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

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, carrying 40 high school students and four adults, veered off the road due to a tire failure, resulting in two fatalities and multiple injuries .

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 .

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

   • Answer: The collision involved a 2014 Prevost motorcoach .

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

   • Answer: Yes, there were two fatalities and thirteen serious injuries. The two fatalities were adult occupants in the front row who were ejected from the motorcoach.

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

   • Answer: The parties involved included the driver, Lisa Schaffer, 40 high school students, and four adults from the Farmingdale, New York School District. The motorcoach was operated by Regency Transportation LTD .

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

   • Answer: Key stakeholders involved in the investigation include the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), New York State Police, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and Bridgestone Americas, Inc. Additionally, the Orange County Sheriff's Office and Slate Hill Fire Department were involved in the emergency response.

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 motorcoach. The crash was caused by the failure of the motorcoach's left steering axle tire, which led the vehicle to veer off the road, penetrate a roadside barrier, and roll over.

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, which led the vehicle to veer off the road, penetrate a roadside cable barrier, and roll onto its left side in the median.
   • Explanation: The NTSB report indicates that the motorcoach was traveling on Interstate 84 when the left steering axle tire failed, causing the vehicle to lose control and 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. 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 specific mention of traffic law violations such as speeding, running a red light, or reckless driving in the provided excerpts.
   • Explanation: The focus of the report is on the mechanical failure of the tire rather than any traffic law violations by the driver.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not directly available in the provided excerpts.

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

   • Answer: There is no indication of driver impairment due to alcohol, drugs, or medical conditions in the provided excerpts.
   • Explanation: The report does not mention any impairment factors affecting the driver at the time of the crash.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not directly available in the provided excerpts.

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

   • Answer: The driver was observed vaping and holding the steering wheel with only her right hand during part of the inward-facing video, which could be considered a form of distraction.
   • Explanation: The report mentions the driver was vaping prior to the crash, which could have contributed to distracted driving.
   • 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.".

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, and the hours of service were monitored. The driver was not in violation of the hours-of-service regulations at the time of the crash.
   • Explanation: The report indicates that the driver's hours of service were monitored and that there were no violations of these regulations.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "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 lost control of the vehicle due to the tire failure, which led to the vehicle veering off the road.
   • Explanation: The loss of control was attributed to the mechanical failure of the tire rather than driver error.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "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 mention of aggressive driving behaviors such as tailgating, road rage, or weaving in the provided excerpts.
   • Explanation: The report focuses on the mechanical failure and does not indicate any aggressive driving behaviors.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not directly available in the provided excerpts.

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

   • Answer: The report does not mention any citations, violations, or arrests issued to the driver.
   • Explanation: The focus of the investigation appears to be on the mechanical failure rather than legal actions against the driver.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not directly available in the provided excerpts.

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

   • Answer: Yes, the motorcoach was equipped with forward and inward-facing cameras, and electronic logging devices (ELDs) were used to monitor the driver's hours of service.
   • Explanation: The report mentions the presence of cameras and ELDs, which were used to gather information about the crash.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "Each vehicle had a forward and inboard-facing camera.". "The Motive also provides alerts for Hard Braking, Stability events, and speeding over 72 Miles per Hour (MPH).".

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

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, but the road was 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 focuses on the road structure and conditions rather than specific weather details. The highway was described as having a depressed earthen median, which played a role in the vehicle's path after the tire failure.
   • 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 motorcoach's left steering axle tire failed, causing the vehicle to veer from the right lane, cross the left lane and shoulder, and depart the roadway. It 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.
   • Explanation: The sequence of events was initiated by a tire failure, which led to the loss of control and subsequent departure from the roadway, resulting in the vehicle 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 at or near the collision site.
   • Explanation: The focus of the report is on the highway structure and the sequence of events rather than traffic control devices.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not available in the provided excerpts.

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

   • Answer: Yes, the motorcoach lost control after the left steering axle tire failed, causing it to veer off the road and eventually roll over.
   • Explanation: The tire failure led to a loss of control, resulting in the vehicle departing from the roadway and 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".

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.
   • Explanation: The focus of the report is on the crash dynamics and the vehicle's condition rather than the cargo.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not available in the provided excerpts.

