1. What is the case number, official title, and summary of findings of the investigation?

   • Answer: The case number is HWY23FH016. The official title is "Motorcoach Roadway Departure and Overturn on Interstate 84, Wawayanda, New York." The summary of findings indicates that on September 21, 2023, a 2014 Prevost motorcoach operated by Regency Transportation LTD veered off Interstate 84 due to a left steering axle tire failure, resulting in the vehicle overturning in a median. Two adult occupants were fatally injured, and the driver sustained serious injuries.

   • Explanation: The case number and title are standard identifiers for investigations conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The summary provides a concise overview of the incident, including the cause, the vehicle involved, and the outcomes in terms of injuries and fatalities.

   • Extracted Paragraphs:

     • "Investigation of: TWO-PERSON FATAL CRASH INVOLVING MOTORCOACH IN WAWAYANDA, NEW YORK ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 Accident No.: HWY23FH016".
     • "On Thursday, September 21, 2023, at about 1:12 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), a 2014 Prevost motorcoach was traveling westbound in the right lane on Interstate 84 (I-84) near Wawayanda, Orange County, New York. The motorcoach, operated by Regency Transportation LTD, was transporting 40 high school students and four adults from a high school in the Farmingdale, New York School District to a band camp in Greeley, Pennsylvania, about 150 miles away.".

2. What was the date, time, and location of the highway collision?

   • Answer: The collision occurred on September 21, 2023, at about 1:12 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Interstate 84 near Wawayanda, Orange County, New York.

   • Explanation: The date, time, and location are critical details for documenting the specifics of the incident, which are essential for the investigation and any subsequent legal or safety proceedings.

   • Extracted Paragraphs:

     • "On Thursday, September 21, 2023, at about 1:12 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), a 2014 Prevost motorcoach was traveling westbound in the right lane on Interstate 84 (I-84) near Wawayanda, Orange County, New York.".

3. What types of vehicles were involved in the collision?

   • Answer: The collision involved a 2014 Prevost motorcoach.

   • Explanation: The type of vehicle involved is significant for understanding the dynamics of the crash and the potential for injuries or fatalities, given the size and passenger capacity of a motorcoach.

   • Extracted Paragraphs:

     • "On Thursday, September 21, 2023, at about 1:12 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), a 2014 Prevost motorcoach was traveling westbound in the right lane on Interstate 84 (I-84) near Wawayanda, Orange County, New York.".

4. Were there any fatalities or serious injuries? If so, how many?

   • Answer: Yes, there were fatalities and serious injuries. Two adult occupants were fatally injured, and the driver suffered serious injuries. Additionally, twelve other occupants sustained serious injuries.

   • Explanation: The number of fatalities and injuries provides insight into the severity of the crash and is a key factor in the investigation and any resulting safety recommendations.

   • Extracted Paragraphs:

     • "As a result of the crash, the two adult occupants in the front row were ejected and fatally injured. The driver was also ejected and suffered serious injuries. Of the remaining occupants, there were twelve who sustained serious injuries and twenty-eight with minor injuries.".

5. Who were the parties involved (drivers, passengers, vehicle owners, companies)?

   • Answer: The motorcoach was operated by Regency Transportation LTD. It was transporting 40 high school students and four adults from the Farmingdale, New York School District.

   • Explanation: Identifying the parties involved helps in understanding the context of the crash, including the responsibilities and potential liabilities of the involved parties.

   • Extracted Paragraphs:

     • "The motorcoach, operated by Regency Transportation LTD, was transporting 40 high school students and four adults from a high school in the Farmingdale, New York School District to a band camp in Greeley, Pennsylvania.".

6. Who are the key stakeholders involved (e.g., law enforcement, DOT, insurance companies, vehicle manufacturers)?

   • Answer: Key stakeholders include the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, New York State Police, Orange County Sheriff's Office, and Bridgestone Americas, Inc..

   • Explanation: Stakeholders are entities that have a vested interest in the investigation, either through regulatory oversight, involvement in the crash response, or as part of the investigation team.

   • Extracted Paragraphs:

     • "Parties to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation are the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the New York State Police.".

7. Was the crash multi-vehicle or single-vehicle, and how did each vehicle contribute?

   • Answer: The crash was a single-vehicle incident involving only the 2014 Prevost motorcoach. The crash was caused by a failure of the left steering axle tire, which led the motorcoach to veer off the road and overturn.

   • Explanation: Understanding whether a crash is single or multi-vehicle helps in determining the complexity of the investigation and the potential causes of the crash.

   • Extracted Paragraphs:

     • "Just after mile marker 12, the motorcoach’s left steering axle tire failed. The vehicle veered from the right lane, crossed the left lane and shoulder, and departed the roadway.".

1. What was the cause of the accident according to the NTSB report?

   • Answer: The cause of the accident was the failure of the motorcoach's left steering axle tire.
   • Explanation: The motorcoach was traveling westbound on Interstate 84 when the left steering axle tire failed. This caused the vehicle to veer from the right lane, cross the left lane and shoulder, and depart the roadway. The motorcoach then penetrated a roadside cable barrier and traveled down the depressed earthen median, where it rolled onto its left side.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "Just after mile marker 12, the motorcoach’s left steering axle tire failed. The vehicle veered from the right lane, crossed the left lane and shoulder, and departed the roadway. The motorcoach penetrated a roadside cable barrier and traveled down the depressed earthen median, where it rolled onto its left side and came to rest at the bottom of the median".

2. Did any driver violate traffic laws (speeding, running a red light, reckless driving)?

   • Answer: There is no indication of traffic law violations such as speeding, running a red light, or reckless driving.
   • Explanation: The report does not mention any such violations. The motorcoach was traveling within the speed limit, and the accident was attributed to a tire failure rather than driver error.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "The motorcoach was traveling westbound in the right lane on Interstate 84 (I-84) and negotiating a left-side horizontal curve when the left steering axle tire failed after mile marker 12. The posted speed limit at this section of I-84 was 65 mph".

3. Was driver impairment a factor (alcohol, drugs, fatigue, medical conditions)?

   • Answer: There is no evidence of driver impairment due to alcohol, drugs, fatigue, or medical conditions.
   • Explanation: The report does not mention any impairment factors affecting the driver. The accident was caused by a mechanical failure (tire blowout).
   • Extracted Paragraph: "She remembered driving on a curve in the road when she heard a loud banging noise. She felt the steering wheel ripped from her hands and knew one of the motorcoach’s front tires had a blowout".

4. Was distracted driving involved (cell phone use, in-vehicle distractions, eating)?

   • Answer: There is no direct evidence of distracted driving.
   • Explanation: The report does not indicate that the driver was distracted by cell phone use, in-vehicle distractions, or eating at the time of the accident.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "She was the first motorcoach in the convoy and did not notice anything unusual with the vehicle leading up to the crash".

