury location on body diagrams on the Safety Board’s supplemental questionnaire (see

appendix F) and, in many cases, the investigator also provided text descriptions of the injuries. To provide some level of assessment of injury severity, Safety Board staff used this

information to code each injury according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale, 1990 Revision

(AIS 90).72 The AIS, developed by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive

Medicine, offers a standardized system for categorizing injury type and severity.

73 Each

injury description was assigned a 6-digit numerical code in addition to an AIS severity

score. A composite Injury Severity Score, ISS, was calculated for each victim based on

the sum of the squares of the highest AIS severity score in each of the three most severe

injuries from a defined set of six body regions.74

AIS was originally developed in the early 1970s for impact injury assessment, but

subsequent revisions (1976, 1980, 1985, and 1990) have incorporated coding for brain

injuries, penetrating trauma, vascular injuries, and burns. AIS 90 includes specific coding

rules, which the Safety Board followed to code the injuries in the study cases, and a

 

72 The Safety Board staff member who coded the injury data had a nursing background, and a staff

physician was available to answer questions.

73 AIS 90, which was released in 1990, is the most recent coding revision. A new version, AIS 98, is

expected to be released in 1998.

74 Baker, S.P.; O’Neill, B.; Haddon, W.; Long, W.B. 1974. The injury severity score: a method for

describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. Journal of Trauma. 14: 187-

196.
42 Chapter 4 Injury Analysis

dictionary of over 2,000 injury descriptions. Because AIS was initially developed to

assess injury to victims that were involved in emergency care (that is, its function was to

project survivability), it has some limitations for postmortem assessment of injury. For the

purposes of this study, fatalities were coded with a maximum severity code, ISS = 75,

regardless of the AIS injuries associated with that victim. Drowning was coded as severe

inhalation.

Injured Persons

Injuries were recorded for anyone involved in a PWC accident: operators of vessels (whether they were at fault or not), passengers, boaters, swimmers, skiers, and in one

case, a nonwater victim. Injury of some level was sustained in 61 percent of the study accidents (500 of 814); there were 563 injured persons in these 500 accidents. The 563

injured persons sustained a total of 835 separate injuries; some persons sustained more

than one injury, and multiple injuries were coded separately (this accounts for the larger

number of injuries compared to the number of injured persons). Two percent of the reported injuries (15 of 835 injuries) did not contain sufficient information to enable AIS

coding. Table 4–1 summarizes the injury results by person.

Although PWC operators were the most likely persons to be killed or injured in the

PWC accidents examined for the study, 37 of the persons injured or killed (7 percent) can

be considered bystanders; that is, they were not operating a PWC nor were they a PWC

passenger. Consumer Product Safety Commission accident reports for 1997 contain

similar reports of injury and death to persons who were not the PWC operators or passengers, but were swimmers, scuba divers, and persons tubing and skiing.75

Fatalities

Of the 563 injured persons, 27 were fatally injured. Fatalities included 24 PWC

operators, one passenger, one boater, and one swimmer. The characteristics of fatal accidents differed little from those of all PWC accidents. Vessel collisions were the leading

type of fatal accidents (40 percent), and when combined with collisions with objects (16

percent), collisions accounted for more than half of all fatal accidents. Overboard was indicated as the type of accident for 30 percent of the fatalities. Each fatality occurred in a

separate accident.

 

75 In two cases, PWC struck and killed a swimmer; in two cases, PWC struck and killed a scuba diver;

and in three cases, a PWC struck and killed persons who were tubing or skiing.
Chapter 4 Injury Analysis 43

Table 4–1. Number of persons injured and number of injuries sustained in

personal watercraft accidents, January–June 1997, by personal watercraft

accident victim.(a)

Personal watercraft

accident victim

Number of

persons injured

Proportion of all

accident victims

(percent)

Number of

injuries(b)

Proportion of

all injuries

(percent)

Personal watercraft

 operator 480 85.3 707 84.7

Passenger 44 7.8 67 8.0

Boater 18 3.2 26 3.1

Swimmer 13 2.3 22 2.6

Sailboarder 1 0.2 3 0.4

Waterskier 6 1.0 9 1.1

Nonwater 1 0.2 1 0.1

Total 563 100.0 835 100.0

(a) These data were compiled from questionnaires completed by State marine accident investigators for the National

Transportation Safety Board study on personal watercraft safety. Of the 814 accidents that occurred between January and

June 1997, 500 resulted in injuries.

(b) Some victims sustained multiple injuries.

Operator inexperience and inappropriate speed were the leading reported causes of

the fatal PWC accidents, and they were two of the three leading reported causes of all

PWC accidents. Fewer rented PWC in the Safety Board’s sample were involved in fatal

accidents; rented PWC accounted for 36 percent of all accident vessels but were only 11

percent of fatal accident vessels.

Types of Injuries

Minor injuries accounted for the majority of the injuries reported (61 percent, or

513 of the 835 separate injuries); moderate injuries accounted for 25 percent (210 of 835).

For the purpose of discussion, injuries coded “moderate” under AIS could include fracture

of the pelvis, dislocated knee, major skin laceration, two to three broken ribs, or retinal

detachment in the eye. There were 68 serious injuries (8 percent); injuries coded severe,

critical, and maximum accounted for 3.5 percent. The distribution of injury severity for

the 835 reported injuries and among the accidents is shown in figures 4–1 and 4–2; figure

4–3 shows the distribution of injury by body location.
Figure 4–1. Severity of injuries sustained in the personal watercraftaccidents, January–June 1997. (Data reflect 835 separate injuriesthat were sustained by 563 persons in the 500 accidents that resultedin injury.)Figure 4–2. Number of personal watercraft accidents, January–June1997, by severity of injuries.

210

68

5 9 15 15

Minor Moderate Serious Severe Critical Maximum Unknown

0

100200300

Number of inj

Accidents by Injury Severity

337

167

64

5 7 14

Minor Moderate Serious Severe Critical Maximum

0

50

100150200250300350400

Number of accidents
Figure 4–3. Body location of injuries sustained in the personalwatercraft accidents, January–June 1997. (Data were available for835 separate injuries that were sustained by 563 persons in the 500accidents that resulted in injury.)

Lower Extremity Injuries. Collision between two PWC was the most frequent

type of accident (discussed earlier in this report). When two PWC collide, the likely i

mpact area is slightly above the waterline, where feet and legs straddle the vessel. A high

proportion (one-third) of injuries in the Safety Board’s 1997 sample occurred in the lowerextremities. Skeletal fractures and breaks occurred more frequently than all other types ofinjuries to the lower extremities; for the 286 injuries to the lower extremities, more thanhalf (165, or 58 percent) were skeletal fractures or breaks. Combined injuries for upperand lower extremities accounted for nearly half (47.5 percent) of all injuries. However,injury to an extremity is rarely life threatening (all but one type of lower extremity injury isdefined as AIS-3 or less).

104 113

15

78

45 54

111

29

Head

Face

Neck

Thorax

Abdomen

Spine

Upper extremity

Lower extremity

Unspecified

0

50

100150

Number of i
46 Chapter 4 Injury Analysis

For the PWC accidents involving a single vessel, there were 110 reported injuries

to lower extremities. Nearly half (52) involved broken bones (the remaining were contusions, abrasions, and bleeding). This high percentage of broken legs and ankles in

accidents that did not involve collision indicates that operators are being injured by their

own vessel. The following case examples illustrate the events:

• In the description of one accident, the investigator stated, “Two people on

board; made a right turn and flipped to the left catching the operator’s leg and

breaking it.” The resulting break was to the operator’s left leg about halfway

between the ankle and knee.

