Mahler9th

"The decision may not be analog, but the benefit is. How could anyone ever argue in court that they were made unsafe by the use of a HANS device, etc."

Easy. Car caught fire. Driver injured. Could not get out as easily due to head and neck restraint.


"When PCA medical renders a decision on who is fit to drive they open themselves up to liability."

Yes. PCA and maybe the doctors. Are they indemnified by PCA?

But is risk greater if they don't?

Not all "car clubs" are the same.

CCA is owned by BMW AG.

SCCA is different.

NASA is different too.

PRC had its own run group under NASA sanction. We even had our own rules, stewards and adjudication processes. Why did NASA risk management allow that?

PCA has risk management variables that are not known to me.


Not all risk management/liability issues are the same.

Consumer product like a ladder is different from a CAT scanner... and so on. Did you know that a tongue depressor is a regulated medical device?



"If PCA spoke like that from the start, or at any point thereafter, we wouldn't be in this situation."

Yes and I think they should have thanked you and worked toward providing better customer service by considering changes to the form/instructions.

Seems that they might strive to have a system in place for the situation I described. OP had a track record/history, OSA diagnosis was NOT new, nor was CPAP therapy.

If docs involved with CDL can grant license after just a week for a new CPAP user (id est, just a week of data) ... why would PCA feel that in ALL circumstances they must have 90 days?

Is it in fact the case that PCA always insist on 90 days?



Doesn't matter whether you are or were a "top racer."

They have records for folks that have had incidents.


"I offered to provide whatever CPAP data PCA required if PCA would just pledge to put this "requirement" to a vote."

In my opinion, members/racers should NOT be "voting" on such things.



But again:

PCA can be more clear.

EKG... should I provide or MUST I provide? What kind of EKG? Can I submit data from my Apple watch? Or from one of those $100 FDA-cleared gadgets I can buy for less than $100 on Amazon (the inventors of which are in my network)?

CPAP data... since they (may?) want 90 days, proactive communication may be helpful and reduce anxiety, back-and-forth comms and stress for candidate racers and volunteer PCA administrators.

If the OP had know this would be required, would he have just waited to submit for a renewal until data from new machine(s) was available?




Lack of disclosure reminds me of double secret probation. Otter did not like this. Nor did Bluto. It wasn't fair or right.

Now we have a fatality of a frat member at the school on which that movie was based (at least in part).

I may have met that young man.

Nowanker

Or lawyers!

Mahler9th

"Liability is why a ladder costs $150 when that same ladder should cost only $75."

Not sure that is accurate... but I have not worked in consumer space.

Interestingly, I met a former CEO of Stanley tools... BIL of one of my best friends. Last saw him at my friend's memorial service. Same day I met the US deputy national security advisor.

This CEO went into the baby/child car seat business-- big company. Huge. Large market share.

I bet he knows a thing or two about consumer product liability.

My friend had a federal building named after him after an act of congress. I still miss him.

Mahler9th

"Or lawyers!"

Dick the Butcher from Henry VI.

https://lithub.com/what-did-shakespe...l-the-lawyers/

Mahler9th

Risk management....

NASA is a business:

https://nasaspeed.news/columns/nasa-...cess-for-2023/

ProCoach

NASA form says:

Note: some drivers will still need to visit a doctor for an evaluation.

Also, in the Q&A in the link, it states all drivers 55 and older need an exam.

LuigiVampa

Most other car clubs have a tiered system for how often you need a physical based on age. The older you are the more frequent the requirement, which makes sense.

Not much about how PCA treats a driver's medical fitness makes sense.

Mahler9th

There are likely different risk considerations in place for various sanctioning bodies and car clubs.

There is a difference between the two.

And not all car clubs have racing.

Some existing and prospective NASA racers that no longer need PE's for licensure are likely concerned that they may be out there in their sessions and races with others that "should" have required exams.

And all of this is self-reported.

It is complex-- humans are involved.

And likely "algorithms" as well.

In any case, in my opinion, 90 days worth of data is a long time period, and it might be best to let candidates know up front.

And to have process(es) that account for things like broken CPAP machines.

By the way, one CPAP company used to have cell phone tech built into their machines so that an HCP could automatically get data. And some, perhaps all modern machines store data on memory cards.

What would happen if a candidate's 7 year old took the card out, and the candidate assumed she would have the required data, only to find out she did not have 90 days worth of recent data when she submitted for a renewal? Let's say she provided the required data for X renewals prior to that and was granted license, and had a clean driving record. What then?

Again, if in the trucking/CDL space, an examiner can grant license based on a week of data, is it possible for PCA to do so under some circumstances? Would they? If not, why not?

Manifold

^ Solution is to just have people attest that they're using their CPAP machine.