5. Were any drivers operating under commercial driver regulations (CDL requirements, Hours of Service logs)?

   • Answer: Yes, the driver was operating under commercial driver regulations.
   • Explanation: The driver was subject to CDL requirements and Hours of Service regulations. The report indicates that the driver was not in violation of the hours-of-service regulations at the time of the crash.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "At the time of the crash the driver was not in violation of the hours-of-service regulations".

6. Did any drivers fail to maintain control (sudden braking, failure to yield, lane departure)?

   • Answer: The driver did not fail to maintain control due to driver error; the loss of control was due to a tire blowout.
   • Explanation: The motorcoach veered off the road due to a tire failure, not because of a failure to maintain control by the driver.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "The vehicle veered from the right lane, crossed the left lane and shoulder, and departed the roadway".

7. Was aggressive driving (tailgating, road rage, weaving) observed or recorded?

   • Answer: There is no evidence of aggressive driving.
   • Explanation: The report does not mention any aggressive driving behaviors such as tailgating, road rage, or weaving.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "The motorcoach was traveling westbound in the right lane on Interstate 84 (I-84) and negotiating a left-side horizontal curve".

8. Did law enforcement issue any citations, violations, or arrests to any driver?

   • Answer: There is no mention of citations, violations, or arrests issued to the driver.
   • Explanation: The report does not indicate any legal actions taken against the driver following the accident.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "The motorcoach penetrated a roadside cable barrier and traveled down the depressed earthen median, where it rolled onto its left side and came to rest at the bottom of the median".

9. Did the vehicles involved have dashcams or ELD (electronic logging devices) to verify?

   • Answer: Yes, the vehicles involved had dashcams and ELDs.
   • Explanation: The motorcoach was equipped with forward and inward-facing cameras, and the driver’s activities were monitored using an electronic logging device (ELD).
   • Extracted Paragraph: "Each vehicle had a forward and inboard-facing camera". "The inward facing camera installed on the crash-involved motorcoach revealed that the driver was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash".

1. What were the weather and road conditions at the time of the accident?

   • Answer: The weather conditions at the time of the accident were not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpts. However, the road conditions involved a four-lane divided highway with a speed limit of 65 mph and a depressed earthen median separating the eastbound and westbound lanes.

   • Explanation: The report does not provide specific weather conditions, but it describes the road as a divided highway with a median, which is relevant to understanding the environment in which the accident occurred.

   • Extracted Paragraphs: "At the crash location, I-84 is a four-lane divided highway with a speed limit of 65 mph and a depressed earthen median separating the eastbound and westbound lanes".

2. What was the sequence of events leading up to the collision?

   • Answer: The sequence of events leading up to the collision began with the motorcoach's left steering axle tire failing. This caused the vehicle to veer from the right lane, cross the left lane and shoulder, and depart the roadway. The motorcoach then penetrated a roadside cable barrier, traveled down the depressed earthen median, rolled onto its left side, and came to rest at the bottom of the median.

   • Explanation: The failure of the left steering axle tire was the critical event that led to the loss of control and subsequent departure from the roadway, resulting in the motorcoach overturning.

   • Extracted Paragraphs: "Just after mile marker 12, the motorcoach’s left steering axle tire failed. The vehicle veered from the right lane, crossed the left lane and shoulder, and departed the roadway. The motorcoach penetrated a roadside cable barrier and traveled down the depressed earthen median, where it rolled onto its left side and came to rest at the bottom of the median".

3. Were there any traffic control devices (e.g., stop signs, traffic lights) at or near the collision site? Were they functioning properly?

   • Answer: The provided excerpts do not mention any traffic control devices such as stop signs or traffic lights at or near the collision site.

   • Explanation: The focus of the report is on the highway conditions and the sequence of events leading to the crash, without specific mention of traffic control devices.

   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not applicable as the information is not provided in the excerpts.

4. Did any vehicle lose control before impact (e.g., skidding, sudden braking, lane departure)?

   • Answer: Yes, the motorcoach lost control before impact. The left steering axle tire failure caused the vehicle to veer off the road, cross lanes, and depart the roadway, leading to the crash.

   • Explanation: The tire failure was the primary cause of the loss of control, resulting in the vehicle's departure from the roadway and subsequent rollover.

   • Extracted Paragraphs: "Just after mile marker 12, the motorcoach’s left steering axle tire failed. The vehicle veered from the right lane, crossed the left lane and shoulder, and departed the roadway".

5. Were any hazardous materials being transported by any vehicle involved?

   • Answer: The provided excerpts do not mention any hazardous materials being transported by the motorcoach or any other vehicle involved in the incident.

   • Explanation: The focus of the report is on the motorcoach's mechanical failure and the resulting crash, without mention of hazardous materials.

   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not applicable as the information is not provided in the excerpts.

1. What were the actions of each driver before the crash?

   • Answer: The driver of the motorcoach was observed vaping and holding the steering wheel with only her right hand during part of the inward-facing video. She was not wearing her seatbelt at the time of the crash.
   • Explanation: The inward-facing camera on the motorcoach captured the driver vaping and not wearing her seatbelt. Additionally, she was holding the steering wheel with one hand, which could indicate a lack of full control over the vehicle.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "The cameras showed that the driver was not wearing her seatbelt and was observed to be vaping prior to the crash. It also showed the driver holding the steering wheel with only her right hand during part of the inward-facing video".

2. Were toxicology reports conducted on the drivers, and did they indicate any substances?

   • Answer: Yes, toxicology reports were conducted, and they indicated no substances. The results were negative for drugs and alcohol.
   • Explanation: Post-crash drug and alcohol testing was performed as required, and the results were negative. Additionally, a voluntary blood sample was obtained and tested, which also returned negative results.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "Regency performed the required post-crash drug and alcohol testing as required by 49 CFR part 382.303. The results were negative. The NYSP obtained a voluntary blood sample and performed drug tests, which also had negative results".

3. What were the qualifications and driving history of the commercial vehicle operators?

   • Answer: The driver held a Class “B” New York Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) with passenger and school bus endorsements. Her driving record was clear with no violations or suspensions.
   • Explanation: The driver had a valid CDL with necessary endorsements and a clean driving record, indicating she was qualified to operate the motorcoach.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "The driver of the 2014 Prevost motorcoach was a 59-year-old female. She holds a Class “B” New York Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), issued with passenger and school bus endorsements... A Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) report was obtained dated September 25, 2023, and it was clear with no violations or suspensions listed".

4. Were any drivers fatigued, and does the investigation include Hours of Service (HOS) logs?

   • Answer: The driver was not in violation of the hours-of-service regulations at the time of the crash. The investigation included HOS logs.
   • Explanation: The driver's hours of service were monitored, and records showed compliance with regulations. The driver had been on duty for 26:07 hours in the seven days prior to the crash.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "In the seven days prior to the crash, the accident driver had been on duty for approximately 26:07 hours... At the time of the crash the driver was not in violation of the hours-of-service regulations".