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

1. Actions of Each Driver Before the Crash:

   • Answer: The motorcoach driver was not wearing a seatbelt and was observed vaping before the crash. She was holding the steering wheel with only her right hand during part of the inward-facing video.
   • Explanation: The driver was leading a convoy of six motorcoaches and was familiar with the route. She did not notice anything unusual with the vehicle leading up to the crash. The crash occurred after a tire blowout, which caused the steering wheel to be ripped from her hands.
   • 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. Toxicology Reports:

   • Answer: Toxicology reports were conducted, and the results were negative for both drugs and alcohol.
   • Explanation: The driver was subject to post-crash drug and alcohol testing as required by regulations, and all results were negative. Additionally, a voluntary blood sample was obtained by the NYSP, 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. Qualifications and Driving History of Commercial Vehicle Operators:

   • Answer: The driver held a Class “B” New York Commercial Driver’s License with passenger and school bus endorsements. Her driving record was clear with no violations or suspensions.
   • Explanation: The driver had a valid CDL and was compliant with the necessary medical and regulatory requirements. She had been driving for 16 years and had experience with the route.
   • 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".

4. Driver Fatigue and Hours of Service (HOS) Logs:

   • Answer: The driver was not in violation of the hours-of-service regulations at the time of the crash.
   • Explanation: The investigation included a review of the driver's hours of service, and it was determined that she was compliant with the regulations. The inward-facing camera confirmed she was not wearing a seatbelt.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "At the time of the crash the driver was not in violation of the hours-of-service regulations".

5. Use of Seat Belts, Airbags, and Other Safety Devices:

   • Answer: The motorcoach was equipped with seatbelts for all passengers and the driver, but the driver was not wearing her seatbelt at the time of the crash.
   • Explanation: The driver consistently did not wear the shoulder portion of the seatbelt due to discomfort. The investigation confirmed that the driver was not wearing a seatbelt during the crash.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "The 2014 Prevost Motorcoach was equipped with seatbelts for all passengers and the driver. New York State vehicle and traffic law required only the driver to wear a seatbelt".

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

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 documents reveal that there were several warranty claims and recalls related to the vehicles involved. For instance, there were issues with the engine software, gateway module, and other components that required replacement or updates.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • "4/29/2014 Warranty Engine software updated".
     • "8/12/2014 Warranty Gateway module replaced".

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

   • Answer: Yes, a safety-critical system failed.
   • Explanation: The left steering axle tire of the motorcoach failed, 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).
   • Explanation: The motorcoach had a Prevost electronic stability program (ESP) designed to help mitigate rollover and loss-of-control situations. However, no other advanced driver assistance systems were installed.
   • 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, ELDs and vehicle data recorders were analyzed.
   • Explanation: The motorcoach was equipped with several systems capable of recording event data, including the engine control module (ECM) and ABS controller. These components were analyzed for data related to the crash.
   • 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.
   • Explanation: The documents mention several recalls and warranty claims related to manufacturer defects, such as issues with fire extinguishers and alternator belts.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • "The fire extinguishers may become clogged or require excessive force to activate".
     • "Prevost will change the defective belts for polyester belts".

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

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 documents indicate that there were several recalls for the Prevost vehicles, including issues with fire extinguishers and alternator belts. These recalls were related to safety risks such as potential fire hazards and mechanical failures.
   • 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".

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

   • Answer: Yes, a tire failure led to the collision.
   • 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.
   • 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 documents mention several warranty claims and recalls related to mechanical components such as the alternator and fire extinguishers, indicating potential mechanical malfunctions.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • "Prevost will change the defective belts for polyester belts. A safety recall will be launched to inform customers about the defect".

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 was no mention of advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) or airbags in the documents.
   • 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, data from event data recorders (EDR) were analyzed.
   • Explanation: The motorcoach was equipped with systems capable of recording event data, which were 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".

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

   • Answer: There is no specific mention of cargo shifts or overloading contributing to the accident.
   • Explanation: The documents do not provide evidence that cargo shifts or overloading were factors in the crash.
   • Extracted Paragraphs:
     • The documents focus on the tire failure and do not mention cargo issues.