• The witness of another accident provided the investigator with the following

statement: “[the individual] was just playing around doing figure 8 circles and

was going to turn around to stay out of the no-wake zone and a wave hit the

side of the Waverunner catching her off guard and threw her off the side. Her

ankle got caught between the side and the seat.”

• Another accident report included the following statement: “While turning to

the right to cross the wake of another vessel, at an excessive speed, the

operator was thrown to the left. His foot became stuck in the foot well

causing his leg to be broken.”

The Safety Board’s study did not address the mechanisms of injury; it would be

difficult for any large-scale study to do that because of the isolated nature of PWC accidents. However, based on the anecdotal evidence of how injury occurred, it is suspected

that some proportion of injury to lower extremities is associated with entrapment of the

operator’s feet as the person is ejected from the PWC.

Head Injuries. Of greater concern than leg injuries are injuries to the head, neck,

and face because these injuries are generally more life threatening than are injuries to the

extremities. Head, neck, and facial injuries accounted for one of every four injuries

reported in the PWC accidents examined for this safety study. Injuries to the head contain

many examples of more severe injuries (severe = AIS 4, critical = AIS 5, maximum = AIS

6). These type of injuries would include most penetration injuries to the head, open

lacerations to intracranial vessels, or skull fractures. Because of the AIS coding

definitions, it would be expected that head injuries for a large number of accidents
Chapter 4 Injury Analysis 47

would, on average, be more severe than leg injuries.76 The Safety Board’s 1997 accident

sample included 12 head injuries that were categorized as severe or higher (AIS = 4, 5, or

6), 9 of which were fatal (maximum AIS = 6).

A classic response to protect against head injuries would be the use of helmets.

This has been true for motorcycling, bicycling, snowboarding, skateboarding, and an array

of speed-related sports. The International Jet Sport Boating Association requires PWC

riders in competitive races to wear helmets.77 However, there are many design questions

that must be considered for recreational helmet use; for example, should the helmet be a

full-face or cutaway design, what is the best material for composition, should it have a

face guard, and if so, how would water spray distort vision. Research on helmet load

analysis for personal watercraft78 has concluded that “the likelihood of neck injury from

impact with the water is significantly increased for riders with helmets even at normal

riding speeds. Unless the potential for head injury due to collision is significant (like in

racing), wearing a helmet is not recommended.”79 Further research is warranted before

appropriate head gear protection can be recommended. One PWC manufacturer

summarizes the helmet issue as follows:

A helmet is designed to provide some head protection. Although helmets cannot protect

against all foreseeable impacts, a helmet might reduce your injuries in a collision with a

boat or other obstacle. A helmet may have potential safety hazards, as well. A helmet

could catch the water during a fall into the water. This is commonly called “bucketing.”

The resulting strain on your neck could cause choking, severe and permanent neck

injuries, or death. A helmet could also increase your risk of an accident if it reduces

your vision or hearing, or if it distracts you or increases your fatigue.80

 

76 The magnitude of AIS severity coding should not be compared for different body regions because

injuries to some areas of the body are not as life threatening as to other areas; for example, injuries to the

upper extremities are not as severe as injuries to the head. The AIS coding for upper extremities does not

include any situation that can be coded beyond a severity level equal to 3 (minor = 1, moderate = 2, and

serious = 3), whereas many head injuries are categorized higher than 3. Consequently, a comparison of

average severity by body region is not valid.

77 1998 Official Competition Rule Book of the International Jet Sport Boating Association.

78 Robbins, Ron; Taylor, Robert K.; Fuller, Peter M. 1997. Neck loading due to head immersion in

water at high speeds. In: Proceedings, 1997 International IRCOBI conference on the biomechanics of

impact; 1997 September 24-26; Hanover, Germany. [Publisher’s location not indicated]: International

Research Council on Biokinetics of Impacts: 455-456.

79 Taylor, Robert K. 1997. Presentation at the 1997 International IRCOBI conference on the

biomechanics of impact; 1997 September 24-26; Hanover, Germany.

80 Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. [n.d.]. Yamaha Marine Water Vehicles, WaveRunner GP

Owner’s/Operator’s Manual. Cypress, CA: p. 1-8.
48 Chapter 4 Injury Analysis

A closer review of head injuries to separate injuries to the face and neck revealed

that 113 injuries (49 percent of 232 head injuries) were facial injuries. Many accident

reports contained descriptions of single-vessel accidents in which the operators hit their

face on the vessel while jumping waves. Descriptive information included in the

investigative reports cannot be assumed to be comprehensive (in many cases there was no

indication of the mechanism of injury); consequently, the Safety Board’s analyses cannot

attribute cause to the facial injuries. However, descriptions such as those that follow

provide examples that could be beneficial when considering future PWC design changes:

• A Missouri investigator stated that the “operator jumped the wake of a

passing cruiser. When the PWC came down, the nose of the PWC went

straight down into the water. Operator hit her head on the start/stop switch

mounting, cutting her forehead. She was treated for lacerations and bruises at

the local hospital.”

• A Virginia operator stated that “when jumping wakes, you have no control

when PWC is out of water.” The operator received a laceration to the left

eyebrow that required four stitches.

• An Ohio operator stated that “while wake jumping, I came down and hit my

handle bars.” The operator’s front tooth punctured his lower lip.

Safety Board staff visited a PWC dealer in metropolitan Washington, D.C., to

examine handlebars of current models manufactured by Bombardier, Yamaha, and

Kawasaki. The designs, for the most part, were composed of molded surfaces without

edges; however, padding was minimal.

Spinal Injuries. The Safety Board’s study of the 1997 PWC accidents included

19 spinal injuries that were associated with single-vessel accidents. Seven of the injuries

were reported by investigators81 to have involved spinal breaks. A report from the University of Florida’s University Medical Center82 looked at serious spinal injuries. Over a

3-year period, that medical facility treated four patients who suffered fractured vertebrae

associated with wave-jumping maneuvers. Similar injuries were found in the cases analyzed by the Safety Board. For example, an Ohio accident involved an experienced PWC

operator83 crossing a large wake of a barge. The operator was thrown into the air and

“came down on tail bone hard!” There was no property damage but the operator incurred

a compression fracture to the spine.

 

81 For cases of serious injury, investigator reports often, but may not always, include information

obtained from hospital visits.

82 Solis and others. 1998. Presentation at the 1998 annual conference of the American Academy of

Orthopedic Surgeons; New Orleans, LA.

83 The accident description indicated that the operator had 12 years’ experience on boats and PWC,

with over 500 hours on the type of PWC involved in the accident.
Chapter 4 Injury Analysis 49

Protecting PWC Riders

From Injury

A study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) used 6 years (1990 through

1995) of hospital emergency room data (collected through the National Electronic Injury

Survey System) to examine PWC-related injuries.84 A stratified sample of 624 injuries

was used to estimate that 32,954 persons with PWC-related injuries were treated in U.S.

hospitals nationwide. The distribution of injuries in the CDC study were as follows: head

and neck (29.1 percent); arm (11.2 percent); upper trunk (11.7 percent); lower trunk (12.5

percent); and leg (34.4 percent). The proportions of head and leg injuries found in that

study closely match those from the Safety Board’s sample. The CDC study specifically

identified a case of facial injury resulting from impact with the PWC handlebars.

