Honolulu Personal Injury Lawyer - Mass Transit (Airline, Cruise Ship, Train, Bus)

The Jones Act in Hawaii: Ed Case and Jim O'Keefe Object to American Worker Requirments.

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:42:34 GMT

Malia Zimmerman of The Hawaii Reporter reports on 20 October 2009 that a "Jones Act Lawsuit Will Test Control of Hawaii's Shipping Monopoly". Her story is about a bread maker in Hilo who claims that he had to pay $5.50 to ship a 50 lb. bag of flour to Hilo from the mainland and that the cost ruined his business.

Wait a minute, Malia!

I thought that the Jones Act was a law that allowed injured crew on ocean going vessels to get money for medical bills and wage loss (maintenance and cure), if they got injured, so they can get back to work!?

Here is what happened to O'Keefe & Sons Bread Bakers:

Big Island small business owner Jim O'Keefe operated the O’Keefe & Sons Bread Bakers in Hilo, Hawaii for 13 years before shutting down his extensive operation in 2008. His popular bakery closure left 50 people out of work, retail customers searching for other restaurants to buy deli and baked goods from, and several area businesses, grocery stores and resorts scrambling for other local places to buy wholesale baked foods.

O'Keefe claims that the cost of shipping made it impossible for him to stay in business. Those costs included shipping costs for flour and other food ingredients.

“I would buy a 50 pound bag of flour for $6 or $7 in the mainland, and by the time it landed in Hilo, it cost me $12.50 a bag,” O’Keefe says.

I have to tell you folks, I am not shocked by that shipping cost. Don't get me wrong. I am not an expert on making bread in a commercial enterprise, I'm just talking about $5.50 for 50 lbs.

The 2 oz. letter I just sent to Harriet (my sister) in Michigan for $0.42 seems to be more expensive per ounce than the flour that Mr. O'Keefe needs to make his bread. A 50 lb bag would cost $168 if the U.S. Postal Service carries it to Hilo and charges the same rate as for a letter. O'Keefe pays $5.50. And he is filing a lawsuit?

If regular people paid the equivalent rate of $5.50 for 50 pounds in shipping to Hawaii, a letter would cost 2 Cents in postage. That's right, a letter would cost $0.02, not $0.42 as it is today.

O’Keefe blames his business failure on the fact that the ships bringing the flour are required by the Jonhes Act to employee American workers. American crews get paid a living wage for America. I am very interested in what Hawaii working folks - who bought Mr O'Keefe's bread, think about his suggestion that we should not protect Hawaii and U.S. workers. He says that the cost of goods are ridiculously high in Hawaii because of the Jones Act and that stems from using an American work force on the ships.

The Jones Act is not about bread or bakers. It protects American workers. The Jones Act is a federal law that says all products shipped between American ports must be shipped in American made vessels by a crew that is 75 percent American. The law supports the high quality American work force. Wouldn't O'Keefe's lawsuit result in cheap labor from foreign countries taking over many of our industries and thowing our economy farther into the hole?

My guess is that American sailors who he wants to put out of work won't be buying his bread. O'Keefe wants to allow competition from what he calls "world shippers" and he complains that using American workers unfairly raises the cost of doing business for his bread company. O’Keefe says that what is running him out of business is being forced to use American workers.

Another claim he is making is that the cost that is running him out of business is "six figures over the life of his business". Let's think about that. "Six figures" over the life of his business is from $100,000 to $999,999. Let's make it $100,000. My thought is that if it was closer to $999,999, he would have used "7 figures". O'Keefe does not state what "the life of his business" is in years. Let's use 10 years. I'm guessing on that period of time but O'Keefe or his attorneys can Comment, and I will use their numbers.

$100,000 over 10 years is $10,000 per year. I wonder how much O'Keefe thinks a 50 pound bag of flour should cost to ship to Hawaii? Any ship will charge something for shipping. O'Keefe says that the $5.50 that he pays to ship a 50 pound bag of flour should be only one-third of that amount: $1.83. So that means the $3.67 per 50 pound bag of flour cost him his business.

I wonder what his position is about lawsuit abuse and tort reform? Is this a crazy lawsuit? Tort reform is on everyone's mind these days. Is this an example of a good lawsuit or a bad lawsuit?

Are all of the bakers in Hawaii going broke since they all have to buy flour and ship it into the state? Wouldn't everyone be on the same footing? Or did the customers choose other bread for other reasons? Was Mr. O'Keefe's business operation efficient? I am sure that the lawsuit will get into all of those details.

O'Keefe and his attorney John Carroll are asking Hawaii’s Chief U.S. District Judge, David Ezra, to rule, on December 7, 2009, that the Jones Act is “excessively expensive for Hawaii’s people and is in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.” In essence I think that claim breaks down to the the core fact that forcing ships to us American workers whenthe bring goods to Hawaii from the west coast is un-American and violates the Constitution of the United States. The Hawaii Reporter summarizes their position:

One of the purposes of enacting the Jones Act, Carroll says, was to ensure the United States of America would be well equipped with a maritime fleet that could compete in a worldwide economy, but it has had the opposite effect: “Unfortunately, it created unconstitutional restrictions on commerce between the state of Hawaii and worldwide shippers as well as on interstate commerce.”