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

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 roadway itself, including the cable barriers, was inspected and found to be in standard condition. The cable barriers are designed to engage vehicles, but due to the size of the motorcoach, they were not as effective.
   • 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: There were no known issues or prior incidents at this location mentioned in the documents.
   • Explanation: The documents do not provide any information about previous incidents or known issues at the crash site on Interstate 84 near Wawayanda, New York.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: The documents reviewed do not mention any prior incidents or issues at the location.

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

   • Answer: There is no mention of a highway construction zone at the crash site.
   • Explanation: The documents do not indicate that the crash occurred in or near a construction zone. The crash site was described as a standard section of Interstate 84.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: The documents reviewed do not mention any construction zones at the location.

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 caravan captured the crash sequence.
   • Explanation: The motorcoach involved in the crash, as well as another vehicle in the caravan, were equipped with forward and inward-facing cameras. These cameras recorded the crash sequence, and the footage was 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".

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

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

   • Answer: No specific road hazards, construction zones, or missing traffic signs were mentioned as contributing factors.
   • Explanation: The investigation focused on the failure of the motorcoach's left steering axle tire, which caused the vehicle to veer off the road. There was no mention of external road conditions such as construction zones or missing signs contributing 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."

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

   • Answer: No, poor weather conditions did not play a role in the collision.
   • Explanation: The report does not mention any adverse weather conditions affecting the crash. The focus was on the mechanical failure of the tire.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: The document does not specifically mention weather conditions affecting the crash, indicating that it was not a factor.

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

   • Answer: There is no indication that the road surface was damaged, slippery, or improperly maintained.
   • Explanation: The investigation did not highlight any issues with the road surface that contributed to the crash. The primary cause was identified as the tire failure.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: The report does not mention road surface conditions as a factor, focusing instead on the tire failure and vehicle dynamics.

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

   • Answer: There is no mention of malfunctioning or missing traffic signals, streetlights, or signage.
   • Explanation: The investigation did not identify any issues with traffic control devices that contributed to the crash.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: The report does not discuss traffic signals or signage issues, indicating they were not factors in the crash.

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

   • Answer: The documents do not mention previous accidents at this location indicating a design flaw.
   • Explanation: The focus of the investigation was on the specific incident and the mechanical failure of the vehicle, without reference to historical accident data at the location.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: The report does not provide information on previous accidents at the location, suggesting that it was not considered a factor in this investigation.

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

   • Answer: 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 seatbelt usage and drug testing procedures.
   • 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: There is no specific mention of any vehicle exceeding weight or cargo limits in the available documents.
   • Explanation: The documents reviewed do not provide information regarding weight or cargo limits being exceeded. The focus was more on compliance with safety regulations and vehicle maintenance.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not applicable as there is no direct information on weight or cargo limits.

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

   • Answer: The commercial vehicles had some compliance issues with FMCSA regulations.
   • Explanation: The FMCSA compliance review found several violations, including failure to ensure proper seatbelt use and issues with drug and alcohol testing procedures.
   • 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 drivers had valid licenses, endorsements, and medical certifications.
   • Explanation: The driver involved in the crash held a valid Class “B” New York Commercial Driver’s License with passenger and school bus endorsements, and had 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 any citations or violations issued at the scene by law enforcement.
   • Explanation: The focus of the documents is on the compliance review and the findings post-crash, rather than immediate actions taken by law enforcement at the scene.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not applicable as there is no direct information on citations or violations issued at the scene.