The CDC, in its report on PWC-related injuries, offered several suggestions that

might help prevent injuries to PWC users, including specific training for PWC operators

and enforcement.85 The Safety Board agrees with the CDC that PWC operators should

receive education and training specific to PWC and, as discussed in chapter 3, is recommending that the States, NASBLA, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, the U.S. Power

Squadrons, and BOAT/U.S. include PWC safety information in recreational boating

courses.

The CDC found that 7 percent of PWC injuries were to persons 14 years and

younger and suggested that parental or adult supervision of children using PWC would be

appropriate. The Safety Board notes that several States (for example, Georgia, Minnesota, and Utah) require adult supervision; however, the Safety Board’s analysis could not

determine if supervision affected accident risk. Accidents in the Safety Board’s study did

occur to young operators who were within sight distance of adults or who had an adult

passenger on board the PWC. Although it is reasonable to believe that supervision reduces risky behavior, it cannot prevent accidents; consequently, the Safety Board views

designation of a minimum operator age and training requirements as better approaches.

It was the CDC’s opinion that protection for the face and extremities is warranted,

but it is not clear what kind of protection currently available is appropriate for use in water

recreation. The CDC advises, and the Safety Board agrees, that more research is needed

to determine the appropriate methods for head and extremity protection.

 

84 Branche, Christine M.; Conn, Judith M.; Annest, Joseph L. 1997. Personal watercraft-related

injuries: a growing public health concern. Journal of the American Medical Association. 278(8): 663–

665. August 27.

85 The CDC stated that right-of-way guidelines currently in place for boat operators should be

considered for extension to PWC users. A review by Safety Board staff for this study indicates that all

States do require PWC to comply with the right-of-way guidelines that apply to recreational boats.
50 Chapter 4 Injury Analysis

Much of the understanding of injury causation comes from highway accident investigations. When PWC are compared to those vehicles, it is clear that PWC riders do

not occupy an enclosed, structurally protected driving space. The vessel is not designed

to restrain riders from being ejected (as occurred in 11 percent of the Board’s 1997 accident sample), nor does the vessel surround the rider to absorb the forces of impact during

collision with objects or other vessels. The physical forces of the accident vessels are

transferred directly to the rider upon contact.

It is evident from accident and injury data that PWC riders involved in accidents

are susceptible to injury; 39.4 percent of accident-involved operators in the 1997 accidents

examined by the Safety Board sustained injury. Further, PWC riders account for over 41

percent of the injured recreational boaters reported in the Coast Guard data for 1996

(1,831 of 4,427). Because 4 out of 10 accident-involved operators in the 1997 PWC accidents examined by the Safety Board were injured, the Safety Board concludes that there

appears to be a high risk of injury associated with PWC operations. The Safety Board’s

analysis specifically identified a large number of injuries to areas of the head and lower

extremities, and this finding is consistent with other research of PWC-related injury. The

Safety Board believes that PWC manufacturers should evaluate PWC designs and make

changes to improve operator control and to help prevent personal injuries. The manufacturers should consider items such as off-throttle steering, braking, and padded handlebars,

and operator equipment such as PFDs and helmets.
Chapter 5 Boating Safety Standards 51

Chapter 5

Boating Safety Standards

Coast Guard Exemptions

Manufacturers of inboard and outboard motorboats must meet safety standards for

the manufacture of boats and associated equipment (33 CFR Part 183), including requirements for certification and labeling (Part 181) and defect notification (Part 179). The

standards and regulations of Part 183 specifically address capacity, loading, flotation,

electrical systems, fuel systems, and ventilation. In addition to the provisions included in

the regulations, many requirements are incorporated by reference.86

Federal statutes authorize the Coast Guard to issue exemptions from safety

standards for manufacturers of boats to which the application of a standard is impractical

or unreasonable and when the manufacturer can show that granting the exemption will not

adversely affect boating safety.

87 Manufacturers must petition the Coast Guard for

exemption from safety standards. The Coast Guard has granted exemptions to every

petition received from PWC manufacturers, and for each model for which an exemption

was requested.88

Personal watercraft, as a vessel design category, cannot comply with the Coast

Guard standards as currently written, and thus the exemptions from the existing standards

are unavoidable. The following examples are provided to explain why PWC need

exemptions from the existing standards:

 

86 Information incorporated by reference (as listed in Paragraph 183.5) includes recommended practices developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., electrical code requirements

of the National Fire Protection Association, recommended practices of the Society of Automotive

Engineers, Inc., and the Underwriters Laboratory, Inc.

87 The Coast Guard’s authorization was described in correspondence dated January 17, 1995, between

U.S. Coast Guard Chief, Recreational Boating Product Assurance Branch, and the Chairman of the

National Association of State Boating Law Administrators.

88 The Coast Guard has issued exemptions from its standards for both inboard- and outboard-powered

personal watercraft, hovercraft, airboats, raceboats, and submarines.
52 Chapter 5 Boating Safety Standards

• The safe loading standard, as currently written, is based on the assumption

that water will flow into the vessel. If there is no load area into which water

will flow, it is impossible to test a vessel in accordance with the safe loading

standard. Safe loading standards determine the weight limits appropriate for a

particular vessel, and, by correlation, determine the person capacity.

89

• In addition, if weight capacities cannot be determined in accordance with the

safe loading standard, it becomes difficult to determine the required volume of

flotation material for compliance with the flotation standard,90 thus PWC are

also exempted from the flotation standard and from requirements for labeling

the capacity of the PWC.91

• Manufacturers of personal watercraft have also received exemptions from

electrical and fuel systems standards and from the requirement for powered

ventilation in the ventilation standard. The manufacturers’ main justification

for requesting these exemptions is that PWC design features minimize the

possibility of arcing or sparks; specifically, fuel systems minimize the

possibility of fuel vapor leakage, and the comparatively smaller size of the

engine compartment compared to larger, more conventional boats limit the air

supply and the PWC’s ability to support combustion. Because PWC have a

tendency to capsize and could take on water through their blowers, the

powered ventilation standards, as currently written, cannot be applied.

Industry Standards

Voluntary industry construction standards have been developed by the Society of

Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the International Standards Organization (ISO); these

standards are similar to the Coast Guard boat standards but are specific to PWC. SAE’s

Personal Watercraft Subcommittee of the Marine Technical Committee has developed

standards to address PWC flotation (Recommendation Practice J1973), electrical systems

(J2120), fuel systems (J2046), and ventilation (J2034). In its rationale for issuing these

standards, the SAE recognized that PWC cannot comply with the Coast Guard regulations

 

89 To receive an exemption, PWC manufacturers provide the Coast Guard with test data to show adequate flotation, boat weight and passenger capacity, and the amount of flotation material installed. Based

on this information, the Coast Guard determines whether each PWC model contains sufficient flotation to

meet the intent of the standard.

90 Basic flotation, as applied to inboard and inboard-outdrive boats, requires sufficient flotation

material so that if the vessel capsizes or swamps, the boat will remain floating with some portion of its

hull above the surface of the water.

91 Manufacturers are considering the use of a capacity label that would indicate the rated person

capacity. The proposed capacity marking label would state that the vessel complies with ISO 13590 of the

International Standards Organization and that it is certified by the National Marine Manufacturers

Association.
Chapter 5 Boating Safety Standards 53

for conventional boat system designs, and it recognized the specific differences that affect

PWC system requirements. For example, the SAE fuel system standard is more stringent

than Coast Guard requirements; the SAE standard requires that the PWC system not leak

liquid fuel into the vessel when rotated through a 180-degree roll in either direction or

overturned through 90 degrees of pitch in either direction. The Safety Board recognizes

that industry representatives serve on SAE committees and that all of the major PWC

manufacturers voluntarily comply with the SAE standards. Industry representatives have

also contributed to the development of ISO standards, which are similar to SAE standards.