5. Were seat belts, airbags, and other safety devices in use at the time of the crash?

   • Answer: The driver was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash. The motorcoach was equipped with seatbelts for all passengers and the driver, but the driver did not use it due to discomfort.
   • Explanation: The inward-facing camera confirmed the driver was not wearing a seatbelt, and she admitted to not using it because it caused discomfort. There is no mention of airbags in the extracted information.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "The inward facing camera installed on the crash-involved motorcoach revealed that the driver was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash... The driver stated that she consistently did not wear the shoulder portion of the seatbelt because the resting position of the upper cross-strap in the seatbelt assembly caused chaffing against her neck".

1. Were there any pre-existing mechanical failures or maintenance issues in any of the vehicles?

   • Answer: Yes, there were pre-existing mechanical issues noted in the vehicles.
   • Explanation: The investigation revealed that the motorcoach had a history of warranty claims and recalls, including issues with the engine software, gateway module, and other components. Additionally, the tire failure was attributed to impact damage and underinflation, which suggests maintenance issues.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • "The 2014 Prevost H3-45 motorcoach had several warranty claims and recalls, including engine software updates, gateway module replacements, and other mechanical issues".
     • "Bridgestone performed a Tire Analysis and issued a report on September 12, 2024. The 77-page report determined the tire failure was from impact damage and underinflation".

2. Did any safety-critical system (e.g., brakes, steering, tires) fail before or during the collision?

   • Answer: Yes, the left steering axle tire failed before the collision.
   • Explanation: The motorcoach's left steering axle tire failed just after mile marker 12, which led to the vehicle veering off the road and crashing.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • "Just after mile marker 12, the motorcoach’s left steering axle tire failed. The vehicle veered from the right lane, crossed the left lane and shoulder, and departed the roadway".

3. Were any vehicles equipped with an Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS), and did it function as expected?

   • Answer: The motorcoach was equipped with an electronic stability program (ESP), but no other ADAS technologies were installed.
   • Explanation: The motorcoach had a Prevost electronic stability program (ESP) designed to help mitigate rollover and loss-of-control situations, but no other advanced driver assistance systems were mentioned.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • "The motorcoach was equipped with a Prevost electronic stability program (ESP), which was manufactured by Bendix and could provide full stability to help drivers mitigate rollover and loss-of-control situations".

4. Were Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) or vehicle data recorders (black boxes) analyzed for speed, braking, and other factors?

   • Answer: Yes, the motorcoach was equipped with systems that had event data recorder (EDR) capabilities.
   • Explanation: The motorcoach's Volvo engine contained systems and modules with EDR capabilities, which were likely analyzed as part of the investigation.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • "The motorcoach was equipped with several systems and modules that would have event data recorder (EDR) capabilities".

5. Did any of the vehicles experience unintended acceleration or other manufacturer defects?

   • Answer: There is no specific mention of unintended acceleration, but there were manufacturer defects noted in recalls.
   • Explanation: The investigation documents several recalls for the motorcoach, including issues with fire extinguishers and fuel tank separation, but no specific mention of unintended acceleration.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • "Recalls included faulty fire extinguishers and potential fuel tank separation".

Here are the answers to your questions based on the investigation reports:

1. Were any vehicles defective or recalled at the time of the crash?

   • Answer: Yes, there were recalls related to the vehicles involved.
   • Explanation: The reports indicate that certain models of Prevost vehicles were subject to recalls due to defects such as faulty fire extinguishers and alternator belt issues. These recalls were documented in the safety recall reports.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • "The affected disposable fire extinguishers are built with 'black plastic (Zytel® nylon) handles and valves'. Recall population was determined by the supplier."
     • "Prevost will change the defective belts for polyester belts. A safety recall will be launched to inform customers about the defect and letters will be sent to advise how to proceed to correct."

2. Did brakes, steering, or tires fail, leading to the collision?

   • Answer: Yes, a tire failure led to the collision.
   • Explanation: The left steering axle tire of the motorcoach failed, causing the vehicle to veer off the road, which led to the crash.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • "Just after mile marker 12, the motorcoach’s left steering axle tire failed. The vehicle veered from the right lane, crossed the left lane and shoulder, and departed the roadway."

3. Was there any mechanical malfunction or improper vehicle maintenance?

   • Answer: Yes, there were mechanical issues noted.
   • Explanation: The investigation reports mention several warranty claims and recalls related to mechanical components such as the alternator and fire extinguishers, indicating potential mechanical malfunctions.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • "Warranty Kneel position fault – defective leveling valve replaced"
     • "Prevost will change the defective belts for polyester belts."

4. Did a vehicle’s safety systems (ADAS, airbags, seat belts) fail to operate correctly?

   • Answer: There is no specific mention of ADAS or airbags, but seat belts were not used by many occupants.
   • Explanation: The report indicates that many occupants did not wear seat belts, and there is no mention of advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) or airbags in the context of the crash.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • "V21 did not recall anyone pointing out the seatbelts or emergency exits. She did not wear her seatbelt."

5. Were black box data (ECM, EDR, telematics) analyzed, and what do they reveal?

   • Answer: Yes, the ECM and other modules were analyzed.
   • Explanation: The motorcoach was equipped with systems capable of recording event data, and these were removed for further analysis.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • "The engine control module (ECM), vehicle control module, and anti-lock brake electronic control unit (ECU) were removed from the motorcoach for further analysis."

6. Did cargo shifts or overloading contribute to the accident (for trucks or trailers)?

   • Answer: There is no mention of cargo shifts or overloading contributing to the accident.
   • Explanation: The reports focus on the mechanical failure of the tire and do not mention any issues related to cargo shifts or overloading.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: The reports do not provide specific information on cargo shifts or overloading.

1. Was there any roadway design or maintenance issue that contributed to the crash (e.g., potholes, improper signage, poor lighting)?

   • Answer: There was no indication of roadway design or maintenance issues contributing to the crash.
   • Explanation: The crash was primarily caused by the failure of the motorcoach's left steering axle tire, which led the vehicle to veer off the road and penetrate a roadside cable barrier. The report does not mention any roadway design or maintenance issues such as potholes, improper signage, or poor lighting as contributing factors.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "Just after mile marker 12, the motorcoach’s left steering axle tire failed. The vehicle veered from the right lane, crossed the left lane and shoulder, and departed the roadway. The motorcoach penetrated a roadside cable barrier and traveled down the depressed earthen median, where it rolled onto its left side and came to rest at the bottom of the median".

2. Were there any known issues or prior incidents at this location?

   • Answer: The documents do not provide information on any known issues or prior incidents at this location.
   • Explanation: The search did not yield any results indicating previous incidents or known issues at the crash location on Interstate 84 near Wawayanda, New York.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not available from the search results.