Because Hawaii is separated from the continental United States by 2,300 miles of ocean, he estimates “Hawaii is dependent on ocean shipping for at least 90 percent of every commodity used and consumed in the state.” That had a compound effect on agriculture and the ranching industry. “The expense of agricultural production became prohibitive, not only because of the inbound shipping cost of fertilizers, herbicides, and farm implements, but also due to the outbound shipping costs for our locally grown fruits, livestock and ornamental plants. Hawaii cattle ranchers are faced with an intolerable situation. They often have to transport their cattle, from Kawaihae to Vancouver B.C. on a Canadian owned Corral Lines to remain profitable. The cattle must then be trucked (often for 500 miles) into the U.S. to be fattened and sold. To go direct, some are flown on Boeing 747 aircraft,” Carroll says.

How do you feel about that?

Former Congressman Ed Case, D-Hawaii (2002-2007) is running for Congress with a platform that agrees with O'Keefe on this issue. Case would support a change in the Jones Act to eliminate the American crew requirement on ships coming to Hawaii. Case is apparantly also concerned that "one company" is the only one allowed to bring flour to Hawaii. According to the Hawaii Reporter story:

In a September 2003 Congressional speech seeking an exemption for Hawaii and other non-contiguous U.S. locations from the Jones Act, Case asked, “Is it fair that our federal government creates a monopoly over any key aspect of life in Hawaii? Is it fair that our federal government provides one company, effectively, with the ability to control, to dominate, the lifeline that we have between here and the Mainland for all of our goods? Because that’s exactly what the Jones Act does.”

Case noted that 97 percent to 98 percent of our goods come to Hawaii from the Mainland, all come by shipping. “When somebody gets a hold of our lifeline, that’s a dangerous sign for us. And we’re paying for it in spades, thousands of dollars for each and every citizen of this country and this state, far more money for businesses that employ people and have to deal with those goods and services. That’s not fair, and that’s not the way it should be. We have laws in this country against the creation of monopolies, we believe monopolies are bad. Yet in this case, a federal law creates a monopoly.”

While Case supports a Jones Act exemption for Hawaii, his primary opponent, Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, supports the Jones Act. She supports a crew of at least 75% Americans on ships coming to Hawaii with bread flour (and everything else). What do you think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Congress and Cruise Ships, Peepholes and Latches!

Wayne Parsons — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:56:05 GMT

There you go again! Those are the memorable words of Ronald Reagan in a Presidential campaign debate. Those words came to mind as I listened to Congress brag about making cruise ships safer by passing a law mandating peepholes and latches. Here is what Senator Kerry said about his get tough legislation in 2008:

“Over the past year our organization and other victims of cruise crimes have met numerous times with cruise lines executives in an effort to have them voluntarily take the necessary steps as outlined in our proposals,” said Carver, President of International Cruise Victims. “The cruise line industry has failed to step up to the challenge and make any significant changes to improve safety. That resistance to change is a clear signal to us that the only alternative left is for the United States Congress to move forward with legislation. I’m grateful to Senator Kerry and Rep. Matsui for their support in this endeavor.”

“It is absolutely appalling that the cruise industry does not have basic reporting and prevention mechanisms in place to keep their patrons safe,” said Rep. Matsui. “When a goliath like the cruise industry will not act in the best interest of the customers who are entrusting it with their personal well-being, then Congress has a responsibility to step in and shed some sunlight on the problem.”

“It’s important we continue the efforts to improve cruise ship safety which began in the last Congress, when I chaired the National Security Subcommittee,” said Rep. Shays. “The bottom line is, the crime statistics provided by the cruise industry are inaccurate and inadequate. This must change.”

Well that sounds pretty good so why do I complain? Well after the lobbyists from the "goliath cruise industry" (Senator Kerry's words) got their hands on the law, it fixed a problem that didn't exist. That's right. 90% white wash, 10% substance. In hawaii we call that shibai!

Over 90% of the cruise ship industry had already put in peepholes and latches in their ships. And crime reporting is a good thing but the real meat of the prpoblems were left out of the final bill. What Congress didn't tell you is that they rejected many legislative provisions that would actually protect cruise ship passengers. In particular the cruise industry lobbyists got the gullible legislators to delete a provision that would allow the family of persons killed at sea to recover damages for their losses under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA):

The industry requested one major concession: deletion of an amendment to the Death on the High Seas Act that would have allowed surviving relatives to recover damages for emotional suffering and bereavement, as well as any pain and suffering the victim may have experienced before death.

Under the existing law, survivors of people who die at sea can recover only lost wages or burial expenses.

If a retired person died, for example, family members would get little if any money, Miami maritime attorney James Walker said.

Who are we talking about? Twenty three (23) brothers and sisters of dead victims of the U.S. Cole bombing tragedy were given zero damages in a federal court case for there wrongful deaths. The federal judge called it a legal tragedy but he no choice because of the law. So you can cheer for Congress if you want to for mandating peepholes and latches that the ships already had but I fell more like voting these folks out of office. The deal was done behind closed doors and you can bet that no cruise ship passengers were in there with the lobbyists and the legislators smoking cigars and drinking scotch.

The Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2009 in revised form-- just not the original. Here are some of the key points that appear in the revised version of the bill:

- The bit that could have the most impact on the most passengers has to do with the height of railings on balconies and open decks. The bill states that ship railings must conform to a minimum height requirement: 4.5 feet high in the original version, but 3.5 feet high in the revision. For perspective, Carnival Cruise Lines' railings are 44 inches high, in compliance with international and federal regulations -- actually two inches taller than the minimum height stated in the amended bill. The bill as it was originally written would require about another 10 inches to be added to those railings.