In May 1997, NASBLA asked the Coast Guard to consider developing standards

for PWC. Based on this request, the Coast Guard noted the similarities between SAE and

ISO standards and specifically identified the differences between SAE standards and the

existing safety standards as defined in Part 183. In October 1997, the Coast Guard’s

Boating Safety Advisory Committee requested the Coast Guard to review how manufacturers determine capacity on multiple-occupant rated PWC models—how the lack of an

industry-wide standard for determining and displaying “persons capacity” impacts rider

safety, including consideration of accident data. Coast Guard staff, in a meeting with

Safety Board staff on April 10, 1998, indicated that there was no compelling statistical

evidence that PWC problems warrant modifying existing safety standards for flotation

(capacity), electrical system, fuel systems, and ventilation.

Discussion

The Safety Board notes that the Coast Guard’s four standards were developed, in

part, to address the most serious safety concerns of traditional motorboats: drowning,

fire, and explosion. The Safety Board’s study clearly points out, however, that these are

not the most prevalent safety concerns for PWC. PWC, as previously mentioned, is the

only type of recreational vessel for which the leading cause of death is not drowning.

Also, as pointed out earlier, in traditional boats, falling overboard and swamping would be

considered emergency situations; however, for PWC, these are expected events and,

consequently, PWC are designed and constructed to different design criteria than

traditional boats.

The Safety Board questions the need for the Coast Guard to continue the

exemption process for PWC, particularly given that industry standards exist (and in certain

areas are more stringent than the Coast Guard’s), that there is voluntary compliance with

the standards, and that the standards appear to provide an equivalent level of safety as

envisioned by the Coast Guard standards. The Safety Board concludes that the existing

process of exempting PWC from standards that were defined for conventional boats is an

inappropriate method for certifying the safety and seaworthiness of PWC. In the Safety

Board’s opinion, the exemption process does little in terms of evaluating possible safety

risks that may be associated with the unique operating characteristics of PWC. The Safety

Board is aware that the Coast Guard is working with the PWIA to incorporate SAE
54 Chapter 5 Boating Safety Standards

standards by reference as an alternate method of compliance with existing Federal

regulations. The fact that PWC do not “fit” existing standards for open-hull vessels does

not release the Coast Guard from its responsibility to regulate the safety of these vessels,

particularly since personal watercraft now represent more than one-third of the new

recreational boats sold. The Safety Board believes, therefore, that the Coast Guard should

eliminate the existing process of exempting PWC from standards that were defined for

conventional boats and should develop, with the PWC manufacturers, comprehensive

standards that are specific to the safety risks of PWC.

The Safety Board notes, however, that industry has voluntarily complied only with

those standards that address the existing Coast Guard boating safety standards (flotation,

capacity, electrical, fuel, and ventilation) that were established for conventional boats. The

Safety Board is concerned that there are other safety issues associated with PWC that

warrant attention. The need for improved steering control and prevention of “runaway”

PWC once an operator is ejected serve as two prime examples of areas where improvements in design could result in a decrease in accidents.

State marine accident investigators have recognized that steering issues are

associated with many PWC accidents. The Safety Board reviewed available accident

reports for 1996 and 1997 and, based on narrative information contained in the accident

reports, determined that more than 350 (20 percent) of the cases reviewed indicated steering or loss of control problems. Accident reports reviewed for the Safety Board’s study

highlight problems of operator control during off-throttle steering situations. Some

portion of operator control problems may be attributed to the operating design of personal

watercraft.

The narrative report of an accident that occurred in Illinois included the following

investigator comment: “She (V1) stated that as they came close, she let off the throttle

and then tried to turn but couldn’t. She stated that V2 hit her in the side of the Sea-Doo

causing a tremendous amount of damage....V2 advised that as she came close to V1 she

turned to avoid her, but it didn’t turn because she let off of the throttle.” The report of a

fatal Missouri accident included the following investigator comments: “He did not think

that she knew that he was behind her. He said that it was less than a second between

when she turned and when he struck her. He let go of the throttle, but it did not help.”

On September 10, 1997, NASBLA adopted a resolution (No. 97-3) petitioning the

Coast Guard to evaluate off-throttle steering of jet-pump propelled craft and to develop

appropriate standards. The Coast Guard issued a grant request in October 1997.92 The

objective of this work will be to identify the most effective of the available and emerging

technologies/methodologies in the area of off-throttle steering. As part of the background

information in the grant description, the Coast Guard stated: “A large percentage of accidents involving jet-pump propelled craft involve collisions with other craft or fixed

objects. Because of the unique relationship between the amount of throttle and steering

 

92 Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 193, dated October 6, 1997, page 52176.
Chapter 5 Boating Safety Standards 55

response on jet-pump propelled craft, there is concern that a sudden loss of engine

power—either due to part failure or operator decision—may play a significant role in

these collisions.” Announcement of the grant award is anticipated in the near future. The

Safety Board study data support the need for this research, and an evaluation of PWC

steering design is warranted. The Safety Board is concerned that the Coast Guard has not

taken a proactive role in assessing the safety risks of PWC. Therefore, the Safety Board

believes that within 2 years the Coast Guard should determine, through research, the

feasibility of providing PWC operators more control in an off-throttle steering situation.

The Safety Board also believes that the Coast Guard should work with the PWIA to use

the results of this research to develop appropriate standards for steering on jet-pump

propelled vessels.
56 Conclusions

Conclusions

1. Because 4 out of 10 accident-involved operators in the 1997 personal watercraft

accidents examined by the National Transportation Safety Board were injured, there

appears to be a high risk of injury associated with personal watercraft.

2. One-third of the reported injuries in the 1997 personal watercraft accidents examined

by the National Transportation Safety Board occurred in the lower extremities; head,

neck, and facial injuries accounted for one of every four injuries reported in the

personal watercraft accidents.

3. The rate of injury for personal watercraft in relation to all recreational boat types

cannot be determined because accurate information on usage by boat type is not

available.

4. Analysis of 1997 boating accident report data showed that 84 percent of the personal

watercraft operators in the National Transportation Safety Board’s sample reported

receiving no boating instruction.

5. If more recreational boaters were trained, the number of persons killed and injured in

recreational boating accidents, including those involving personal watercraft, would

be reduced.

6. Operators of rented personal watercraft in the National Transportation Safety Board’s

sample had less personal watercraft experience than did operators of privately owned

personal watercraft.

7. The existing process of exempting personal watercraft from standards that were

defined for conventional boats is an inappropriate method for certifying the safety and

seaworthiness of personal watercraft.

8. Accident reports reviewed by the National Transportation Safety Board’s study

highlight problems of operator control during off-throttle steering situations. Some

portion of operator control problems may be attributed to the operating design of

personal watercraft.