3. Was the highway construction zone properly marked, if applicable?

   • Answer: There is no mention of a highway construction zone being involved in the crash.
   • Explanation: The crash occurred on a regular section of Interstate 84, and there is no indication of a construction zone being present or improperly marked.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not available from the search results.

4. Were any nearby surveillance cameras or traffic cameras available, and were they reviewed?

   • Answer: Yes, onboard cameras from the motorcoach and another vehicle in the convoy recorded the crash sequence.
   • Explanation: The forward and inward-facing cameras on the crash vehicle, as well as the number 2 bus in the caravan, recorded the crash sequence. These recordings were reviewed as part of the investigation.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "Forward/inward looking cameras on the crash vehicle as well as the number 2 bus in the caravan recorded the crash sequence".

1. Were there any road hazards, construction zones, or missing traffic signs that contributed?

   • Answer: There is no specific mention of road hazards, construction zones, or missing traffic signs contributing to the crash.
   • Explanation: The crash was primarily attributed to the failure of the motorcoach's left steering axle tire, which caused the vehicle to veer off the road and into a median.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "Just after mile marker 12, the motorcoach’s left steering axle tire failed. The vehicle veered from the right lane, crossed the left lane and shoulder, and departed the roadway. The motorcoach penetrated a roadside cable barrier and traveled down the depressed earthen median, where it rolled onto its left side and came to rest at the bottom of the median".

2. Did poor weather conditions (rain, fog, ice, wind) play a role in the collision?

   • Answer: There is no indication that poor weather conditions played a role in the collision.
   • Explanation: The report does not mention any adverse weather conditions affecting the crash. The focus is on the mechanical failure of the tire.
   • Extracted Paragraph: The report does not provide specific details on weather conditions affecting the crash, but the absence of such mentions suggests weather was not a factor.

3. Was the road surface damaged, slippery, or improperly maintained?

   • Answer: There is no evidence in the report indicating that the road surface was damaged, slippery, or improperly maintained.
   • Explanation: The crash was attributed to a tire failure rather than road surface conditions.
   • Extracted Paragraph: The report focuses on the tire failure and does not mention road surface conditions as a contributing factor.

4. Were traffic signals, streetlights, or signage malfunctioning or missing?

   • Answer: There is no mention of malfunctioning or missing traffic signals, streetlights, or signage contributing to the crash.
   • Explanation: The crash was primarily due to the mechanical failure of the vehicle's tire.
   • Extracted Paragraph: The report does not discuss traffic signals, streetlights, or signage issues, focusing instead on the vehicle's mechanical failure.

5. Had there been previous accidents at this location, indicating a design flaw?

   • Answer: The report does not mention any previous accidents at this location that would indicate a design flaw.
   • Explanation: The focus of the report is on the specific incident and the mechanical failure of the vehicle, without reference to past accidents at the location.
   • Extracted Paragraph: The report does not provide information on previous accidents at the location, suggesting that the investigation did not find this to be a relevant factor.

1. Were all vehicles in compliance with federal and state safety regulations?

   • Answer: No, not all vehicles were in compliance with federal and state safety regulations.
   • Explanation: The FMCSA conducted a post-crash compliance review and found 10 violations, including issues with drug and alcohol testing, seatbelt usage, and hours of service.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • "As a result of this crash the FMCSA conducted a post-crash rated compliance review on the carrier. The carrier had 10 violations.".

2. Did any vehicle exceed weight or cargo limits?

   • Answer: The documents do not provide specific information regarding vehicles exceeding weight or cargo limits.
   • Explanation: The search did not return any results directly addressing weight or cargo limits, indicating that this specific issue may not have been a focus of the investigation or was not documented in the provided files.

3. Were commercial vehicles compliant with FMCSA (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) regulations?

   • Answer: No, the commercial vehicles were not fully compliant with FMCSA regulations.
   • Explanation: The FMCSA compliance review revealed several violations, including issues with drug and alcohol testing, seatbelt usage, and hours of service.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • "The FMCSA conducted a post-crash rated compliance review on the carrier. The carrier had 10 violations.".

4. Did the drivers have valid licenses, endorsements, and medical certifications?

   • Answer: Yes, the driver had valid licenses, endorsements, and medical certifications.
   • Explanation: The driver held a valid Class “B” New York Commercial Driver’s License with passenger and school bus endorsements, and a current U.S. DOT Physical.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • "The driver of the 2014 Prevost motorcoach was a 59-year-old female. She holds a Class “B” New York Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), issued with passenger and school bus endorsements, and a restriction for wearing corrective lenses.".

5. Did law enforcement issue any citations or violations at the scene?

   • Answer: The documents do not specify if law enforcement issued citations or violations at the scene.
   • Explanation: The search did not return any results directly addressing citations or violations issued at the scene, indicating that this specific information may not have been documented in the provided files.

Here are the answers to your questions based on the available documents:

1. List all the victim’s: Name, Age, Injuries description, explain, were they life-threatening?

   • V01 (Driver): 59-year-old, serious injuries including laceration, fractures, and abrasions. The injuries required a hospital stay greater than 48 hours.
   • V02: 77-year-old, fatal injuries including skull fracture, multiple rib fractures, and lacerations.
   • V03: 43-year-old, fatal injuries including multiple fractures and lacerations.
   • V12: 13-year-old, minor injuries including edema.
   • V43: 14-year-old, serious injuries including hematoma, laceration, fractures, and pneumothorax.
   • V04: 47-year-old, serious injuries including multiple fractures and contusions.
   • V14: 14-year-old, minor injuries including lacerations and abrasions.
   • V42: 14-year-old, minor injuries including contusion and abrasion.
   • V21: 16-year-old, serious injuries including fractures.
   • V40: 14-year-old, minor injuries including degloving wound and hematoma.
   • V39: 14-year-old, minor injuries including contusions and abrasions.
   • V37: 14-year-old, minor injuries including contusion.
   • V23: 14-year-old, minor injuries including fracture and lacerations.
   • V06: 14-year-old, minor injuries including lacerations and concussion.
   • V41: 14-year-old, serious injuries including hemorrhage and fractures.
   • V22: 14-year-old, minor injuries including fracture and laceration.
   • V44: 14-year-old, minor injuries including loss of consciousness and laceration.
   • V31: 13-year-old, minor injuries including concussion.
   • V38: 14-year-old, no injuries.
   • V32: 14-year-old, minor injuries including lacerations.
   • V28: 14-year-old, minor injuries including laceration.
   • V25: 15-year-old, minor injuries including abrasion.
   • V10: 14-year-old, minor injuries including contusion.
   • V26: 14-year-old, serious injuries including fracture.
   • V09: 13-year-old, minor injuries including lacerations and concussion.
   • V07: 14-year-old, serious injuries including multiple fractures and hemopneumothorax.
   • V08: 17-year-old, minor injuries including laceration and concussion.
   • V11: 14-year-old, minor injuries including laceration and abrasions.
   • V20: 14-year-old, minor injuries including lacerations and abrasions.
   • V27: 14-year-old, serious injuries including fractures and edema.
   • V24: 14-year-old, serious injuries including fractures and lacerations.
   • V36: 14-year-old, minor injuries including laceration.
   • V17: 14-year-old, serious injuries including fractures.
   • V29: 14-year-old, minor injuries including laceration.
   • V16: 13-year-old, minor injuries including lacerations and abrasions.
   • V05: 14-year-old, serious injuries including fractures.
   • V30: 14-year-old, minor injuries including abrasion and edema.
   • V18: 14-year-old, serious injuries including fracture.
   • V19: 14-year-old, serious injuries including fracture and lacerations.
   • V35: 14-year-old, minor injuries including laceration and ligament tear.

