Mahler9th

AHI numbers are in the data. Does PCA look at AHI?

Do CDL examiners look at AHI scores in CPAP data?

https://www.resmed.com/en-us/sleep-a...ex-ahi-change/

peterp

???????????????????


I've already stated several times why one-time data is not an issue at all for PCA liability. There is absolutely zero liability risk to the PCA for the one-time snapshot because liability transfers to the racer if he generated months of data to pass the PCA test (not really that easy to fake) and then stopped using it -- he wont' have any data to show CPAP usage during the time of the racing incident in court.

Non-optimized Rx is never a liability risk to the PCA because there is no practical way to assess this, let alone monitor it. Maybe to the racer, if he was grossly negligent in being being treated, but modern CPAP's are largely self-adjusting anyway.

The only perspective that matters is the legal perspective. The entire legal story is laid out in post #1236 (Post #1236). If you can't find fault with that, and you won't, there is nothing more to discuss.

LuigiVampa

This attitude is reflected in PCA diminishing driver count.

Drivers are customers in addition to members of PCA.

Mahler9th

Drivers do not vote. They have input on rules via a process that is well-documented.

I don't know of any club racing program that establishes rules by driver votes.

Not practical and makes no sense anyway.


"...modern CPAP's are largely self-adjusting anyway."

They are pretty advanced but not completely goof proof. Ask me how I know.


The existence of data for 90 days that shows 4 hours of usage for 70% of days does not ensure optimal rx. The contents of the data can provide this picture. PCA has not stated that they look at the content, as far as I know. If they do,what is it the seek? And average AHI?

Yes racers and candidate racers are customers of the volunteers, including the doctors.



"...pass the PCA test..." There is no "test."



No such thing as "zero liability."

PCA can monitor CPAP rx for each racer that uses CPAP each day. Easy process. But not clinically relevant.

Racers already have to have cameras with memory cards.

LuigiVampa

No right to vote? You need to read the bylaws.

Drivers can also vote with their wallets and this whole mess is not a great advertisement for PCA club racing.

It could have been handled so very differently but PCA's leaders were counseled to tell me to F off. That plan has worked time and time again so they just went to their usual playbook.

This thread is not going to be the end of this dispute.

Mahler9th

I did not know that PCA CR rules had bylaws.

"Drivers can also vote with their wallets and this whole mess is not a great advertisement for PCA club racing."

I don't think its a mess.

I think it is simple.

PCA has decided it wants data... EKG, A1C, CPAP. Under certain circumstances.

I think they should be more clear up front to set better expectations.

I started track driving with PCA at LRP in 1988.

Racing in 1997 or 1998.

Various groups. Driving, racing, instructing.

First PCA CR in 2002.

Helped start PRC in 2002.

Responsible for annual rules for PRC for a really long time.

I have not always agreed with various rules, requirements, and in some cases I have spoken up.

Ultimately the sanctioning body makes their rules, and racers make their choices.

Same for DE/track days.

Even in club situations, these things are not decided by votes of drivers. And I do not think they should be.

By "things," I refer rules like those for PCA CR that are updated each year, and medical requirements. All available for download at any time.

Here I disagree with the "falling asleep" position. Makes no sense clinically or in any other way.

I do not know how PCA/PCA CR assesses risk or makes risk reduction decisions. Up to them.

I believe that the OP was treated poorly and unfairly if his license was revoked because he could not produce data that he did not know would be required for renewal.

If his phone app or HCP(s) had the sufficient data and the OP refused to provide it because he did not believe it to be relevant... that is up to the OP.

Many more recently than when I started in 1988.

I have plenty of examples of PCA reconsidering positions on these types of things-- "backing off" and/or evolving.

And of examples where they have not.

Same for NASA.

In this case, here is what I think should have happened:

PCA:

"Based upon your complete medical history, 3 days is not enough. Since you have disclosed OSA and CPAP, and the other info on your form, we need 90 days showing 4 hours of usage for 70% of those days. Your machine broke and you don't have the data. Based upon your racing history, go on and race under your current license for now, and hit us back when you have the rest of the required data. Then we can renew. We should probably amend our form to state what we need so candidates can know up front."

OP:

"Okay, thanks."

I do not agree with the standard PCA has chosen for CPAP data, but I do not have enough information about their rationale to take a position about risk/liability from PCA viewpoint.

Any and all "personality conflicts" that may have occurred are unfortunate.

I am pretty sure that plenty of PCA CR volunteers have been involved with unhappy racers and racing license candidates.

I was one!

On more than one occasion.

Manifold

When it became personal, and dirty laundry aired with names named, there wasn't much hope for amicable resolution with Luigi getting what he wanted. Public pressure campaign will only work if plaintiff is clearly in the right, defendant is clearly in the wrong, and plaintiff has real leverage.