9. The high usage of personal flotation devices among personal watercraft riders in the

National Transportation Safety Board’s study sample was reflected in the low number

of personal watercraft fatalities who drowned. Most personal watercraft operators

who drown are not wearing a personal flotation device.
Recommendations 57

Recommendations

As a result of this safety study, the National Transportation Safety Board made the

following safety recommendations:

To the Manufacturers of Personal Watercraft (Kawasaki, Yamaha, Polaris,

Bombardier, and Arctic Cat, Inc./Tiger Shark)—

Evaluate personal watercraft designs and make changes to improve

operator control and to help prevent personal injuries. Consider items such

as off-throttle steering, braking, and padded handlebars, and operator

equipment such as personal flotation devices and helmets. (M-98-85)

Develop, with the U.S. Coast Guard, comprehensive standards that are

specific to the safety risks of personal watercraft. (M-98-86)

To the U.S. Coast Guard—

Eliminate the existing process of exempting personal watercraft from

standards that were defined for conventional boats and develop, with the

personal watercraft manufacturers, comprehensive standards that are

specific to the safety risks of personal watercraft. (M-98-87)

Determine within 2 years, through research, the feasibility of providing

personal watercraft operators more control in an off-throttle steering

situation. (M-98-88)

Work with the Personal Watercraft Industry Association to use the results

of off-throttle steering research described in Safety Recommendation M98-88 to develop appropriate standards for steering on jet-pump propelled

vessels. (M-98-89)

Develop, in conjunction with the National Association of State Boating

Law Administrators and the Personal Watercraft Industry Association, a

checklist for boat rental businesses to use for evaluating a person’s ability

to operate a personal watercraft. (M-98-90)

Collect recreational boating exposure data such as “operational use time”

or “vessel running time” and update this information on an annual basis or

conduct periodic surveys. (M-98-91)
58 Recommendations

To the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary—

Include information on the safe operation of personal watercraft in all

recreational boating courses. (M-98-92)

To the U.S. Power Squadrons—

Include information on the safe operation of personal watercraft in all

recreational boating courses. (M-98-93)

To BOAT/U.S.—

Include information on the safe operation of personal watercraft in all

recreational boating courses. (M-98-94)

To the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators—

Include information on the safe operation of personal watercraft in all

recreational boating courses. (M-98-95)

Develop, in conjunction with the U.S. Coast Guard and the Personal

Watercraft Industry Association, a checklist for boat rental businesses to

use for evaluating a person’s ability to operate a personal watercraft. (M98-96)

Examine the effects of special provisions on the operator minimum age

requirement for personal watercraft. (M-98-97)

To the Personal Watercraft Industry Association—

Develop, in conjunction with the U.S. Coast Guard and the National

Association of State Boating Law Administrators, a checklist for boat

rental businesses to use for evaluating a person’s ability to operate a

personal watercraft. (M-98-98)

Work with the U.S. Coast Guard to use the results of off-throttle steering

research described in Safety Recommendation M-98-88 to the Coast Guard

to develop appropriate standards for steering on jet-pump propelled

vessels. (M-98-99)
Recommendations 59

To all States and Territories—

Include information on the safe operation of personal watercraft in all

recreational boating courses. (M-98-100)

Enact or revise your recreational boating laws, as necessary, to require

rental businesses to provide safety instruction training to all persons who

operate rented personal watercraft; all the operators should be required to

demonstrate their ability to operate and control personal watercraft. (M98-101)

To California, Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, Nebraska,

New Mexico, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico—

Enact legislation to require the use of a personal flotation device while

operating personal watercraft. (M-98-102)

Also as a result of this safety study, the Safety Board reiterated the following

recommendation to 42 States and Territories for which the recommendation is in an

“Open” status (Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,

Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode

Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,

Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands):

Implement minimum recreational boating safety standards to reduce the

number and severity of accidents; consider requirements such as mandatory

use of personal flotation devices for children, demonstration of operator

knowledge of safety boating rules and skills, and operator licensing. (M93-1)
60 Recommendations

By the National Transportation Safety Board

James E. Hall John A. Hammerschmidt

Chairman Member

Robert T. Francis II John Goglia

Vice Chairman Member

George W. Black, Jr.

Member

Adopted: May 19, 1998
Appendix A 61

Appendix A

State Definitions of Personal Watercraft

The definitions in this appendix are reprinted, with the permission of the National

Association of State Boating Law Administrators, from the following publication:

National Association of State Boating Law Administrators. 1997. Reference guide to

State boating laws. 3d ed. Lexington, KY ( p. 63-65). 82 p., plus appendixes.
62 Appendix A
Appendix A 63
64 Appendix A
Appendix B 65

Appendix B

Summary of NASBLA

1997 Survey on PWC

The results of the 1997 PWC survey are reprinted, with the permission of the National

Association of State Boating Law Administrators, from the following publication:

Small Craft Advisory. Dec. 1997/Jan. 1998. Lexington, KY: National Association of

State Boating Law Administrators; 13(2): 8-13.

The information from States and Territories was gathered by the following organizations:

the Northern Association of Boating Administrators (NABA), the Southern States

Boating Law Administrators Association (SSBLAA), and the Western States Boating

Administrators Association (WSBAA).
66 Appendix B
Appendix B 67
68 Appendix B
Appendix B 69
70 Appendix B
Appendix B 71
72 Appendix C

Appendix C

Preliminary Data on 1997

PWC Fatalities

Table C–1. Number of personal watercraft

fatalities, 1997.(a)

State or Territory Number of fatalities

Alabama 1

Alaska 1

Arkansas 0

Arizona 2

California 8

Colorado 0

Connecticut 0

Delaware 0

District of Columbia 0

Florida 8

Georgia 2

Hawaii 0

Idaho 0

Illinois 4

Indiana 1

Iowa 0

Kansas 2

Kentucky 4

Louisiana 1

Maine 0

Maryland 0

Massachusetts 1

Michigan 1

Minnesota 2

Mississippi 3

Missouri 3

Montana 2

Nebraska 1

Nevada 4

New Hampshire 0

New Jersey 0

New Mexico 0

New York 6

North Carolina 3

North Dakota 1

(continued)
Appendix C 73

Table C–1. Number of personal watercraft

fatalities, 1997.(a)

State or Territory Number of fatalities

(continued)

Ohio 1

Oklahoma 0

Oregon 0

Pennsylvania 0

Rhode Island 0

South Carolina 1

South Dakota 0

Tennessee 2

Texas 11

Utah 1

Vermont 0

Virginia 3

Washington 0

West Virginia 2

Wisconsin 1

Wyoming 0

American Samoa —

Guam 0

Northern Mariana Islands —

Puerto Rico 0

Virgin Islands 0

Total 83

— = Data were not provided.

(a) The number of fatalities shown was based on preliminary survey data

gathered by the National Association of State Boating Law

Administrators and then supplemented by National Transportation Safety

Board staff who telephoned many States for an updated count.

Because the U.S. Coast Guard has not yet compiled the number of

PWC accidents in 1997 for all States, the number of fatalities shown in

this table should be considered preliminary. (Results of the 1997

NASBLA survey were published in the following: Small Craft Advisory.

Dec. 1997/Jan. 1998. Lexington, KY: National Association of State

Boating Law Administrators; 13(2): 8-13.)
74 Appendix D

Appendix D

Summary of Data Sources

Provided by the States and Territories

Table D–1. Summary of data sources provided by the States and Territories

pertaining to personal watercraft accidents.