   Explanation: The injuries varied from minor to serious, with some being life-threatening, especially those involving fractures and internal injuries. The fatal injuries were indeed life-threatening.

2. Were injuries documented by medical professionals, and what is the prognosis?

   Injuries were documented by medical professionals as indicated by the detailed descriptions of injuries and treatments in the report. The prognosis varies depending on the severity of the injuries, with some requiring extended hospital stays and surgeries.

3. Was emergency medical response timely and adequate?

   The emergency response was timely, with the first units arriving at the scene at 1:20 p.m., shortly after the crash occurred at about 1:12 p.m. Multiple agencies responded, including the New York State Police, Orange County Sheriff's Office, and various fire rescue and ambulance services.

4. Were any injuries exacerbated due to safety failures (seat belts, airbags, crumple zones)?

   Many occupants were unrestrained, which likely exacerbated their injuries. The report mentions that several occupants were ejected from the motorcoach, indicating a lack of seatbelt use.

5. Are there long-term disabilities or permanent impairments resulting from the crash?

   The report does not explicitly mention long-term disabilities or permanent impairments, but the severity of some injuries, such as fractures and internal injuries, suggests the potential for long-term effects.

6. What are the current and future medical costs for the victim’s treatment?

   The report does not provide specific details on the current and future medical costs for the victims' treatment.

1. What insurance policies were in place for all drivers and vehicle owners?

   • Answer: The document does not explicitly mention specific insurance policies for all drivers and vehicle owners.
   • Explanation: The search did not yield any direct references to specific insurance policies in place for the drivers and vehicle owners involved in the incident.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not available.

2. Did any of the involved parties carry commercial insurance (trucking, rideshare, business vehicles)?

   • Answer: Yes, Regency Transportation, the motor carrier involved, is required to meet the minimum levels of insurance as a for-hire passenger carrying operation.
   • Explanation: As a for-hire passenger carrier, Regency Transportation is required to register for operating authority and meet the minimum levels of insurance as required under §387.33.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "For-Hire passenger carrying operations are required to register for operating authority and meet the minimum levels of insurance as required under §387.33".

3. Did any of the drivers lack insurance or have insufficient coverage?

   • Answer: The documents do not provide specific information indicating that any drivers lacked insurance or had insufficient coverage.
   • Explanation: The search did not reveal any details about drivers lacking insurance or having insufficient coverage.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not available.

4. What is the policy limit for each insurance company covering this case?

   • Answer: The document does not specify the policy limits for each insurance company covering this case.
   • Explanation: There is no information available in the search results regarding the policy limits of the insurance companies involved.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not available.

5. Has the insurance company attempted to settle, and if so, for what amount?

   • Answer: The document does not provide information on whether the insurance company has attempted to settle or the amount involved.
   • Explanation: The search did not yield any results regarding settlement attempts or amounts by the insurance company.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not available.

6. Was a wrongful death claim filed (if applicable), and who are the beneficiaries?

   • Answer: The document does not mention any wrongful death claims filed or the beneficiaries.
   • Explanation: There is no information available in the search results about wrongful death claims or beneficiaries.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not available.

The search results did not provide specific information for most of the questions, indicating that the documents may not contain detailed insurance-related data or settlement information.

1. Was any driver on-duty for a company (trucking, Uber/Lyft, delivery service)?

   • Answer: Yes, the driver was on-duty for Regency Transportation, a motor carrier company.
   • Explanation: The driver was operating a motorcoach for Regency Transportation, which is a for-hire interstate passenger carrier. The driver was on duty and driving at the time of the crash.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "In the seven days prior to the crash, the accident driver had been on duty for approximately 26:07 hours.".

2. Did the employer conduct background checks and routine safety training?

   • Answer: Yes, the employer conducted background checks and some safety training.
   • Explanation: Regency Transportation conducted annual safety meetings and had a system in place for monitoring driver actions through camera systems. They also conducted pre-employment drug tests and maintained a driver qualification file as per federal regulations.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "Regency did conduct annual safety meetings in addition to the requirements to follow New York Article 19-A.". "The Regency Driver Qualification (DQ) file followed the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) requirements relating to DQ files as found in CFR Part 391.".

3. Were company policies violated, such as excessive driving hours or failure to maintain vehicles?

   • Answer: Yes, there were violations of company policies.
   • Explanation: The driver was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash, which is a violation of federal regulations. However, there was no violation of hours-of-service regulations.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "The inward facing camera installed on the crash-involved motorcoach revealed that the driver was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash. This is a violation of 49 CFR Part 392.16.".

4. Is there evidence of negligent hiring or retention by the employer?

   • Answer: There is no direct evidence of negligent hiring or retention.
   • Explanation: The driver had a valid commercial driver's license and had passed pre-employment drug tests. The driver’s qualification file met federal requirements, indicating that the hiring process followed regulatory standards.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "The driver’s DQ File met the requirements under 49 CFR Part 391.51.".

5. Was any third-party responsible for vehicle maintenance, cargo loading, or road design?

   • Answer: Yes, third parties were involved in vehicle maintenance.
   • Explanation: The tires on the motorcoach were leased from Bridgestone, and the vehicle had been maintained by previous owners before being sold to Regency Transportation.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "The tires were leased from Bridgestone. The carrier in Mississippi sold the vehicle to a carrier in Texas on November 11, 2022.".

1. Are there surveillance, dashcam, or traffic camera recordings of the crash?

   • Answer: Yes, there are recordings from forward and inward-facing cameras on the crash vehicle and another bus in the caravan.
   • Explanation: The crash was recorded by forward and inward-looking cameras on the crash vehicle as well as the number 2 bus in the caravan. These recordings showed the driver not wearing a seatbelt and vaping prior to the crash.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "Forward/inward looking cameras on the crash vehicle as well as the number 2 bus in the caravan recorded the crash sequence. The cameras showed that the driver was not wearing her seatbelt and was observed to be vaping prior to the crash".