- As for other on-board changes, the bill states that cruise ships must add peepholes (some lines, like Carnival and Royal Caribbean, already have them), safety latches and time-sensitive key technology to cabin doors. Also, medical staff must be trained to conduct sexual-assault examinations.

- The bill also clarifies the procedures for reporting cruise ship crimes, including contacting the FBI as soon as possible and submitting a written report to the Coast Guard. Ships must also keep logs of on-board crimes and make them available to the FBI, Coast Guard or other law-enforcement officials. The information will also be published on the Coast Guard Web site.

- One important change from the original to the revised version is the removal of an amendment to the Death on the High Seas Act that would allow the families of passengers who died while cruising to sue the cruise lines for pain and suffering.

I am attending the American Association of Justice (AAJ) annual convention in San Francisco this week and learned a lot from the great admiralty attorneys like Paul Edel and John Hickey. I asked Mr. Hickey about this subject and he allowed me to quote him in this article. Here is what he has to say on the subject:

“The Death on the High Seas Act has to be changed now for the safety and security of our families. This outdated, inadequate Federal law allows little or no damages to the families of people who die as a result of the negligence of a cruise line where the accident or negligence occurs on the high seas. The cruise lines get off Scott free when their negligence causes the death of an older or younger passenger. How does it figure that the family of someone who dies where the person who dies was not yet making money because they are young or not making money anymore because they are retired gets nothing? State wrongful death laws provide this. Why not the law of the sea? Congress should step up to the plate and change this now.”

I wonder if any member of Congress is listening? I know that they listen to the cruise industry lobbyists. Maybe they think that you aren't paying attention and won't notice that the laws they pass are like party favors given to the rich and powerful who fund their campaigns. I think that they may be mistaken. The voice of the people is coming alive in Blogs and web sites and Facebook conversations. That new voice is talking about things that matter like health and safety. The old barriers that kept the smoke and the truth inside the smoke filled rooms in Washington, are coming down.

The public through social media is throwing the windows open and demanding answers. They were important in the last election, those names on Facebook and Twitter and this Blog. While identity theft is a major front page story in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, I suggest that the most important identity that politicians and insiders should pay attention to is the groundswell of conversations that is happening with the explosion of social technology like The Daily Kos and Politico and The Huffington Post. Those conversations and rising like a thunderstorm and they are people, with names and real identities who will vote and demand health, safety and justice. And they will get it.

Peepholes and latches. I can see the Congressmen and women looking out through those peepholes. I hope they unlatch the door, shoo the lobbyists out into the open and pass a law that protects people from injury and death on cruise ships.

I'll fall out of my chair if we hear anything back from Senator Kerry or others in Congress about the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2009 (HR.1485 House Number - S.588 Senate Number) or DOHSA.

What do think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Ocean Personal Injury Law - In A Jones Act Injury Case What Does It Mean To "Arrest the Ship"?

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:25:16 GMT

How do you make Jones work you? If you are a “Jones Act” Seaman and you have been injured while working then the first step is file a complaint with the State or Federal Court for your employer’s Jones Act negligence. Unlike land-based employees, Jones Act seamen are able to file a negligence claim against their employer for injuries, failing to provide a safe work environment, and for an unseaworthy vessel; a seaman’s damages are not limited to worker compensation type damages. Worker’s compensation damages only cover medical benefits and lost wages. However, a Jones Act seaman who proves his employer was negligent and caused his injuries can sue for both past and future lost wages, as well as for past/future medical care, past/future pain and suffering, mental anguish, and damages for losing the ability to enjoy life because the injury inflicted.

In addition to Jones Act claims, seamen may also file a claim for Unseaworthiness, in which they do not have to prove their employer’s negligence in causing injury.

See: Unseaworthiness Claims: Overview

Under an unseathworthiness claim the seaman only has to show that the vessel was not seaworthy and that this caused his/her injuries. Unseaworthiness is a strict liability claim that is easier to prove, whereas proving the employer’s negligence can be more difficult because it requires a seaman to prove his employer either knew or should have known about the condition before the injury resulted. Craig Smith's internet resources provide pretty good detail on these tort concepts in general:

Strict liability in tort is the concept that in certain situations a defendant is liable for plaintiff's damages without any requirement that the plaintiff prove that the defendant was negligent.

Nonetheless, a seaman is not required to prove both negligence under the Jones Act and Unseaworthiness in order to be able to recover damages. A seaman must only prove one.

Sometimes obtaining a recovery means that you must arrest the ship. An injured crew member can actually name the boat as a defendant "in rem" and actually have the boat arrested. In rem gives the court the ability to exercise power over the boat as property. In order for the ship to be arrested on behalf of an injured seaman, he/she must allege that his/her injury resulted from the unseaworthiness of the ship.

After a ship is arrested the employer or owner must file a bond with the appropriate court for the amount of the injured seaman’s damages before his ship can be released. Whether or not the ship is insured determines whether or not arrest can occur. If the ship or vessel is inured then the insurance company is required to pay for the court determined damages.