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

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

   • V01 (Driver): 59 years old, serious injuries including laceration, fractures, and abrasions. The injuries required a hospital stay greater than 48 hours.
   • V02: 77 years old, fatal injuries including skull fracture and multiple rib fractures.
   • V03: 43 years old, fatal injuries including basilar skull fracture and multiple other fractures.
   • V12: 13 years old, minor injuries including edema.
   • V43: 14 years old, serious injuries including hematoma, liver laceration, and fractures.
   • V04: 47 years old, serious injuries including multiple fractures and contusions.
   • V14: 14 years old, minor injuries including lacerations and abrasions.
   • V42: 14 years old, minor injuries including contusion and abrasion.
   • V21: 16 years old, serious injuries including fractures.
   • V40: 14 years old, minor injuries including degloving wound and hematoma.
   • V39: 14 years old, minor injuries including contusions.
   • V37: 14 years old, minor injuries including lung contusion.
   • V23: 14 years old, minor injuries including nasal bone fracture.
   • V06: 14 years old, minor injuries including lacerations and concussion.
   • V41: 14 years old, serious injuries including hemorrhage and fractures.
   • V22: 14 years old, minor injuries including fracture and laceration.
   • V44: 14 years old, minor injuries including loss of consciousness and laceration.
   • V31: 13 years old, minor injuries including concussion.
   • V38: 14 years old, no injuries.
   • V32: 14 years old, minor injuries including lacerations.
   • V28: 14 years old, minor injuries including laceration.
   • V15: 14 years old, minor injuries including loss of consciousness.
   • V34: 15 years old, minor injuries including loss of consciousness.
   • V13: 14 years old, minor injuries including lacerations.
   • V33: 13 years old, minor injuries including laceration.
   • V25: 15 years old, minor injuries including abrasion.
   • V10: 14 years old, minor injuries including contusion.
   • V26: 14 years old, serious injuries including fracture.
   • V09: 13 years old, minor injuries including lacerations and concussion.
   • V07: 14 years old, serious injuries including multiple fractures.
   • V08: 17 years old, minor injuries including laceration and concussion.
   • V11: 14 years old, minor injuries including laceration and abrasion.
   • V20: 14 years old, minor injuries including lacerations and abrasions.
   • V27: 14 years old, serious injuries including fractures.
   • V24: 14 years old, serious injuries including fractures and lacerations.
   • V36: 14 years old, minor injuries including laceration.
   • V17: 14 years old, serious injuries including fractures.
   • V29: 14 years old, minor injuries including laceration.
   • V16: 13 years old, minor injuries including lacerations and abrasions.
   • V05: 14 years old, serious injuries including fractures.
   • V30: 14 years old, minor injuries including abrasion and edema.
   • V18: 14 years old, serious injuries including fracture.
   • V19: 14 years old, serious injuries including fracture and lacerations.
   • V35: 14 years 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 hemorrhages. Fatal injuries were sustained by V02 and V03.

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 for each victim is not explicitly stated, but the severity of injuries and required treatments suggest varying recovery times.

3. Was emergency medical response timely and adequate?

   The emergency medical response was described as quick and efficient. EMS arrived promptly, and victims were transported to hospitals for treatment.

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 serious nature of some injuries, such as fractures and hemorrhages, suggests the possibility of long-term effects.

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

   The report does not provide specific information 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 information regarding the insurance policies in place for all 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 a for-hire interstate passenger carrier, which implies they would carry commercial insurance as required by regulations.
   • Explanation: As a for-hire passenger carrier, Regency Transportation is required to meet minimum levels of insurance under federal regulations.
   • 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 documents do not specify the policy limits for the insurance companies involved in this case.
   • Explanation: There is no information available in the documents regarding the policy limits of the insurance companies.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not available.

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

   • Answer: The documents do not mention any attempts by insurance companies to settle or any settlement amounts.
   • Explanation: There is no information available in the documents regarding settlement attempts or amounts by insurance companies.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not available.

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

   • Answer: The documents do not provide information about any wrongful death claims filed or the beneficiaries.
   • Explanation: The search did not yield any details about wrongful death claims or beneficiaries.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not available.

The documents provided do not contain detailed information on insurance policies, settlements, or wrongful death claims related to the incident. Further investigation or access to additional documents may be necessary to obtain this information.

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

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 Paragraph: "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 form of safety training.
   • Explanation: Regency Transportation conducted annual safety meetings and had a system in place for monitoring driver actions through camera systems. They also followed New York Article 19-A requirements.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "Regency did conduct annual safety meetings in addition to the requirements to follow New York Article 19-A".

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 49 CFR Part 392.16. However, there was no violation of hours-of-service regulations.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "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".

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 clean driving record and met the qualification standards set by Regency. The driver’s qualification file met the requirements under 49 CFR Part 391.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "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".