2. Were there any eyewitnesses, and what do their statements say?

   • Answer: Yes, there were eyewitnesses, including a first witness on the scene who called 911 and provided a scene size-up.
   • Explanation: The first witness on the scene observed the crash aftermath, called 911, and reported the situation, including the condition of the victims and the chaos at the scene.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "So when I got up to behind the other buses and observed the crash, I got out, pulled out my phone, dialed 911. They had obviously taken a lot of call on it already. So, all I said to the call taker was, you know, bus accident 84, and he said, okay, send it. So at this point I was going down the hill towards the bus while I was on the phone with 911, and just giving them as quick of a scene size up as I could".

3. Was an accident reconstruction expert involved in the investigation?

   • Answer: Yes, an accident reconstruction expert was involved.
   • Explanation: The New York State Police Collision Reconstruction Unit was part of the investigation team.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "Group Member Mark Whalen, New York State Police – Collision Reconstruction Unit, Middletown, New York".

4. Is there forensic evidence, such as skid marks, vehicle damage, or debris patterns?

   • Answer: Yes, there is forensic evidence including roadway evidence and tire debris.
   • Explanation: The crash report includes details of marks and scrapes on the roadway, bent cable barrier posts, and a large piece of the left front tire tread found near the highway.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "Marks and scrapes can be observed starting in the right lane, traversing the left, past the fog line, and into the shoulder. Several bent cable barrier posts were in the area where the motorcoach departed the roadway. A large piece of the left front tire tread can also be observed near the left edge of the highway".

5. Were 911 calls and police radio traffic logs reviewed?

   • Answer: Yes, 911 calls were reviewed.
   • Explanation: The first witness on the scene called 911 and provided information about the crash, which indicates that 911 calls were part of the investigation.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "So when I got up to behind the other buses and observed the crash, I got out, pulled out my phone, dialed 911. They had obviously taken a lot of call on it already".

1. Who are the potential defendants in a lawsuit (drivers, vehicle owners, employers, government entities)?

   Answer: The potential defendants in a lawsuit could include the driver of the motorcoach, the vehicle owner (Regency Transportation LTD), and possibly government entities responsible for road maintenance or safety oversight.

   Explanation: The driver was operating the motorcoach at the time of the crash and sustained serious injuries. Regency Transportation LTD, as the operator of the motorcoach, could be liable for the actions of its employee and the maintenance of the vehicle. Government entities might be considered if there were issues with road conditions or barriers that contributed to the crash.

   Extracted Paragraphs:

   • "The driver of the 2014 Prevost motorcoach was a 59-year-old female... As a result of this crash, the driver sustained serious injuries."
   • "Regency Transportation LTD (hereafter Regency) is a for hire interstate passenger carrier located in Nesconset, New York... The carrier has been in business since 1997 and has been operating as a passenger carrier for over 25 years."
   • "The motorcoach penetrated a roadside cable barrier and traveled down the depressed earthen median, where it rolled onto its left side and came to rest at the bottom of the median."

2. What are the state laws regarding comparative negligence, and how could they impact liability?

   Answer: The documents do not provide specific details on New York's comparative negligence laws. However, generally, New York follows a pure comparative negligence rule, which means that a plaintiff's compensation is reduced by their percentage of fault.

   Explanation: Under New York's comparative negligence system, if a plaintiff is found partially at fault for their injuries, their damages award is reduced by their percentage of fault. This could impact liability by reducing the amount recoverable by plaintiffs if they are found to have contributed to the accident.

   Extracted Paragraphs: Not available in the provided documents.

3. Are there punitive damages applicable due to gross negligence or reckless behavior?

   Answer: The documents do not explicitly mention punitive damages or gross negligence.

   Explanation: Punitive damages are typically awarded in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct. The absence of explicit mention in the documents suggests that the focus was on factual reporting rather than legal conclusions about negligence or punitive damages.

   Extracted Paragraphs: Not available in the provided documents.

4. Has the NTSB recommended policy changes that could support a negligence claim?

   Answer: The documents do not explicitly mention NTSB policy recommendations that could support a negligence claim.

   Explanation: The NTSB's role is to investigate and make safety recommendations, but the documents provided do not detail specific policy changes recommended by the NTSB that could be used to support a negligence claim.

   Extracted Paragraphs: Not available in the provided documents.

5. What past settlements or verdicts exist for similar cases in this jurisdiction?

   Answer: The documents do not provide information on past settlements or verdicts for similar cases.

   Explanation: Information on past settlements or verdicts would typically be found in legal databases or court records, not in factual investigation reports.

   Extracted Paragraphs: Not available in the provided documents.

6. What is the estimated total economic and non-economic damage (medical bills, lost wages, pain & suffering)?

   Answer: The documents do not provide an estimate of total economic and non-economic damages.

   Explanation: Estimating damages would require detailed information on medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering, which are not covered in the factual investigation reports.

   Extracted Paragraphs: Not available in the provided documents.

7. Could a class action lawsuit be appropriate if multiple victims were involved?

   Answer: A class action lawsuit could be considered if multiple victims were involved and share common legal issues.

   Explanation: The crash involved multiple occupants, including students and adults, who sustained various injuries. If these individuals share common legal claims against the same defendants, a class action could be a suitable legal strategy.

   Extracted Paragraphs:

   • "As a result of the crash, the two adult occupants in the front row were ejected and fatally injured. The driver was also ejected and suffered serious injuries. Of the remaining occupants, there were twelve who sustained serious injuries and twenty-eight with minor injuries."

1. How quickly did emergency responders arrive, and what actions did they take?

   Answer: Emergency responders arrived quickly, with the first fire rescue services dispatched at 1:15 p.m. and the first unit en route approximately one minute later. The first police units were on the scene by 1:20 p.m. The responders established a unified command structure with EMS and police, set up rope lines to assist non-ambulatory patients, and stabilized the motorcoach to search for any trapped victims. No extrications were required, and fire rescue assisted with transporting victims up the hill.

   Explanation: The rapid response was facilitated by the proximity of the Slate Hill Volunteer Fire Department and the coordination among various emergency services. The responders focused on immediate triage, stabilization, and transportation of victims, ensuring a structured and efficient response to the incident.

   Extracted Paragraphs:

   • "The Slate Hill Volunteer Fire Department (SHFD) was the primary fire rescue agency. Fire rescue services were first dispatched at 1:15 p.m., and the first unit was en route approximately one minute later... The SHFD captain assumed the incident commander (IC) role on arrival. A unified command structure was set up with the EMS and Police".
   • "The NYSP had primary jurisdiction over the police response to the crash and was supported by the Orange County Sheriff's Office (OCSO). The first units were on the scene at 1:20 p.m.".

2. Were any medical evacuations conducted, and how were injured individuals transported?

   Answer: Yes, medical evacuations were conducted. Three helicopters were used to medivac patients directly to Westchester Medical, and approximately 25 ambulances were on the scene to transport victims to various hospitals. Patients were triaged using the START method and transported to treatment areas on I-84.