The Jones Act and Passengers: The Jones Act does not apply to passengers on a boat/ship/vessel. However, its concept does apply to passengers. The concept is provided for in the Passenger Services Act (PSA), which came into effect in 1886. A claim by a passenger on a cruise ship, sightseeing tour or scuba diving excursion can be brought under general maritime and admiralty law. I will write separately about that subject.

If you have suffered an injury while at sea and think you may qualify as a seaman or have a claim of unseaworthiness against your employer then you should contact a qualified maritime lawyer to pursue your claim properly. Maritime and Admiralty claims are complex and should be handled by a qualified attorney who understands the intricacies involved in pursing such claims.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Railroad Accidents Capture The Public Attention After Tragic Washington D.C. Wreck

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:48:27 GMT

Trains fascinate all of us _ particularly little boys _ from an early age. The sounds of the train whistle in the distance is also part of the lore of the American country-side. But the romantic images of trains and train travel also conjure up images of train wrecks and when a train crashes it is always a disaster.

Books memorialize these railroad disasters - some in pictures:

Train Wrecks: A Pictorial History of Accidents on the Main Line -By Robert Carroll Reed

Others recount the tragic incidents with a view toward safety:

Death Rode the Rails: American Railroad Accidents and Safety, 1828--1965 - By Mark Aldrich

Currently the news about the Washington D.C. Metrolink crash is continuing to come in. For people who were injured they e leery of any attorneys soliciting cases. I live in Honolulu and so i am not interested in these cases so maybe I can say this more easily than if I lived in the D.C. areas. It is illegal to approach a victim of this crash, or their family if you are an attorney or represent the interests of an attorney. If you are solicited, report the attorney to the appropriate disciplinary office with the Court in your area.

The cause of the crash is not yet understood according to news reports on Tuesday:

Authorities are focusing on anti-collision sensors in the rear train, signal failure and operator error as possible causes of the crash.

The rear train was equipped with sensors which were supposed to stop the train if another train was detected within close proximity, but investigators are not sure why the system did not engage. They are also not sure why the driver, Jeanice McMillan, 42, didn’t stop the train manually when she saw the stopped train ahead of her.

The investigation is complicated by the fact that the rear train was not equipped with data recorders, which will make it more difficult to piece together what happened. It was an older model 1000 series train that the NTSB had recommended be replaced or retrofitted in 2004 and 2006. However, no action was taken to that end, and now some are wondering if the collision could have been avoided if the train had been a newer model.

I also have recently found the articles written by Steve Lombardi of the Lombardi Law Firm in Des Moines, IA to be particularly insightful:

DC Metro Train Accident begs the question, are Washington's distractions leading us astray

Attorneys like Rick Shapiro and Steve Lombardi are not pounding their chests to get cases. They want to help promote safety through public education about the causes of these disasters. Like the attorneys of the past, they care about their communities and they exemplify the concept of doing well by doing good. You can bet that their heads are hung low in memory of the victims of Monday's crash on the Red Line in Washington D.C. Why did it happen? What can be done to make sure it doesn't happen again?

Another article worth reading is from Brooks Schuelke of Texas:

Washington, DC Train/Rail Disaster Kills At Least Seven & Injures More. What Does It Mean For Austin?

John Cooper's recent post is also informative:

Washington, DC Metro Train Ride Turns Into Terrible Wreck - By John Cooper

The Metrolink train wreck on Monday brought railroad injuries to mind all the way out here in Honolulu. We don't have trains now although a proposed fixed rail mass transit system has filled the local TV stations and the Honolulu Advertiser with controversy for the past few years.

Lawyers have been involved in the history of train wrecks and the injury and death that follow. I have followed the writings of Rick Shapiro of Shapiro, Cooper, Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm in Virginia and the Washington D.C. that trace the history and development of the law and engineering in the area of railroad crashes. Their firm was actually formed in part with the purpose of promoting safety and dealing with the injured and deceased victims of train wrecks.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Washington, D.C. Nightmare As Metro Trains Collide-- As Many As 7 Dead and Over 70 Injured

Wayne Parsons — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:14:12 GMT

Probably the favorite rail system in the United States, the Washington D.C. Metrolink system is now the focus of one of the worst rail crash cases in history. The Wall Street Journal reports 9 dead and as many as 70 injured in Washington D.C. when two Metro trains collided at 5 P.M. just before peak rush hour crowds. The crash occurred on the Red Line between Takoma and Fort Totten. The train in the rear actually mounted the rear of the front train.

Associated Press

The D.C. Fire Department reports 9 dead and over 70 injured as the toll rises. As reported in the Associated Press:

The District of Columbia Fire Department has raised the death toll to nine in Monday's collision of two Metrorail trains.

A release on the department's Web site says rescue workers located three more bodies in the wreckage late Monday night. All three were declared dead at the scene.

One Metro transit train smashed into the rear of another at the height of the Monday evening rush hour. The trailing train jackknifed violently into the air and fell atop the first.

Initially, six people were confirmed dead, including the operator of the trailing train, Jeanice McMillan of Springfield, Va.

The National Transportation Safety Board is on the scene investigating. The collision is of a type known as "telescoping," where a following train overtakes another train and mounts the roof and collapses into itself like a retracting telescope. Telescoping occurred 1996 when a Metro operator was killed and happened again in a Metro crash in 2004 Woodley Park near the zoo. The crash of the Red Line today ranks high as the worst tragedy in railroad cases in this part of the country according to the Wall Street Journal:

"It's as horrific as you can imagine," Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty told reporters. "Literally one car of the train is squeezed almost completely together."