If someone has severe OSA which requires treatment like CPAP, can't we assume that they'll use the CPAP so that they don't feel bad, else they'll feel bad and won't try to drive on track? And if someone doesn't feel too bad if they don't use their CPAP, can't we assume that they're OSA isn't too severe and unlikely to have much effect on their ability to drive on track even if they don't use the CPAP? In other words, in the real world, is there really a scenario where someone really needs to use their CPAP in order to not be impaired, but they choose not to use it and still try to drive on track impaired?

Years ago, I was sleeping poorly and would wake up mornings feeling crushingly tired. I was pretty sure I had OSA and was hopefully that I'd feel rested after treating the OSA. Did a sleep study and it indicated that I didn't have OSA. Not sure how reliable the sleep study was, since I felt I had hardly slept that night, but the techs and sleep doctor claimed they had enough data to conclude that I didn't have OSA. The sleep doctor couldn't explain what was going on with me, and didn't offer any treatment. I didn't try to drive on track when I had that problem, that was the last thing I wanted to do. Gradually, the problem got better.

I accept the right of PCA to request additional information, but since they're evaluating each racer on a case by case basis, they should work with the racer with the goal of granting or renewing their license, not making things hard for them just because they can.

Mahler9th

"Solution is to just have people attest that they're using their CPAP machine."

Is that best from a PCA risk management perspective? If so, how do you know?


"...in the real world, is there really a scenario where someone really needs to use their CPAP in order to not be impaired, but they choose not to use it and still try to drive on track impaired?"

Yes there is, depending on the definition of "impaired."

I am sure this happens frequently. CPAP rx compliance is not as high as one would hope.

But again, the relationships between non-/poor compliance/management and human performance in racing...



"...but the techs and sleep doctor claimed they had enough data to conclude that I didn't have OSA."

Like I stated previously, the real world is not so simple, and sleep study sensitivity and specificity might be considered poor compared to other dx methods with which lay people are familiar.

In my experience, this can be critical.

9114609048

Should be...The unhealthier you are, the more frequent the requirement for a physical. That makes more sense.

Mahler9th

PCA form:

"Please attach a current HgbA1c..."

Is this required or optional? Should "please" be replaced with "you must?"

What is the definition of "current?"

Can one submit a result from a CLIA-waived A1C at home test? Or must the data be from a CLIA-compliant lab?

peterp

The HANS device has plusses and minuses safety-wise. CPAP usage is always a positive, and it's always an "apples vs apples" case. In fact, it's the same exact apple. It's the driver with CPAP, versus the exact same driver without CPAP. The former will always be safer. Could the same driver without CPAP be safe enough for given race? Maybe, but why have any driver be less safe than they could be, when it's 100% preventable? The only part of your argument that is valid is that if they never asked about OSA, they wouldn't have the liability risk. That's true, but (as I've said many times) the horse is a million miles out of the barn for this year. The situation this year is done and cannot be changed (because it would open massive liability risk to the PCA to give anyone an exception). PCA has a uniform ruling this year that they require data (your assertion that they don't have a rule is incorrect). The unambiguous reality is that if they gave a driver an exception while that rule is in place (which it is this year), and there was an incident, they would lose a lawsuit because they did not prevent what would have 100% been prevented simply by following their own ruling. The one-time data snapshot is NOT an issue either -- liability risk unambiguously transfers from the PCA to the driver if he he doesn't have data after the snapshot was taken.

The only perspective that matters is the legal perspective, and post number (Post #1236) is the end of the story on that. If you can't find anything wrong with post #1236 from a legal perspective -- and you won't -- then you have nothing to go on.

It is just not true that they are taking on more liability for this specific case. It could be true for HANS where there is a potential downside, not for CPAP, where there is no downside. The last full paragraph of post #1236 (Post #1236) clearly explains why requiring CPAP data unambiguously reduces PCA's liability risk.

Why on Earth would the PCA do this???? Why would they put a medical decision up to a vote among drivers -- random people -- when the vast majority know nothing about the subject? Driver vote for track or racing rules? Absolutely -- they have the knowledge to have a meaningful vote. Having drivers vote on complex medical questions? It's the worst idea I can think of. I know you are all so smug that CPAP doesn't matter, but I guarantee you that your "adrenaline beats Hypoxemia" argument would be so thoroughly obliterated in court that it would do very well financially as a pay-per-view event .

How long is this discussion going to go on??? It's done. Post #1236 is the end of the story. It's trivially easy to race this year, do that. If you really want to change the policy, the only option is to lobby for for next year. The more the invalid and baseless arguments go on, the less chance you have to make changes for next year. Honestly, you seem far more interested in the battle than the solution.

Mahler9th

"If there was an accident that was determined to be the direct result of a member not wearing CPAP,..."

This is impossible.

You don't "wear CPAP."

What PCA requested/required does NOT in any way ensure ongoing CPAP rx, nor ongoing optimized rx for OSA for a given candidate/racer.

It cannot ensure any type of safety.

Just pure nonsense.

Mahler9th

More nonsense:

"Driver vote for track or racing rules? Absolutely -- they have the knowledge to have a meaningful vote."