   Explanation: The use of helicopters and a large number of ambulances ensured that critically injured patients received timely medical attention. The coordination with multiple hospitals facilitated the efficient distribution of patients based on the severity of their injuries.

   Extracted Paragraphs:

   • "Three helicopters and approximately 25 ambulances were on the scene for transport. The IC coordinated with the medivac pilots and set up a landing zone on the westbound side of I-84".
   • "Patients were triaged by a group of emergency medical technicians (EMT) down the hill near the bus. The victims were transported up to the treatment area on I-84, where they were divided into one of three zones using the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) method".

3. Was fire suppression or hazmat containment required?

   Answer: Fire suppression or hazmat containment was not specifically mentioned as being required in the available documents. The focus was primarily on rescue operations and medical evacuations.

   Explanation: The absence of fire or hazardous materials at the scene allowed responders to concentrate on the immediate medical needs and transportation of victims without the added complexity of fire suppression or hazmat containment.

   Extracted Paragraphs:

   • "The motorcoach was at the bottom of a hill in the median, approximately 50 to 60 feet from the top of the roadway. Reports from the responders near the vehicle indicated that no occupants were in the vehicle, but there were several injured around it".

4. Were post-crash inspections conducted, and what were their findings?

   Answer: Post-crash inspections were conducted, including searches of the bus and the surrounding area. The responders ensured that no one was pinned inside or underneath the vehicle and conducted thorough searches to account for all individuals.

   Explanation: The inspections were crucial to ensure that all victims were accounted for and that no one was left behind in the heavily wooded area or under the vehicle. This thorough approach helped confirm the safety and security of the scene.

   Extracted Paragraphs:

   • "We wanted to make sure there was nobody pinned inside the vehicle, pinned underneath the vehicle; were there reports of ejection; that there was nobody scattered into the heavily-wooded area of the median".
   • "We set up a low-angle operation using our rescue as the anchor. We were able to position that around some cars, and really, that was a huge asset to be able to get people up and down to EMS, and then, really, to the ambulances and helicopters".

Here are the answers to your questions based on the NTSB investigation documents:

1. What was the probable cause of the accident according to the NTSB findings?

   • Answer: The probable cause of the accident was the failure of the motorcoach's left steering axle tire.
   • Explanation: The motorcoach was traveling westbound on Interstate 84 when the left steering axle tire failed. This caused the vehicle to veer from the right lane, cross the left lane and shoulder, and depart the roadway. The motorcoach then penetrated a roadside cable barrier and traveled down the depressed earthen median, where it rolled onto its left side.

2. Were any contributing factors identified beyond the primary cause?

   • Answer: Yes, contributing factors included the driver's failure to wear a seatbelt and the potential overdeflected operation of the tire.
   • Explanation: The driver was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash, which is a violation of 49 CFR Part 392.16. Additionally, the tire failure was exacerbated by impact damage during use, which suggests that the tire was operating in an overdeflected condition.

3. What safety recommendations did the NTSB issue as a result of this investigation?

   • Answer: The specific safety recommendations issued by the NTSB are not detailed in the provided excerpts.
   • Explanation: The documents mention that the NTSB intends to issue safety recommendations to prevent similar events, but the exact recommendations are not included in the available text.

4. Were there any policy or regulatory changes suggested to prevent similar incidents in the future?

   • Answer: Yes, there was a suggestion for policy change regarding seatbelt use.
   • Explanation: Since the crash, the State of New York passed a bill requiring occupants of charter buses to use seatbelts on school trips. This legislative change was likely influenced by the findings of the investigation.

These answers are based on the information extracted from the investigation reports and related documents. If you need more detailed information or specific sections, please let me know!

Here is a chronological list of dates and times mentioned in the documents, along with what happened, analysis, and the related paragraph extracted:

1. Date: September 15, 2023

   • What Happened: The driver was on duty and driving for 3:43 hours.
   • Analysis: The driver was within the hours-of-service regulations.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "September 15, 2023 Driving: 2:34 Hours ELD Records On Duty & Driving 3:43 Hours".

2. Date: September 16, 2023

   • What Happened: The driver was on duty and driving for 7:40 hours.
   • Analysis: The driver was within the hours-of-service regulations.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "September 16, 2023 Driving: 7:26 Hours ELD Records On Duty & Driving 7:40 Hours".

3. Date: September 17, 2023

   • What Happened: The driver was on duty and driving for 10:65 hours.
   • Analysis: The driver was within the hours-of-service regulations.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "September 17, 2023 Driving: 9:32 Hours ELD Records On Duty & Driving 10:65 Hours".

4. Date: September 19, 2023

   • What Happened: The driver was off duty for 24 hours.
   • Analysis: The driver was resting and not driving.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "September 19, 2023 Off Duty 24 Hours ELD Records Off Duty".

5. Date: September 20, 2023

   • What Happened: The driver was off duty for 24 hours.
   • Analysis: The driver was resting and not driving.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "September 20, 2023 Off Duty 24 Hours ELD Records Off Duty".

6. Date: September 21, 2023

   • What Happened: The crash occurred at 1:12 p.m. EDT.
   • Analysis: The motorcoach departed the roadway and overturned, resulting in fatalities and injuries.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "On Thursday, September 21, 2023, at about 1:12 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), a 2014 Prevost motorcoach was traveling westbound in the right lane on Interstate 84 (I-84) near Wawayanda, Orange County, New York.".

7. Date: September 21, 2023

   • What Happened: The vehicle left the yard at 08:38 A.M. and arrived at Farmingdale at 09:28 A.M.
   • Analysis: The trip was part of the journey leading to the crash.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "On September 21, 2023, the day of the crash the report shows the vehicle leaving the yard at 08:38 A.M. and arriving at Farmingdale at 09:28 A.M. a trip of 22.6 miles.".

8. Date: September 24, 2023

   • What Happened: The driver was interviewed by NTSB investigators.
   • Analysis: The interview was part of the investigation into the crash.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "See Factual Report of Investigation Attachment - Transcript of NTSB Interview with the Motorcoach Driver September 24, 2023.".

9. Date: September 25-28, 2023

   • What Happened: The 2014 Prevost Motorcoach was inspected.
   • Analysis: The inspection was part of the investigation into the crash.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "The 2014 Prevost H3-45 Motorcoach was inspected between the dates of September 25 – 28, 2023, at the New York State Police Headquarters, 55 Crystal Run Road, Middletown, New York.".

10. Date: December 11, 2023

    • What Happened: Data imaging was conducted.
    • Analysis: The imaging was part of the investigation into the crash.
    • Extracted Paragraph: "Imaging Date and Time (Coordinated Universal Time): Monday December 11 2023 16:13:55".

These entries provide a timeline of events related to the crash investigation, including the driver's activities, the crash itself, and subsequent investigation actions.