Metro's Mr. Catoe said this type of crash is rare. He suggested at least one of the trains was operating automatically. Trains Tuesday would be run manually by conductors at speeds slower than normal, he added. The train that caused the crash is one of the oldest types run on the system.

For those of us who travel to Washington, D.C. and its environs, The Metro is a major pleasure. However criticism of its safety record has been mounting as the number of derailments and crashes mount. For instance a 2004 crash occurred because officials concluded that the Metro operator was asleep as the train rolled backward for 78 seconds and slammed into another train in the Woodley Park station, injuring 20 people and causing $3.5 million in damage.

Rick Shapiro a railroad injury attorney with the firm of Shapiro, Cooper, Lewis & Appleton has been studying railroad injury cases for years in this area and has reported on this crash:

At least 6 Dead, 60 or More Injured in Washington, DC Area Metro Train Crash By Rick Shapiro

Although my firm has no relationship with Shapiro, Cooper, Lewis & Appleton I do refer clients with cases - particularly railroad injury cases - to them because of their long history of experience with these cases and their efforts to advocate safety and prevent railroad accidents like the tragic events of today on the Red Line. And Wayne Parsons Law Offices follows these National News Stories on our Website.

You may find resources from Rick Shapiro and John Cooper helpful in investigating this tragedy:

Our ties with the railroad date back to the very founding of the firm. Our founder served as a trainman/conductor for the NS/Norfolk and Western Railway Company and a UTU union official before receiving his law degree. His experience on the railroads allowed him to bring unique perspectives to his railroad legal practice, including the safety and wage concerns of those who are in the vital business of keeping the trains moving. Richard N. Shapiro, one of our attorneys, is the co-author of “Railroad Health & Safety-A Litigator’s Guide,” one of leading treatises on railroad injury law, found in the nation’s law libraries (72 Am. Jur. Trials 1). Also, Richard N. Shapiro and John M. Cooper have both served as officers and the Chairman of the American Association for Justice Railroad Section, the largest group of the nation’s trial attorneys.

These tragedies can be prevented if the advice of safety advocates like Rick Shapiro and John Cooper are consulted. They know what went wrong and how to fix it. Unfortunately it is too late for the tragic victims of todays railroad crash on the Red Line in Washington, D.C.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Senators Question FAA Administrator on regional carrier safety.

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:00:30 GMT

NBC Nightly News (6/10, story 2, 3:05, Williams) reported, "A lot of people, many of them veteran flyers, have suspected there are two sets of safety and training standards, one for the big commercial jetliners, another for commuters. Those regional airlines, they are under big scrutiny and today Congress got involved in this." NBC (Tom Costello) added, "The FAA insists there is only one safety standard for all commercial airlines. Four months after 50 people died when a Continental Connection flight...crashed in Buffalo, senators today said the crew's inexperience, poor test performance, fatigue and actions in the cockpit were disturbing." Calvin Scovel, Department of Transportation Inspector General said passengers "could reasonably think that the level of safety would be the same no matter what aircraft or what carrier. Yet that's not entirely true." Scovel also "says the FAA has been too cozy with all airlines, missing inspections at seven major airlines with some inspections now two years overdue."

The AP (6/11) reports, "Senators on Wednesday urged the Federal Aviation Administration to implement a 2005 recommendation that airlines be required to check the training histories of pilots they hire." The FAA declined to make the recommendation by the NTSB mandatory. Mark Rosenker, acting NTSB chairman, "told the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee's aviation subcommittee, which held the hearing, that FAA has also failed to implement hundreds of other NTSB recommendations." FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt, speaking at the hearing, "said it has been the agency's position that it's not obligated to implement every one of NTSB's recommendations," but "said the agency has 'an obligation to explain to the NTSB and the public why'...it rejects a recommendation."

According to the Washington Post (6/11, A3, Freeman), Babbitt was "challenged" by Senators "with questions about the government's supervision of regional carriers." Babbitt "pledged to implement a new system to track open NTSB recommendations." Scovel also "faulted the FAA for failing to design an inspection system tailored for regional airlines, and for failing to oversee repair stations where regional airplanes increasingly go for maintenance."

The Wall Street Journal (6/11, Pasztor) website notes Babbitt "laid out a series of initiatives to ensure a single level of safety between major airlines and their commuter partners." However, while Babbitt "pledged to try to devise new training and pilot-scheduling rules specifically intended to enhance safeguards at regional operators...he also stressed that much of the responsibility for improvements rests with pilots themselves." Babbitt also "indicated the agency will consider drafting different scheduling rules for different types of flying" instead of the current system that "establishes daily, weekly and monthly maximum flying hours that are identical for all airline pilots." Another AP (6/10, Lowy) article and Bloomberg News (6/10, Keane) also covered the story.

Sen. Drogan calls for requiring airlines to get pilot's complete records before hiring. USA Today (6/11, Levin) reports that Sen. Byron Dorgan, chairman of the Commerce Committee's aviation panel, "demanded that aviation regulators close a loophole that can allow pilots to go to work at an airline without disclosing previous flight test failures." Newly appointed FAA chief Randy Babbitt "testified at the hearing that he agreed with Dorgan and would fix the problem." The 1996 Pilot Records Improvement Act requires airlines to "check a prospective pilot's record at other carriers during the past five years," but "does not require checks of tests performed by FAA inspectors or before the five-year period." FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency "is studying whether it can write rules requiring broader record checks by airlines or whether the changes would need to be made by Congress."