January–June 1997(a) 1996

State or Territory

Number of

accident

reports

submitted by

the State(b)

Number of

injured persons

for whom NTSB

questionnaire

was completed

Number of AIS

injuries

sustained by

the injured

persons

Number of

accident

reports

submitted by

the State(c)

Alabama — — — 37

Alaska 5 5 9 1

Arkansas 18 11 13 26

Arizona — — — 139

California 145 80 140 electronic

Colorado 10 7 9 36

Connecticut 5 1 1 8

Delaware 4 3 5 0

District of Columbia — — — —

Florida 256 187 265

Georgia 30 23 29 —

Hawaii — — — 2

Idaho 8 3 3 electronic

Illinois 29 19 32 43

Indiana 4 3 4 27

Iowa — — — electronic

Kansas — — — 18

Kentucky 9 9 12 51

Louisiana 16 8 11 24

Maine — — — 15

Maryland 15 10 16 47

Massachusetts 3 2 4 5

Michigan 1 6 13 —

Minnesota 20 15 18 43

Mississippi 12 5 5 —

Missouri 30 33 53 electronic

Montana 2 — — 9

Nebraska — — — 27

Nevada 18 9 21 electronic

New Hampshire 1 — — electronic

(continued)
Appendix D 75

Table D–1. Summary of data sources provided by the States and Territories

pertaining to personal watercraft accidents.

January–June 1997(a) 1996

State or Territory

Number of

accident

reports

submitted by

the State(b)

Number of

injured persons

for whom NTSB

questionnaire

was completed

Number of AIS

injuries

sustained by

the injured

persons

Number of

accident

reports

submitted by

the State(c)

(continued)

New Jersey 22 18 19 85

New Mexico — — — electronic

New York 1 1 1 electronic

North Carolina 31 17 28 126

North Dakota 1 1 1 7

Ohio 11 12 18 electronic

Oklahoma — — — —

Oregon 10 8 15 electronic

Pennsylvania — — — electronic

Rhode Island — — — 4

South Carolina — — — —

South Dakota — — — 9

Tennessee 22 12 20 49

Texas 6 6 6

Utah 7 5 5

Vermont — — — —

Virginia 28 20 30 72

Washington 8 6 6 —

West Virginia — — — —

Wisconsin 17 13 15 electronic

Wyoming — — — 2

American Samoa — — — —

Guam 1 1 3 13

Northern Mariana Islands — — — —

Puerto Rico 7 4 5

Virgin Islands 1 — — 0

Total 814 563 835 925

— = Data were not provided for the National Transportation Safety Board study on personal watercraft safety.

(a) Period of data collection for the National Transportation Safety Board study.

(b) The number reported to the U.S. Coast Guard by State marine accident investigators. The accidents involved 1,218 PWC

operators.

(c) The number reported to the U.S. Coast Guard by State marine accident investigators. “Electronic” denotes that only the

data, but not paper copies of the State accident reports, were provided to the National Transportation Safety Board.
76 Appendix E

Appendix E

U.S. Coast Guard

Boating Accident Report Form
Appendix E 77
78 Appendix E
Appendix E 79
80 Appendix F

Appendix F

NTSB Supplemental Questionnaire

The National Transportation Safety Board developed this questionnaire specifically for

this study on personal watercraft safety. For PWC accidents that occurred between

January and June 1997, the Safety Board requested that State marine accident

investigators complete a supplemental questionnaire.
Appendix F 81
82 Appendix F
Appendix G 83

Appendix G

Status of Safety Recommendations

M-93-2 Through M-93-6

Safety Recommendation No.: M-93-2

Date Issued: May 25, 1993

Recipient: Appropriate States

Status: Open—Await Response (Alabama, District of

Columbia, Indiana, Maryland, New York, North

Carolina, Puerto Rico, Virgin Island, Virginia, and

West Virginia)

Open—Acceptable Response (California,

Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine,

Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio,

Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin)

Closed—Acceptable Action (Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho,

Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada,

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania)

Closed—Acceptable Alternate Action (New Jersey)

Closed—Unacceptable Action (Arizona, Illinois,

Missouri, North Dakota, Wyoming)

Closed—Reconsidered (Georgia, Tennessee)

Recommendation:

Enact legislation that would require a chemical test to determine the alcohol

concentration of all recreational boat operators involved in a fatal boating accident.

Safety Recommendation No.: M-93-3

Date Issued: May 25, 1993

Recipient: Appropriate States

Status: Open—Await Response (West Virginia)

Open—Acceptable Response (District of Columbia,

Kentucky, and New Mexico)

Closed—Acceptable Action (Alabama, Hawaii,

Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South

Dakota)
84 Appendix G

Recommendation:

Enact comprehensive legislation to address the problem of alcohol and/or drug use

by recreational boat operators, including, but not limited to, a clear definition of

legal impairment in terms of alcohol concentration and a provision requiring a

chemical test to determine alcohol concentration if a recreational boat operator is

suspected of being impaired.

Safety Recommendation No.: M-93-4

Date Issued: May 25, 1993

Recipient: State of Iowa

Status: Open—Acceptable Response

Recommendation:

Enact legislation to address the problem of alcohol use by recreational boat

operators by establishing a clear definition of legal impairment in terms of alcohol

concentration.

Safety Recommendation No.: M-93-5

Date Issued: May 25, 1993

Recipient: Appropriate States

Status: Open—Acceptable Response (Connecticut and

Washington)

Closed—Unacceptable Action (Wyoming)

Recommendation:

Enact legislation that would require a chemical test if a recreational boat operator

is suspected of being impaired.
Appendix G 85

Safety Recommendation No.: M-93-6

Date Issued: May 25, 1993

Recipient: Appropriate States

Status: Open—Await Response (Arizona, Massachusetts,

Missouri, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma)

Open—Acceptable Response (New York,

Pennsylvania, and Virginia)

Open—Acceptable Alternate Response (Iowa)

Closed—Reconsidered (Kentucky and North

Dakota)

Recommendation:

Enact legislation that would require toxicological testing of all recreational boating

fatalities.
86 Appendix H

Appendix H

Minimum Age Requirements of States

for PWC Operation

Table H–1. State requirements regarding minimum age to operate personal

watercraft and age-related special provisions.

PWC operating age

Special provision that allows PWC

operation below minimum age

State or Territory

Minimum age

by Statute

Age allowed by

special provision

Training or

certification

Adult

supervision

Alabama 12 12

Alaska None None

Arizona 12 12

Arkansas 12 Any age 4

California 16 12 4

Colorado 16 14 4

Connecticut 12 Any age 4 4

Delaware 16 14 4

District of Columbia 16 16 4

Florida 14 14

Georgia 16 12 4 4

Hawaii 15 15

Idaho None None

Illinois 18 10 4 4

Indiana 16 15 4

Iowa 12 Any age 4

Kansas 16 12 4 4

Kentucky 12 12 4

Louisiana 13 13 4

Maine 12 12

Maryland 16 16 4

Massachusetts 18 16 4

Michigan 16 12 4 4

Minnesota 18 13 4 4

Mississippi 12 12 4 4

Missouri 14 Any age 4

Montana 15 Any age 4 4

Nebraska 14 14

Nevada 12 12

New Hampshire 16 16

(continued)
Appendix H 87

Table H–1. State requirements regarding minimum age to operate personal

watercraft and age-related special provisions.