Here is a list of people and entities mentioned in the documents, along with their roles, relation to the event, and related paragraphs:

1. Michael LaPonte

   • Identification: Group Chair
   • Role: National Transportation Safety Board
   • Relation to the Event: Part of the Motor Carrier Factors Group investigating the crash.
   • Extract: "Group Chair Michael LaPonte, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C. 20594".

2. Mark Whalen

   • Identification: Investigator
   • Role: New York State Police
   • Relation to the Event: Member of the Motor Carrier Factors Group and Vehicle Factors Group investigating the crash.
   • Extract: "Group Member Mark Whalen, Investigator, New York State Police, Middletown, New York 10941".

3. Brian Temperine

   • Identification: Division Administrator
   • Role: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
   • Relation to the Event: Member of the Motor Carrier Factors Group investigating the crash.
   • Extract: "Group Member Brian Temperine, Division Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Albany, New York 12207".

4. Doris Eusebio

   • Identification: Field Office Supervisor
   • Role: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
   • Relation to the Event: Member of the Motor Carrier Factors Group investigating the crash.
   • Extract: "Group Member Doris Eusebio, Field Office Supervisor, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, New York, New York 10004".

5. Brian Bragonier

   • Identification: Group Chair
   • Role: National Transportation Safety Board
   • Relation to the Event: Part of the Vehicle Factors Group investigating the crash.
   • Extract: "Group Chair Brian Bragonier, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC".

6. Brian Queiser

   • Identification: Bridgestone Americas, Inc.
   • Role: Member of the Vehicle Factors Group
   • Relation to the Event: Involved in the investigation of the vehicle factors related to the crash.
   • Extract: "Group Member Brian Queiser, Bridgestone Americas, Inc, Akron, OH".

7. John Humm

   • Identification: Survival Factors Investigator
   • Role: National Transportation Safety Board
   • Relation to the Event: Conducted interviews related to the crash.
   • Extract: "My name is John Humm, H-u-m-m, I am a survival factors group chair of the NTSB".

8. Michael Dally

   • Identification: Fire Duty Chief
   • Role: Slate Hill Fire Department
   • Relation to the Event: Involved in the emergency response to the crash.
   • Extract: "My name is Michael Dally. My first name is spelled M-i-c-h-a-e-l, last name Dally, D-a-l-l-y".

9. Andrew Frank

   • Identification: Sergeant
   • Role: Orange County Sheriff's Office
   • Relation to the Event: Involved in the emergency response to the crash.
   • Extract: "My name is Andrew Frank, Frank is F-r-a-n-k".

10. Frank Cassanite

    • Identification: Deputy Commissioner
    • Role: Orange County Emergency Services
    • Relation to the Event: Involved in the emergency response to the crash.
    • Extract: "My name is Frank Cassanite, C-a-s-s-a-n-i-t-e. I'm deputy commissioner of emergency services in Orange County".

11. Regency Transportation LTD

    • Identification: Motor Carrier
    • Role: Operator of the motorcoach involved in the crash.
    • Relation to the Event: The company operating the motorcoach that crashed.
    • Extract: "Regency Transportation LTD (hereafter Regency) is a for hire interstate passenger carrier located in Nesconset, New York".

These individuals and entities were involved in various capacities related to the crash investigation, emergency response, and the operation of the motorcoach.

Here is a list of the attached documents with their titles, dates, and summaries:

1. Title: Wawayanda, NY Motor Carrier Group Chair Factual Report

   • Date: Various dates for attachments, including September 25, 2023, and October 20, 2023.
   • Summary: This report includes details about the motor carrier factors investigation, focusing on Regency Transportation. It covers the maintenance of the accident vehicle, driver qualifications, training, hours of service, drug testing, and medical qualifications. It also examines regulatory oversight by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the State of New York.

2. Title: Vehicle Factors Attachment - Bus Supply Charters CVSA Inspections

   • Date: Inspections dated October 21, 2021, October 20, 2022, and June 7, 2022.
   • Summary: This document contains inspection records for Bus Supply Charters, detailing the CVSA inspections conducted on various dates.

3. Title: Wawayanda, NY Factual Report of Investigation

   • Date: Not specified in the snippet.
   • Summary: This report provides a factual account of the investigation into the crash, including police response times and interviews with various witnesses and officials.

4. Title: Vehicle Factors Attachment - Regency Transportation PM Inspections

   • Date: Not specified in the snippet.
   • Summary: This document includes preventive maintenance inspection records for Regency Transportation.

5. Title: HWY23FH016 Video Summary - Specialist's Factual Report

   • Date: September 25, 2024
   • Summary: This report summarizes video files related to the accident, detailing the contents of the recordings and the investigation process.

6. Title: Vehicle Factors Attachment - Prevost Order Specification Document

   • Date: Not specified in the snippet.
   • Summary: This document includes the order specifications for the Prevost vehicle involved in the crash.

7. Title: Vehicle Factors Attachment - Prevost Data Imaging Report

   • Date: Imaging Date: December 11, 2023
   • Summary: This report contains data imaging information from the Prevost vehicle, including acceleration-triggered events and other vehicle data.

8. Title: Vehicle Factors Attachment - Bridgestone Americas Tire Analysis Report

   • Date: September 12, 2024
   • Summary: This report provides an analysis of the tires involved in the crash, including inspection and service records, and a summary of the tire specifications.

These documents provide detailed insights into various aspects of the investigation, including vehicle inspections, regulatory compliance, and technical analyses.

Here is a list of news articles related to the accident that occurred on September 21, 2023, near Wawayanda, New York:

1. Source: NBC New York

   • Title: "2 Dead, Dozens Injured After Bus Carrying Long Island High School Students Crashes in New York"
   • Summary: A bus carrying students from Farmingdale High School crashed on Interstate 84, resulting in two fatalities and multiple injuries. The bus was part of a caravan heading to a band camp in Pennsylvania. The crash is believed to have been caused by a faulty front tire.
   • Link: NBC New York

2. Source: ABC News

   • Title: "2 adults dead, multiple students injured after bus carrying Long Island high school band crashes"
   • Summary: The crash involved a bus carrying a high school band, resulting in the deaths of two adults and injuries to several students. Emergency responders used ladders and ropes to rescue victims from the ravine where the bus landed.
   • Link: ABC News

3. Source: CBS News

   • Title: "2 dead, multiple injuries in bus crash carrying Farmingdale High School students"
   • Summary: The bus crash on I-84 led to the deaths of two adults and injuries to many students. The incident prompted calls for improved safety measures and emergency response capabilities in the area.
   • Link: CBS News

4. Source: The New York Times

   • Title: "Bus Crash Kills 2 and Injures Dozens of Students on Long Island"
   • Summary: The crash involved a bus carrying students to a band camp, resulting in two fatalities and numerous injuries. The NTSB is investigating the cause, with initial reports suggesting a tire failure.
   • Link: The New York Times

These articles provide detailed coverage of the accident, its aftermath, and the ongoing investigation.