FAA criticized for calling for voluntary safety rules. The Washington Post (6/10, Freeman) reported, "The Federal Aviation Administration's call for voluntary measures to counter safety lapses at regional airlines is drawing criticism from family members of victims who died in the Feb. 12 crash of a commuter plane outside Buffalo." According to Justin Green, an attorney for the families of 15 passengers on the Colgan flight, "the government should forcefully move to tighten FAA rules." He said, "If the Colgan accident does not prompt real significant change -- not only at the FAA but also in the industry -- I don't know what will." FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown "said the call for voluntary action didn't rule out future rulemaking actions by the agency."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Aviation attorney discusses hearings over Flight 3407.

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:26:45 GMT

On The Early Show on CBS News (5/12), Julie Chen spoke with attorney Mary Schiavo and the sister of one of the crash victims of Flight 3407. Schiavo said the fault lies with the airline because the FAA training is minimal. She added that there may be many other pilots in the "regional carrier industry" that have poor training. Schiavo said when asked what she thought the result of the hearings would be, that "the NTSB will be very hard on FAA," that the FAA should be making it clear to carriers that their requirements are the bare minimum, and she believed that the unique system on the plane involved in the crash will be brought up and the lack of the pilot's training on that system will be criticized.

Pilots of flight 3407 talked of inexperience. The Wall Street Journal (5/13, Pasztor) reports, "Pilots at the controls of the commuter plane that crashed Feb. 12 in Buffalo, N.Y., spent their last few moments bantering about their inexperience and lack of expertise in coping with the icy conditions they faced that night, a transcript from the flight showed." Now, "evidence released by the NTSB indicates that an aerodynamic stall that brought the plane down wasn't triggered by ice accumulation, but rather by Capt. Renslow's decision to pull back on the controls and overpower an automatic stall-protection system that was trying to push the nose of the plane down to regain flying speed." Also, the hearing "revealed" Colgan Inc., which is part of the Pinnacle Airlines Corp. "previously failed to maintain detailed records of pilots who failed proficiency tests, or track their progress as they tried to pass flight tests." The New York Times (5/13, A1, Wald) also covers the story on its front page.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Investigators examine details of plane crash.

Wayne Parsons — Tue, 12 May 2009 14:13:43 GMT

The Wall Street Journal (5/11, A1, Pasztor) reported on its front page, "The captain of a commuter plane that crashed Feb. 12 near Buffalo, N.Y., had flunked numerous flight tests during his career and was never adequately taught how to respond to the emergency that led to the airplane's fatal descent, according to people close to the investigation." As a result, "investigators and regulators" are examining "Colgan's hiring and training practices." In addition, "at the NTSB hearing, witnesses are expected to provide new allegations about training shortcomings, as well as the prevalence of chronic pilot fatigue and lapses in cockpit discipline" and the agency is "expected to be critical of the Federal Aviation Administration's oversight of the airline."

The New York Times (5/12, A21, Wald) reports, "As the National Transportation Safety Board prepares for three days of hearings on the crash beginning Tuesday, two gaps have become clear: A 1996 federal law intended to ensure that an airline hiring a new pilot would know about the pilot's previous problems did not do the job; and the captain of the flight that crashed near Buffalo had never received hands-on training with a safety system that activated just before the plane went down."

During the CBS Evening News (12/6, story 8, 2:10, Couric), CBS (Cordes) said, "It was the worst crash the country has seen in seven years, killing 50. Now Colgan Air confirms the captain on that frigid Buffalo night, 47-year-old Marvin Renslow, had racked up five unsatisfactory test flights called check rides, two during his brief three-year tenure at the airline and three in the years before that." John Goglia, former member, NTSB, said, "It looks like we have two inexperienced crew members in the cockpit." At the hearing, according to NTSB sources, "the FAA's standards will be a prime focus at the hearings." NBC Nightly News (5/11, story 5, 2:30, Williams) and the ABC World News (5/11, story 8, 1:30, Gibson) also covered the story.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Boat Injuries To Tourists In Hawaii

Wayne Parsons — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:42:00 GMT

Why travel to Hawaii and not go out on the ocean in a boat? Whale watching, scuba diving, sunset sails and other opportunities are among the most popular Hawaii tourist attractions.

Caution should be exercised in going out on one of these boats. The wind in Hawaii creates rough water off shore. Storms far from Hawaii generates swells that travel hundreds and thousands of miles to create Hawaii's famed ocean waves and surf. The channels between the Islands have some of the roughest water in the world. So a seemingly peaceful trip out to sea in Hawaii can - and usually will - involve encounters with large waves. The water looks blue and warm but a collision between the hull of a boat and a moving ocean wave is a violent event and injuries are common.

Here is a video of a 90 foot boat out in the Molokai Channel. You can see how rough the ocean can be around Islands:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-8VTtlroZ0

You can't see this from shore because the Mountainous islands protect the near shore ocean from wind. The boat operators know that there is a "wind line" off shore where the ocean becomes rough. The key is the operator of the boat. The crews are often not highly trained and turnover is high. Many of the crews seem to think that the passengers want a thrill ride and they speed into the oncoming swells with the boats sometimes going airborne. Many of the boats have limited safe seating areas and not enough things to hold onto thus putting the unprepared passengers at risk.