PWC operating age

Special provision that allows PWC

operation below minimum age

State or Territory

Minimum age

by Statute

Age allowed by

special provision

Training or

certification

Adult

supervision

(continued)

New Jersey 16 16 4

New Mexico 13 Any age 4

New York 18 10 4 4

North Carolina None None

North Dakota 16 Any age 4 4

Ohio 16 12 4

Oklahoma 13 Any age 4

Oregon 14 Any age 4

Pennsylvania 16 12 4 4

Rhode Island 16 Any age 4 4

South Carolina 16 Any age 4 4

South Dakota 14 Any age 4

Tennessee 12 Any age 4

Texas 18 Any age 4 4

Utah 18 12 4 4

Vermont 16 16

Virginia 14 14

Washington 14 14

West Virginia 15 12 4

Wisconsin 16 12 4 4

Wyoming 16 Any age 4

American Samoa None None 4

Guam 16 Any age

Northern Mariana Islands None None

Puerto Rico 16 16 4

Virgin Islands 18 14 4 4

Source: Data from the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators.
88 Appendix I

Appendix I

Comparison of Personal Watercraft

Model Acts of the PWIA and NASBLA

The text of the PWIA model personal watercraft operations act is provided with the

permission of the Personal Watercraft Industry Association. The text of the NASBLA

model act for personal watercraft is provided with the permission of the National

Association of State Boating Law Administrators.
Appendix I 89

Comparison of the PWIA and NASBLA

Personal Watercraft Model Acts

PWIA Model Act NASBLA Model Act

Definitions (Section 2) Definitions (Section 1)

• Defines two classes of vessels: PWC

and Specialty Prop-Craft

• Defines only PWC

• Sets no vessel length • Sets vessel length at less than 16 feet

• PWC defined as using an inboard motor

powering a water jet pump

• PWC defined as being propelled by

water jet pump or other machinery

• Specialty Prop-Craft defined as using an

outboard motor or propeller-driven

motor

Regulation of PWC (Section 4) Regulation of PWC (Section 2)

• No person under age 16 to operate • No person under age 16 to operate,

except 12–16 if a person age 18 is on

board

• Persons on board must wear PFDs

including person towed by PWC;

inflatable PFDs not allowed

• Persons on board must wear PFDs;

inflatable PFDs not allowed; no

reference to person being towed

• Lanyard requirements same as

NASBLA

• Lanyard requirements same as PWIA

• No person shall operate between sunset

and sunrise; except emergency

personnel

• No person shall operate between sunset

and sunrise

PWIA and NASBLA are essentially the same about operating in a reasonable and prudent

manner as to:

• Weaving through congested traffic.

• Becoming airborne or completely leaving the water while crossing the wake of

another vessel within 100 feet of the vessel creating the wake.

• Operating at slow/wake speed within 100 feet of listed conditions.

• Operating contrary to “rules of the road” (NASBLA) or navigation rules (PWIA).

• PWIA prohibits jumping a wake when

visibility is obstructed or restricted

• NASBLA does not include this specific

prohibition

Required PWC Education (Section 5) Required PWC Education

• Establish at age 16 None

• Non-resident section indicating nonresident responsible for education

• Carry proof of education on board
90 Appendix I

Comparison of the PWIA and NASBLA

Personal Watercraft Model Acts

PWIA Model Act NASBLA Model Act

Towing (Section 6) Towing (Section 5)

The two sections are essentially the same, except as follows:

• The observer watching the water skier

must be rear-facing

• The PWIA model act states that the

number of persons operating, observing,

and being towed must not exceed the

manufacturer’s maximum safe load for

the vessel

Liveries (Section 7) Mandatory Safety Instruction for

Rental Operators (Section 4)

• Age requirement: no rental to anyone

under 18

• No requirement

• Liability insurance • No requirement

• Boating safety instruction in compliance

with established rules and regulations

• Safety instruction

• Provide in print: operational

characteristics of PWC, boating

regulations for area, and common

courtesies

• As to operational characteristics, laws

and rules, and local waterway

characteristics

Exemptions (Section 8) Exemptions (Section 3)

Both PWIA and NASBLA exempt certain activities:

• Exempts age restriction and PWC

education requirements for persons with

Coast Guard licenses

Regulations for Specialty Prop-Craft

(Section 9)

Regulations of Specialty Prop-Craft

• Applies Sections 4, 5, and 6 to these

crafts

None

Uniformity of State Law and Uniformity

of Law (Sections 3 and 10)

Uniformity of Law

None
Appendix I 91

MODEL PERSONAL WATERCRAFT OPERATIONS ACT

[Source: Personal Watercraft Industry Association—February 12, 1998]

Section 1. (Short Title) This act may be cited as the Personal Watercraft Operations Act.

Section 2. (Definitions) As used in this act:

(1) “Personal Watercraft” shall mean a vessel which uses an inboard motor powering a

water jet pump as its primary source of motive power and which is designed to be operated by a

person sitting, standing, or kneeling on the vessel, rather than the conventional manner of sitting

or standing inside the vessel.

(2) Specialty Prop-Craft shall mean a vessel which is similar in appearance and operation

to a personal watercraft but which is powered by an outboard motor or propeller driven motor.

Section 3. (Uniformity of State Law)

(1) If any provision of this act is in conflict with any other provision, limitation, or restriction

under any law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of this state or any political subdivision, municipality,

or agency, this act shall control and such law, rule, regulation, or ordinance shall be deemed

superseded.

Section 4. (Regulation of Personal Watercraft)

(1) No person under the age of sixteen (16) shall operate a personal watercraft on the

waters of this state.

(2) A person may not operate a personal watercraft unless each person on board or being

towed behind is wearing a type I, type II, type III, or type V personal flotation device approved by

the United States Coast Guard. Inflatable personal flotation devices do not meet the

requirements of this section.

(3) A person operating a personal watercraft equipped by the manufacturer with a lanyardtype engine cutoff switch must attach such lanyard to his/her person, clothing, or personal

flotation device as appropriate for the specific vessel.

(4) A person may not operate a personal watercraft at anytime between the hours of

sunset and sunrise. However, an agent or employee of a fire rescue, emergency rescue unit, or

law enforcement division is exempt from this subsection while performing his/her official duties.

(5) A personal watercraft must at all times be operated in a reasonable and prudent

manner. Maneuvers which unreasonably or unnecessarily endanger life, limb, or property shall

constitute reckless operation of a vessel and shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) Weaving through congested traffic;

(b) Jumping the wake of another vessel unreasonably or unnecessarily close to such

other vessel or when visibility around such other vessel is obstructed or restricted;

(c) Becoming airborne or completely leaving the water while crossing the wake of

another vessel within 100 feet of the vessel creating the wake;

(d) Operating at greater than slow/no-wake speed within 100 feet of an anchored or

moored vessel, shoreline, dock, pier, swim float, marked swim areas, swimmers, surfers,

persons engaged in angling, or any manually powered vessel;

(e) Operating contrary to navigation rules including following too closely to another

vessel, including another personal watercraft. For the purpose of this subsection, “following too

closely” shall be construed as proceeding in the same direction and operating at a speed in

excess of 10 mph within 100 feet to the rear or 50 feet to the side of another vessel which is

underway, unless said vessels are operating in a narrow channel, in which case personal

watercraft may operate at the speed and flow of the other vessel traffic within the channel.
92 Appendix I

Section 5. (Required Education except as provided for in Section (7))

(1) No person born after January 1, 19__, (Date to establish age at 16) shall operate on

the waters of this state a personal watercraft powered by a motor of 10 Horse Power or greater

(unless the operator has successfully completed either a safe boater course approved by the

National Association of State Boating Law Administrators and the state, or a proficiency

examination that tests the knowledge of information included in the curriculum of such a course,

and has received a certificate as evidence of successful completion of the course or

examination).