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 vehicle had been maintained by previous owners and had undergone inspections by the New York DOT. The tires were leased from Bridgestone, indicating third-party involvement in maintenance.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "The carrier had installed new front tires on the motorcoach on June 29, 2022... The tires were leased from Bridgestone".

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 motorcoach involved in the crash.
   • Explanation: The motorcoach involved in the crash was equipped with forward and inward-facing cameras. These cameras recorded the crash sequence, showing that the driver was not wearing her seatbelt and was observed 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 provided a statement.
   • Explanation: The first witness on the scene did not see the crash happen but arrived shortly after. The witness observed the aftermath, including injured children and chaos, and called 911 to report the accident.
   • 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".

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

   • Answer: Yes, an accident reconstruction expert was involved.
   • Explanation: The investigation included a group member from the New York State Police Collision Reconstruction Unit.
   • 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 skid marks and vehicle damage.
   • Explanation: The crash report details the vehicle's departure from the highway, the path it took, and the evidence of marks and scrapes on the roadway. The motorcoach penetrated a roadside cable barrier and rolled onto its side.
   • 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".

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 reported the accident. The call was part of the evidence reviewed during 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".

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

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

   • Answer: Potential defendants could include the driver of the motorcoach, the vehicle owner (Regency Transportation), and possibly the government entities responsible for road maintenance and safety.
   • Explanation: The driver was involved in the crash and was not wearing a seatbelt, which is a violation of regulations. Regency Transportation, as the employer and owner of the vehicle, could be liable for not enforcing safety policies. Government entities might be considered if road conditions contributed to the crash.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "The driver of the 2014 Prevost motorcoach was a 59-year-old female... The driver was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash". "Regency did not have a written safety policy on the safe operation of commercial motor vehicles".

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

   • Answer: The documents do not provide specific details on state laws regarding comparative negligence.
   • Explanation: Comparative negligence laws vary by state and determine how liability is apportioned when multiple parties are at fault. In New York, for example, a plaintiff's recovery can be reduced by their percentage of fault.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not available in the documents.

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

   • Answer: The documents do not explicitly mention punitive damages.
   • Explanation: Punitive damages are typically awarded in cases of gross negligence or reckless behavior. The driver's failure to wear a seatbelt and the lack of a safety policy by Regency could be considered reckless.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "The driver was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash". "Regency did not have a written safety policy on the safe operation of commercial motor vehicles".

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

   • Answer: The documents do not provide specific NTSB recommendations.
   • Explanation: NTSB recommendations often focus on improving safety standards, which could support a negligence claim if the recommendations were not followed.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not available in the 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.
   • Explanation: Past settlements or verdicts can provide a benchmark for potential compensation in similar cases.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not available in the documents.

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

   • Answer: The documents do not provide a detailed estimate of damages.
   • Explanation: Economic damages would include medical bills and lost wages, while non-economic damages cover pain and suffering. The severity of injuries and fatalities would significantly impact these estimates.
   • 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".

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

   • Answer: A class action lawsuit could be appropriate given the number of victims.
   • Explanation: Class action suits are suitable when multiple individuals are affected by the same incident, allowing them to consolidate their claims.
   • Extracted Paragraphs: "The motorcoach, operated by Regency Transportation LTD, was transporting 40 high school students and four adults".

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

   • Answer: Emergency responders arrived quickly, with the first fire rescue unit dispatched at 1:15 p.m. and en route approximately one minute later. The first police units were on the scene by 1:20 p.m. The responders set up a unified command structure with EMS and police, established 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 stabilizing the scene, assisting injured individuals, and ensuring no one was trapped in the vehicle.

   • 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 the most critical patients to a level one trauma center. Approximately 25 ambulances were on the scene to transport other victims to local hospitals.

   • Explanation: The use of helicopters and a large number of ambulances ensured that all injured individuals received timely medical attention. The EMS coordinated with local hospitals to manage patient allocation effectively.

   • 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".
     • "The EMS IC coordinated with four OC hospitals... Twenty-five ambulances, a mix of basic life support (BLS) and advanced life support (ALS), were on the scene to transport the victims to the OC hospitals".

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.

   • Explanation: The focus of the emergency response was on medical evacuation and stabilization of the crash site. There is no indication in the extracted documents that fire suppression or hazmat containment was necessary.