Steering the boat is a crucial aspect of avoiding collisions with waves that will injure. Speed is another factor. Often the boat has a tight schedule to get out and then back to the shore and the operator carelessly increases the throttle to make the schedule.

Hard bottom inflatable boats are common offenders. They have limited places to sit and hand holds are not fit for impacts with waves. I have handled many injuries on this type of boat.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Marine Algae May Be The Best Source For Biofuel According To Scientists At Scripps Institute

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:12:42 GMT

The article posted in Science Daily on Sunday January 4, 2009 is an eye-opener. Below is the full article. Go to the on-line version to see other related stories.

ScienceDaily (Jan. 4, 2009) — Bell-bottoms… Designer jeans… Disco… Big hair… Gas shortages. Some icons of the 1970s are emblazoned in the memories of those old enough to remember. A few styles, to the dismay of many, have come back in vogue—oil-related crises among them. Broad anxiety over fuel manifested again in 2008, illuminating the dark side of the nation’s continued oil addiction.

Out of the ‘70s oil crisis came U.S. government funding for research evaluating the prospects of new fuel sources derived from terrestrial plants such as corn and soybeans, as well as algae. But when oil prices plummeted in the late 1980s and ‘90s, interest in such biofuel programs waned and support dried up. Now 21st century gas prices—which bolted upward to $4.50 a gallon in California earlier this year—have sparked a renaissance in the search for new biologically based energy solutions.

Today, the most fervent attention in biofuel development has shifted from soil to the sea, and specifically to marine algae. Scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego, along with researchers at UCSD’s Division of Biological Sciences, are part of an emerging algal biofuel consortium that includes academic collaborators, CleanTECH San Diego, regional industry representatives, and public and private partners.

Scripps scientists see algae as a “green bullet,” science and society’s best hope for a clean bioenergy source that will help loosen broad dependence on fossil fuel, counteract climate warming, and power the vehicles of the future.

As far back as he can recall, Scripps biologist Greg Mitchell has been fascinated by plants and photosynthesis. His interest lies in Earth’s basic energy patterns and how sunlight drives fundamental biological functions and energizes the world’s ecosystems.

He has built his scientific career on researching photosynthesis, the process in which the planet’s green organisms integrate sunlight, carbon dioxide, nutrients, and water to produce oxygen and carbohydrates, creating biomass.

Since he arrived at Scripps in 1987, Mitchell has kept close tabs on advancements in studies of algae as a potential source for biofuels, including landmark experiments by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a research and development facility. Scripps Professor Emeritus Ralph Lewin had a hand in these efforts in the early 1980s when he successfully grew marine algae for biofuel in experimental ponds.

As funding for such projects evaporated in the 1990s, Mitchell never took his eyes off the field.

Marine algae, as Mitchell is quick to point out to anyone who asks, are the most efficient organisms on Earth for absorbing light energy and converting it into a natural biomass oil product, the biofuel equivalent of crude oil.

“Algae yields five to 10 times more bioenergy molecules per area, per time, than any terrestrial plant,” said Mitchell, a native of oil-rich Houston, Texas. “Nothing else comes close.”

From a sustainability perspective, algae hold the upper hand against other biofuel candidates, such as corn and soybeans. Algae can be grown on barren desert land using salt water, averting competition with agricultural cropland and the need for large amounts of precious fresh water for irrigation.

Since they require carbon dioxide for growth, algae are inherently carbon neutral, and they can suck up CO2 directly from industrial pollution sources. Furthermore, algae can feed off the nutrients in discarded wastewater. Adding yet another layer to their allure, the rich protein left over from algae harvests can be converted to animal feed.

“There is still a lot of work to do, but algal-derived biofuels have the potential to become a major source of transportation fuel,” says Bernard Raemy, executive vice president of Carbon Capture Corporation, a company growing algae in ponds for biofuel research in California’s Imperial Valley desert.

Raemy acknowledges that a string of challenges lies ahead, but with appropriate investment he believes a new algal biofuel industry, based on collaborations with public and private sectors, could be built within 10 years.

“Given their advantages, I believe marine algae are not only the most promising option for bioenergy fuel, but the only option that can scale up massively at the global level,” said Mitchell. “Most scientists who understand these processes are concluding that algae has the best chance. There is no silver bullet when it comes to energy, but there is a green bullet, or rather a green missile.”

The prospect of squeezing billions of gallons of biofuel oil from marine algae is enticing, but to transform tiny lime-green-colored plant-like organisms into a viable and realistic fuel option, they must be tested and grown on a massive scale. Intermediate-sized, and eventually immense, algae production sites will be required to produce an economically relevant quantity of algae-based oil for biodiesel fuel in cars, trucks, and airplanes.

Such facilities are beginning to emerge, featuring farms with vast oval-shaped ponds capable of churning out hundreds of pounds of algal biomass per day. But these facilities are in their formative stages and face an array of problems, from selecting which species of algae are the best candidates for biofuel output to addressing the threat of airborne contaminants that invade algae ponds and disrupt growth processes.