(2) If a non-resident of the state and operating a personal watercraft within the waters of

this state, operator would be subject to the rules and regulations of subsection 5. (2) For

education but may hold in his/her possession proof that he/she has completed within the state of

residence, an education course or equivalency test that meets or exceeds the requirements of

subsection 5. (2).

(3) Any operator, resident or non-resident, is required to have available proof of

completion of such course on board the personal watercraft while operating on the waters of this

state.

Section 6. (Towing Water Skiers and Towables)

(1) No person shall operate a personal watercraft towing another person on water skis or

other towables unless the personal watercraft has, on board, in addition to the operator, a rearfacing observer who shall monitor the progress of the person(s) being towed.

(2) No person shall operate a personal watercraft towing another person on water skis or

other towables unless the total number of persons operating, observing and being towed does

not exceed the specified number of passengers as identified by the manufacturer as the

maximum safe load for the vessel.

Section 7. (Regulation of Liveries)

(1) A livery may not lease, hire, or rent a personal watercraft to or for operation by any

person under 18 years of age.

(2) A livery must carry liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars.

(3) Livery operators must administer boating safety instruction in compliance with

department established rules and guidelines to all operators of rental vessels not having a valid

safe boating certificate and valid identification.

(4) In addition, the livery must supply to the operator(s) in print, prior to rental:

(a) The operational characteristics of personal watercraft.

(b) The boating regulations peculiar to the area of rental including but not limited to noentry zones, no-wake zones, channel routes and water hazards, and tidal flow.

(c) The common courtesies of operating a vessel on the water and the effect on

wildlife, the environment, and other water users.

Section 8. (Exemptions)

(1) The provisions of section(s) (4) and (5) shall not apply to a performer engaged in a

professional exhibition or a person engaging in an officially sanctioned regatta, race, marine

parade, tournament, exhibition, or water safety demonstration.

(2) The provisions of section(s) (4) and (5) shall not apply to a person who holds a valid

master’s, mate’s, or operator’s license issued by the United States Coast Guard.

Section 9. (Regulation of Specialty Prop-Craft) The provisions of sections (4), (5) and (6) shall

apply to specialty prop-craft.
Appendix I 93

Section 10. (Uniformity of Law) It is the policy of ___________ to encourage uniform laws for all

vessels. Except as provided in this chapter and other laws of the state; laws, including local

laws, ordinances and regulations, that are applicable to the operation of powered vessel shall be

uniformly applicable to all types of powered vessels. Local laws, ordinances and regulations

shall be operative only so long and to the extent that they are identical to provisions of this

chapter, amendments thereto, regulations issued thereunder or other applicable laws of the state.

The provisions of this chapter and of other applicable laws of this state shall govern the

operation and all other matters related to vessels, provided that nothing in this section shall be

construed to prevent adoption of local laws, ordinances or regulations relating to reasonable

vessel speed zones and reasonable idle speed zones or vessel exclusion zones (i.e. for swim

areas) within their jurisdiction.

The state should consider an age ratchet-up approach to education so that adequate instructors,

classes and materials can be made available to train users without overloading and/or taxing the

system.
94 Appendix I

NASBLA MODEL ACT FOR PERSONAL WATERCRAFT

(Adopted 9/26/91, Amended September 1996)

PROPOSED Changes Underlined

(for consideration at the 1997 annual conference)

General In addition to all other boating laws and regulations in this state the following

shall apply to personal watercraft:

Section 1. (Definitions.) As used in this chapter:

(a) “Personal Watercraft” shall mean a vessel, less than 16 feet, propelled by a

water-jet pump or other machinery as its primary source of motor propulsion

which is designed to be operated by a person sitting, standing or kneeling on,

rather than being operated by a person sitting or standing inside the vessel.

Section 2. (Regulations of Personal Watercraft.)

(a) No person shall operate a personal watercraft unless each person aboard is

wearing a type I, type II, type III or type V personal flotation device approved by

the United States Coast Guard, provided no person aboard a personal watercraft

shall use an inflatable personal flotation device to meet the PFD requirement of

this subsection.

(b) A person operating a personal watercraft equipped by the manufacturer with a

lanyard type engine cutoff switch shall attach such lanyard to his person,

clothing, or personal flotation device as appropriate for the specific vessel.

(c) No person shall operate a personal watercraft at any time between sunset and

sunrise.

(d) No person under the age of 16 shall operate a personal watercraft on the waters

of this state, except a person 12 to 16 years of age may operate a personal

watercraft if a person at least 18 years of age is aboard the vessel.

(e) Every personal watercraft shall at all times be operated in a reasonable and

prudent manner. No person shall operate a personal watercraft in an unsafe

manner. Unsafe personal watercraft operation shall include, but not be limited to

the following:

i. Becoming airborne or completely leaving the water while crossing the

wake of another vessel within 100 ft of the vessel creating the wake.

ii. Weaving through congested traffic.

iii. Operating at greater than slow no wake speed within 100 feet of an

anchored or moored vessel, shoreline*, dock, pier, swim float, marked

swim area, swimmer(s), surfers, persons engaged in angling or any

manually operated propelled vessel.
Appendix I 95

iv. Operating contrary to the “Rules of the Road” or following too close to

another vessel, including another personal watercraft. For the purposes

of this section, following too close shall be construed as proceeding in

the same direction and operating at a speed in excess of 10 MPH when

approaching within one hundred feet to the rear or fifty feet to the side of

another motor boat or sail boat which is underway unless such vessel is

operating in a narrow channel, in which case a personal watercraft may

operate at speed and flow of other vessel traffic.

(f) No person who owns a personal watercraft or who has charge over or control of

a personal watercraft shall authorize or knowingly permit the personal watercraft

to be operated in violation of this act.

Section 3. (Exemptions.)

(a) The provisions of Section 2 shall not apply to a person participating in an

officially sanctioned regatta, race, marine parade, tournament, or exhibition.

Section 4. (Mandatory Safety Instruction by Rental Operators.)

(a) No person shall rent a personal watercraft to another person without first

providing safety instruction to that person. Such instruction shall include, but not

be limited to: (1) operational characteristics of personal watercraft; (2) laws and

regulations, boating rules of the road, personal responsibility; and (3) local

characteristics of the waterway to be used.

Section 5. (Towing Water Skiers.)

(a) No person shall operate a personal watercraft towing another person on

waterskis or other device(s), unless the personal watercraft has, on board, in

addition to the operator, an observer who shall monitor the progress of the

person(s) being towed.

(b) No person shall operate a personal watercraft towing another person on

waterskis or other device(s), unless there is adequate seating space available on

the craft for the operator, the observer, and each person being towed.

* Special consideration should be given to operation on rivers and other narrow bodies of water,

particularly when the personal watercraft is operating in strong current requiring speed greater

than slow/no wake speed to maintain steerage and make headway.
96 Appendix J

Appendix J

State Requirements for Wearing

Personal Flotation Devices

Source of the requirements:

National Safe Boating Council; U.S. Coast Guard. 1997. Boat smart from the start: wear

your life jacket. Public safety message of the 1998 National Safe Boating Campaign; (p.

20–21) 28 p. Produced under a grant from the Aquatic Resources (Wallop/Breaux) Trust

Fund and administered by the U.S. Coast Guard.

The requirements of Alaska and Vermont specify the use of a personal flotation device on

an open deck, which would include personal watercraft. The Arkansas boating law

administrator has indicated to Safety Board staff that the State amended its PFD

requirements to include personal watercraft; the amended requirement is not reflected in

the listing that follows.
Appendix J 97
98 Appendix J