   • Extracted Paragraphs: Not applicable as there was no specific mention of fire suppression or hazmat containment.

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

   • Answer: Yes, post-crash inspections were conducted. The responders completed primary and secondary searches of the entire median to ensure no victims were missed. They also stabilized the bus and conducted searches to ensure no one was pinned underneath.

   • Explanation: The inspections were thorough, involving both fire and police departments, to ensure all victims were accounted for and to assess the crash site for any further risks.

   • Extracted Paragraphs:

     • "We had guys searching the bus, and then removing occupants up the hill. Then, we completed primary and secondary searches, both with fire and PD, of the entire median".
     • "We need to stabilize the bus, again. Then, if we have -- we’ve got to conduct searches, and we have to extricate all the people -- by extricate, I mean really remove from the ravine".

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 on Interstate 84 when the left steering axle tire failed, causing the vehicle to veer off the road, penetrate a roadside cable barrier, and roll over in the 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. 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 overdeflection of the tire.
   • Explanation: The driver was not wearing a seatbelt, which is a violation of regulations, and the tire failure was exacerbated by overdeflection, which could have been due to improper maintenance or other factors.
   • 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, operating a commercial motor vehicle without being properly restrained by a seat-belt assembly, was documented in the post-crash compliance review conducted by FMCSA."
     • "The cause of the tread/belt detachment of the subject tire was an overdeflected operation that was exacerbated by impact damage during use."

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 extracted text.
   • Explanation: The documents provided do not include the specific safety recommendations issued by the NTSB. Typically, such recommendations would be aimed at preventing similar incidents in the future, focusing on vehicle maintenance, driver safety practices, and regulatory compliance.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "All aspects of the crash remain under investigation while the NTSB determines the probable cause with the intent of issuing safety recommendations to prevent similar events."

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

   • Answer: Yes, there was a suggestion for regulatory changes regarding seatbelt use.
   • Explanation: Following the crash, there was a legislative move in New York to require occupants of charter buses to use seatbelts on school trips.
   • Extracted Paragraph: "Since the crash, the State of New York has passed a bill that would require occupants of charter buses to use seatbelts on a school trips. NY State Assembly Bill 2023-A8557 (nysenate.gov)"

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

1. Date: September 15, 2023

   • What Happened: The driver was on duty and driving for 3:43 hours.
   • Analysis: The driver was within the legal hours of service.
   • Extract: "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 continued to comply with hours of service regulations.
   • Extract: "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 maintained compliance with hours of service regulations.
   • Extract: "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 had a rest day.
   • Extract: "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: Another rest day for the driver.
   • Extract: "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 was involved in a crash while transporting students.
   • Extract: "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.
   • Extract: "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 trip was scheduled to return.
   • Analysis: The trip was planned to be a round trip from September 21 to September 24.
   • Extract: "The trip was from Thursday, September 21, 2023, and returning on Sunday, September 24, 2023.".

9. Date: September 25-28, 2023

   • What Happened: The motorcoach was inspected.
   • Analysis: A detailed inspection was conducted post-crash.
   • Extract: "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: Imaging was done to analyze the crash data.
    • Extract: "Imaging Date and Time (Coordinated Universal Time): Monday December 11 2023 16:13:55".

These events are listed in chronological order, providing a timeline of the key occurrences related to the crash investigation.

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

   • Role: Group Chair
   • Relation to the Event: National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C.
   • Extract: "Group Chair Michael LaPonte, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C. 20594".

2. Mark Whalen

   • Role: Investigator
   • Relation to the Event: New York State Police, Middletown, New York
   • Extract: "Group Member Mark Whalen, Investigator, New York State Police, Middletown, New York 10941".

3. Brian Temperine

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

4. Doris Eusebio

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

5. Brian Bragonier

   • Role: Group Chair
   • Relation to the Event: National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC
   • Extract: "Group Chair Brian Bragonier, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC".

6. Brian Queiser

   • Role: Group Member
   • Relation to the Event: Bridgestone Americas, Inc, Akron, OH
   • Extract: "Group Member Brian Queiser, Bridgestone Americas, Inc, Akron, OH".