In 2005, as gas prices continued to rise and long-term oil supplies grew increasingly suspect, interest in algal biofuel research began to stir and society began to awaken on a large scale to the issues of fossil fuel emissions and a warming planet. Mitchell, who spent years promoting algal biofuel but was largely dismissed, jumped in with zeal. He began organizing seminars and meetings on the topic, in addition to coordinating efforts with national and international algal biofuel stakeholders. He played a pivotal role in establishing a new algal biomass organization and helped plan summits on the topic in San Francisco in 2007 and Seattle in 2008.

At the same time, Mitchell’s laboratory began evaluating various species of algae for their biofuel potential. Today, the lab is evaluating diverse algal growth scenarios and resultant biological models, or test cases, which could be applied in algal pond farms.

Scripps Oceanography, UC San Diego, and San Diego in general are uniquely positioned to lead algal biofuel efforts, according to Mitchell. Besides his laboratory, efforts have emerged across Scripps, including initiatives by scientists William Gerwick, Mark Hildebrand, Mike Landry, Brian Palenik, and Maria Vernet.

“By virtue of the expertise found at Scripps and UC San Diego, this region has a fundamental critical mass of talent—with biological oceanographers, aquatic microbiologists, UCSD biologists, and a world-class biotechnology industry—that’s not available anywhere else,” Mitchell said.

Up one floor from Mitchell’s office inside Scripps Oceanography’s Sverdrup Hall is William Gerwick’s bustling laboratory, part of Scripps’ Center for Marine Biotechnology and Biomedicine.

A 1981 Scripps Ph.D. graduate in oceanography who returned as a professor in 2005, Gerwick is one of several researchers at Scripps searching for new biomedical products from ocean resources to help treat human diseases such as cancer.

Two years ago Gerwick and then-UCSD undergraduate student Cameron Coates, now a graduate student at Scripps, began applying the tricks of the marine drug discovery trade to algal biofuel development.

“Algae are my life,” said Gerwick, who believes algal biofuel development will require expertise across several disciplines. “There is an amazing transformation happening at the moment with a groundswell of interest in new energy sources.”

Gerwick’s team deciphers the structures of molecules and probes the metabolic processes that produce unique and sometimes medically promising compounds. Such expertise could similarly help unlock the mysteries of algae’s biofuel potential. The organism’s energy sources reside in its production of lipid oils, or fat molecules, that store energy. Algae produce and store globules of lipids in a fashion similar to the way fat is generated and accumulated in human bodies.

A relatively simple chemical process turns the solid lipid globules to liquid. A few more steps convert the liquid to biodiesel fuel for cars and trucks, and, in the near future, jet fuel. Because algae reproduce quickly—they can double their numbers in a single day—it’s believed they can more efficiently produce many more gallons of oil per acre than any other source.

Gerwick’s team is working on methods to rapidly identify algae species to address situations in which algal biofuel ponds of one species are contaminated with another.

They are also using an imaging technique called mass spectrometry to explore the inner workings of organisms at the molecular level. The tool is helping the scientists determine the mechanisms of the genes that produce lipid molecules in the hopes of boosting lipid oil production by adding certain molecules to algal cultures.

“We have tested about 15 different ways for eliciting (lipids),” said Gerwick. “We see some evidence in which we were able to greatly expand their growth rate and production of oils. It’s early but I’m excited.”

Like Gerwick, Scripps biologist Mark Hildebrand only recently initiated algal biofuel studies in his laboratory at Scripps’ Hubbs Hall.

Hidebrand is optimistic about algae’s contribution to future bioenergy solutions, but he is realistic about the challenges ahead. And he is especially sensitive to misinformation being generated to the public about algae and biofuel. He particularly winces when he comes across public descriptions of biofuel algae as “common pond scum.”

For the record, many algae targeted for biofuel inhabit the sea, rather than terrestrial ponds. And the algae Hildebrand studies, tiny algae called diatoms, are far from scummy. He is quick to point out, backed by striking nano-scale images of the one-celled organisms, that they, in fact, can be quite beautiful.

He and members of his lab are probing a catch-22 presented in algal biofuel research. Algae mainly produce desired lipid oils when they are starved for nutrients. Yet if they are limited in nutrients, they don’t grow well. Give them a healthy diet of nutrients and they grow just fine, but they produce carbohydrates instead of lipids.

Thus Hildebrand is investigating how genes are turned on, or “expressed,” in lipid production.

“If we can grow cells under conditions where they are not making lipids and another batch where they are, we can compare changes in gene expression patterns and that will help us identify the genes that are induced when lipids are produced,” said Hildebrand.

Hildebrand uses fluorescent dye to measure lipid content and is developing genetic manipulation tools to induce or repress the expression of these genes. He is also seeking to determine how the cell is “partitioning” carbon between lipids or carbohydrates, and then looking to metabolically engineer the cell to use more carbon for lipid synthesis.

Such investigations and others by his colleagues are vital, Hildebrand said, in order to lay a badly needed basic research foundation for the emerging algal biofuel industry.

The monumental upside of algae, Hildebrand maintains, is that lipids have shown great promise as a robust energy source. Oils derived from certain algae species have already been converted to fuel. Now it’s a matter of economics and the engineering needed to ramp up to large-scale production, along with a range of trials and tribulations that must be addressed.

“We know almost nothing about how lipids are synthesized and where the gene regulation is occurring. It’s like proposing to develop agriculture without understanding how plants grow,” said Hildebrand. “We’ll need to keep studying new areas and coming up with new solutions because new problems will need to be addressed. That’s the beauty of basic research.”

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons