Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Safety Recommendation M-02-016
Details
Synopsis: The recommendation addresses the adequacy of vessel maintenance. The recommendation is derived from the Safety Board's investigation of the fire on board the small passenger vessel Port Imperial Manhattan in the Hudson River, New York City, New York, on November 17, 2000, and is consistent with the evidence we found and the analysis we performed. As a result of this investigation, the Safety Board has issued the safety recommendations to the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Communications Commission, NY Waterway, and the Passenger Vessel Association. The Safety Board would appreciate a response from you within 90 days addressing actions you have taken or intend to take to implement our recommendation.
Recommendation: The National Transportation Safety Board, therefore, makes the following safety recommendation to the Passenger Vessel Association: Provide your members with guidelines for developing a preventive maintenance program for all systems affecting the safe operation of their vessels, including the hull and the mechanical and electrical systems.
Original recommendation transmittal letter: PDF
Overall Status: Closed - Acceptable Action
Mode: Marine
Location: River, NY, United States
Is Reiterated: No
Is Hazmat: No
Is NPRM: No
Accident #: DCA01MM008
Accident Reports:
Fire on Board the Small Passenger Vessel Port Imperial Manhattan
Report #: MAR-02-02
Accident Date: 11/17/2000
Issue Date: 7/3/2002
Date Closed: 8/24/2005
Addressee(s) and Addressee Status: Passenger Vessel Association (Closed - Acceptable Action)
Keyword(s):

Safety Recommendation History
From: NTSB
To: Passenger Vessel Association
Date: 8/24/2005
Response: The Safety Board has reviewed the June 2005 edition of the PVA's Foghorn magazine, and is pleased to note that the PVA has developed and made available on its Web page (www.passengervessel.com) a preventative maintenance (PM) program (checklists, guidance documents, etc.) and Captain Troy Manthey issued a strong endorsement of the PM program in his Letter from the President page. The Safety Board commends the PVA for its efforts. Because the PVA developed and has made available on its Web site guidelines for developing a PM system as requested, Safety Recommendation M-02-16 is classified "Closed--Acceptable Action."

From: Passenger Vessel Association
To: NTSB
Date: 6/16/2005
Response: NTSB staff reviewed the June edition of the PVAs Foghorn and noted that the PVA developed and made available on its web page (www.passengervessel.com) a PMS program (documents, etc) and issued a strong endorsement in the editorial page of the June 2005 edition of the Foghorn.

From: NTSB
To: Passenger Vessel Association
Date: 6/2/2004
Response: The Safety Board recognizes that enrollment in the Coast Guard's Streamlined Inspection Program (SIP), although not a requirement, obligates a participating company to develop and utilize a preventive maintenance system (PMS) program to comply with the intent of the SIP. However, with only 29 small passenger vessels enrolled in the SIP as of October 2003 (representing 0.29 percent of the 10,125 small passenger vessels the Coast Guard inspects), the SIP does not satisfy the recommendation. Safety Board staff have discussed this issue extensively with Mr. Ed Welch and Captain Beth Gedney of your staff. The Board understands from Captain Gedney that the PVA's safety committee has met to discuss the possibility of developing a PMS program and has determined that endorsing and making an existing member PMS program available for all members, at a cost, would be the most expeditious way to meet the intent of the recommendation. When the details of this effort are worked out, and the PMS program(s) are made available to PVA members, this would be an acceptable alternative solution to the recommendation. Accordingly, pending further response from PVA on the status of this effort, Safety Recommendation M-02-16 is classified "Open--Acceptable Alternate Response."

From: NTSB
To: Passenger Vessel Association
Date: 2/9/2004
Response: SR staff discuss NOLA work group meetings & ask status of PVA plans for M-02-16. Mr. Welsh informed staff that on 3-9-04, PVA will discuss PMS issue (M-02-16) at a safety meeting. PVA will get back to SR staff after meeting. Agree to postpone SB response to the PVA letter 1-14-04 (MC2040034) until PVA provides further info on outcome of safety mtg.

From: NTSB
To: Passenger Vessel Association
Date: 2/2/2004
Response: Chairman & OMS staff attend PVA meeting in NOLA. Chairman addressed convetion. OMS staff participate in various working groups, including the WG on preventative maintenance. The NY Waterway PMS program is explained in a power-point presentation. This program appears responsive to M-02-15 to NY WW, NMC102399 initiated on 2-4-04.

From: NTSB
To: Passenger Vessel Association
Date: 1/21/2004
Response: M-02-16 to be addressed in Panther Board meeting.

From: NTSB
To: Passenger Vessel Association
Date: 1/20/2004
Response: SR staff discussed letter w/Mr. Welsh, via phone call.

From: Passenger Vessel Association
To: NTSB
Date: 1/14/2004
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 1/20/2004 1:45:36 PM MC# 2040034 Reliance on the SIP Program ensures that the maintenance program has our regulator's support, remains relevant to changes in Coast Guard regulation and policy, and, because it is an alternative to a regulatory inspection regime, is continually reinforced through periodic audits. To further emphasize the importance of preventative maintenance, the program for our 2004 convention includes a February 3 panel presentation entitled "Creating a Solid Preventative Maintenance Program." Also, the PVA web page (www.passengervessel.com) contains a series of ten downloadable preventative maintenance check sheets. Click on the "documents" icon, then go to "preventative maintenance. " These check sheets arc being revised and expanded as direct result of the NTSB recommendation; the updated versions will be presented-to the PVA membership at this year's convention.

From: NTSB
To: Passenger Vessel Association
Date: 1/9/2004
Response: E-mail sent by Mike Brown to Mr. Groundwater: I am reviewing the files for safety recommendations that the National Transportation Safety Board has issued, for which we have not had a recent update. In doing so, I note that the PVA sent an initial response to M-02-16, which the Board issued to PVA on 7-3-02, as a result of our investigation of the 11-17-00 fire on the Port Imperial Manhattan in New York. In your 8-23-02 letter, you stated that PVA would discuss this recommendation at the PVAs October 2002 meeting and would provide the Board with the results of that meeting. To date we have not had a further response, and would appreciate learning what action PVA has or intends to take to implement Safety Recommendation M-02-16. Please address your response to Ms. Ellen Engelman Conners, Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board, and refer to the recommendation by number. Below is the history of the PVA - NTSB correspondence relating to M-02-16. Thank you in advance, Michael T. Brown, SR-10. My phone number is: 202-314-6174. The mailing address is: Ms. Ellen Engelman Conners Chairman National Transportation Safety Board 490 L'Enfant Plaza, East, SW Washington, D.C. OMS & SR staff met with Ed Welch, legislative director of PVA to discuss Chairman speaking at PVAs annual meeting in New Orleans and the 'proposed' response to M-02-16. At the meeting staff informed Mr. Welsh the draft probably was not responsive.

From: NTSB
To: Passenger Vessel Association
Date: 8/6/2003
Response: The Safety Board notes that, in its August 23, 2002, letter, the PVA stated that the report and recommendation would be reviewed during the Board of Directors and Safety and Security meetings to be held in October 2002. The Board would appreciate receiving information regarding the outcome of those meetings and whether the Board's recommendation was implemented.

From: NTSB
To: Passenger Vessel Association
Date: 10/7/2002
Response: The Safety Board notes that its report and Safety Recommendation M-02-16 will be considered at the next meeting of the PVA's Board of Directors and Safety and Security Committee, which is scheduled for October 21-22, 2002, in Shelter Island, New York. We are very pleased with the prompt efforts of the PVA to address the requested action. In your letter, you state that the PVA's Risk Management and Training Guides should not be "faulted for failing to do something for which they were not designed." Please be assured that the Safety Board was not attempting to find fault with the PVA. In the Port Imperial Manhattan report, our intent was to highlight an area that is not covered by specific Coast Guard regulations or industry guidelines. Such industry guidelines for small passenger vessels could be developed and implemented by your organization before Coast Guard regulations could be published. Given that the PVA's membership includes more than 350 domestic passenger vessel owners and operators, your association represents one of the best organizations to achieve safety improvements within the industry nationwide. It is the mission of the Safety Board to make safety recommendations for preventing similar accidents from occurring in the future and we believe your organization can help in this cause.

From: Passenger Vessel Association
To: NTSB
Date: 8/23/2002
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 08/28/2002 4:54:54 PM MC# 2020789 The PVA leadership and staff are currently analyzing the Safety Board’s Marine Accident Report and its accompanying recommendations. They will be placed on the agenda for the next meetings of the PVA Board of Directors and our Safety and Security Committee, to be held October 21-22 in Shelter Island Heights, New York. I feel compelled to respond to the somewhat critical tone taken by the Safety Board in discussing PVA’s Risk Management and Training Guides. These products were never intended to provide a preventive maintenance program for passenger vessel operators. It is a bit distressing to have them faulted for failing to do something for which they were not designed. In closing, I want to assure the Safety Board that PVA and its members give safety the highest priority, and our leadership will discuss how best to respond to your recommendation at its October meeting. I will be back in touch with you following that event.