7. Frank Cassanite

   • Role: Deputy Commissioner
   • Relation to the Event: Orange County Emergency Services
   • Extract: "Interview of Frank Cassanite: By Mr. Humm... Deputy Commissioner Frank Cassanite of the Orange County Emergency Services".

8. Michael Dally

   • Role: Fire Duty Chief
   • Relation to the Event: Slate Hill Fire Department
   • Extract: "Interview of Michael Dally: By Mr. Humm... Chief Michael Dally of the Slate Hill Fire Department".

9. Andrew Frank

   • Role: Sergeant
   • Relation to the Event: Orange County Sheriff's Office
   • Extract: "Interview of Andrew Frank: By Mr. Humm... Sergeant Andrew Frank of the Orange County Sheriff's Office".

10. Regency Transportation LTD

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

11. Motorcoach Driver

    • Role: Driver
    • Relation to the Event: Driver of the motorcoach involved in the crash
    • Extract: "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)".

These individuals and entities were involved in various capacities related to the motorcoach crash investigation in Wawayanda, New York.

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 21, 2023, and October 20, 2023.
   • Summary: This report includes details about the motor carrier factors investigation, including crash summary, motor carrier information, driver qualifications, and safety policies. It also lists various attachments related to inspections and compliance.

2. Title: Wawayanda, NY Factual Report of Investigation

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

3. 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 includes inspection reports for Bus Supply Charters, detailing the results of CVSA inspections.

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

   • Date: September 25, 2024
   • Summary: The report summarizes video files related to a crash investigation, detailing the contents of the recordings and the circumstances of the accident.

5. Title: Dockets

   • Date: Creation Date: September 11, 2024; Last Modified: September 25, 2024
   • Summary: This document contains a summary of a highway investigation docket, listing various reports and attachments related to the investigation.

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

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

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

   • Date: Imaging Date: December 11, 2023
   • Summary: The report provides data imaging results from a Prevost vehicle, detailing acceleration and deceleration events.

8. Title: Vehicle Factors Attachment - Prevost Warranty Claims

   • Date: Submission Date: April 6, 2016
   • Summary: This document includes warranty claims and safety recall reports for Prevost vehicles, detailing issues and remedies.

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

   • Date: Not specified in the snippet.
   • Summary: The report analyzes tire specifications and service records for a motorcoach, detailing tire types and maintenance actions.

10. Title: Motor Carrier Attachment - Motive Activity Detail

    • Date: September 26, 2023
    • Summary: This document provides details of motive activities related to a motor carrier.

These documents are part of a larger investigation into a highway incident, with various attachments providing detailed insights into vehicle factors, motor carrier operations, and the circumstances surrounding the crash.

Here is a list of news articles related to the bus accident in Wawayanda, NY on September 21, 2023:

1. Source: The New York Times

   • Date: September 21, 2023
   • Title: "Two Dead in Bus Crash on I-84 in New York"
   • Summary: A charter bus carrying high school students to a band camp crashed on Interstate 84, resulting in two fatalities and multiple injuries. The accident involved a 2014 Prevost motorcoach that veered off the highway, crossed a cable barrier, and rolled down a ravine.
   • Link: Read more

2. Source: CNN

   • Date: September 21, 2023
   • Title: "Fatal Bus Crash in New York Leaves Two Dead, Dozens Injured"
   • Summary: The crash involved a bus carrying students and adults from Farmingdale High School. Two adults were killed, and several others were critically injured. The NTSB is investigating the incident, with a faulty tire suspected as a contributing factor.
   • Link: Read more

3. Source: NBC News

   • Date: September 21, 2023
   • Title: "New York Bus Crash Kills Two, Injures Dozens"
   • Summary: The accident occurred on I-84 near Wawayanda, involving a bus en route to a band camp. Emergency responders faced challenges reaching the site, prompting calls for improved access roads.
   • Link: Read more

4. Source: ABC News

   • Date: September 21, 2023
   • Title: "Tragic Bus Accident in New York: Two Dead, Many Injured"
   • Summary: The crash resulted in the deaths of a band director and a retired teacher. Over 40 people were hospitalized. The state has since expedited the construction of an emergency access road to improve response times.
   • Link: Read more

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