LuigiVampa

What a ridiculous thing to say. True, PCA CR asks for comments on rule changes (sometimes, but not for topics as important as the 13/13 rule it seems) and does not hold votes. That being said, PCA CR is part of PCA, and members always have the right to call a vote on anything. Maybe a vote to get rid of the medical committee, which never seems to have been voted into existence, but exists nevertheless.

I'd add that I think few, if any at all, have read PCA's bylaws and MNPP cover to cover and made notes the way I have done. I know what it says and I know that PCA is violating its own rules. Not trying to bring politics into this, but this is like when Biden tried to cancel student debt, the Supreme Court said you don't have the power to do that, and the Biden administration said we don't care what the Supreme Court says and keeps trying to cancel debt. PCA is using the same rationalizations and ignoring its own rules to remain obstinate.

Once we make rationalizations to throw out the rules all we have left with is to be governed on the whim of whoever is in power. There are no clear rules requiring a driver to provide CPAP data and PCA's own rules state that rules have to be clear. It's checkmate!

I don't know about anyone else, but when someone says something as ridiculous as "you can fall asleep while driving a racecar" they lose all credibility. How can anyone think a group of people defending a policy based on a DOT truck driving requirement should be in charge of anything?

But again, that is a policy argument, and there is no actual rule requiring this.

RobT 394

Just checked back in on the thread. Some crazy stuff in here.

IMHO Spec Miata has cracked the nut on how to build a class. The drivers appoint representatives to establish the rules and the drivers have significant input via surveys. The rules body consists of Racers, Race Shops and engine builders. This group builds the rules and proposes them to SCCA which has the final say. They take a data driven approach alongside the desires of the class. It also helps that Mazda leans in and supports the class. Would love to see more PMNA involvement.

911Cup is headed this way although I don't want to speak for Jason.

Mahler9th

"...members always have the right to call a vote on anything. Maybe a vote to get rid of the medical committee, which never seems to have been voted into existence, but exists nevertheless."

Some food for thought.

Required process?


"...when someone says something as ridiculous as "you can fall asleep while driving a racecar" they lose all credibility."

Losing credibility this way is NOT good for PCA CR and its racers. Perhaps they can recover.



"...PCA is using the same rationalizations."

Not sure I understand that, or what anything here has to do with gubmint.

PRC established a system which included reps for special classes-- GTL and Spec911. But in general, anyone could provideinput on proposed additions,deletions, changes. I have over a decade worth of information on this process.

Blast from the past:

https://rennlist.com/forums/racing-a...or-2012-a.html

I gave some input to Walter on this-- cannot remember whether it was during the official commentary period or not. My goal was to just give PCA CR a heads up, since it appeared that things had not been carefully considered.

In the end I raced in RR IV under PCA sanction. They never checked my suit. It did not have an SFI patch, but I had documentation from SPARCO that confirmed SFI rating.

Folks here may be shocked to learn that SFI and FIA suit ratings were at one time a recommendation and not a requirement.

LuigiVampa

Over 100k views. Never in my life did I think it would come to this. Ridiculous.

My argument about rationalization is that PCA is doing what it wants regardless of the rules.

At the end of the day PCA will decide whether it wants to keep the existing rules or not. I vacillate from wanting to take this to the end to not really caring. I'm racing Champ next month with some good friends and SVRA Labor Day weekend at the LRP Historic Festival. Plenty of racing to fill my calendar now that I have licenses with IGT, HSR, SVRA, AER and Champ.

I don't have to like a rule to follow it, but if PCA can't even show me the show, never mind explain it, than what is the rule?

PCA leadership has shown its ugly side to the public and I am just tired of it. The track community has taken note.

Mahler9th

The OP has described some issues/opportunities for improvement.

Some with personal experience with similar issues/opportunities for improvement, or whom have learned about issues/opportunities for improvement from others, have described them in this thread.

I think the OP has stated more than once that he has had correspondence with others whom described personal experience with similar issues/opportunities for improvement.

Over the years there have been numerous threads here on RL describing issues/opportunities for improvement.

We started the PRC in part because we wanted to have a slate of all-Porsche races at relatively local tracks. At the time, PCA CR processes/logistics/finances, et cetera, did not provide a great opportunity for us to achieve this under PCA CR sanction. We did not create our own sanctioning body, we cut a deal with NASA. That was 22 years ago.

PCA CR evolved, and I am pretty sure thanks in part to the efforts of at least two PCA/PRC members with energy and enthusiasm, the opportunity to achieve this local slate of all-Porsche races emerged.

During the existence of the PRC we were courted by several business to create a racing program with them. To break from NASA and/or to augment our schedule with races under their "umbrella." One of those businesses was HOD.

We never moved forward on those opportunities.

PCA CR can evolve and do better, and I think they should strive to do so.

I believe that the "people on the inside" of PCA and PCA CR are keenly aware of issues/opportunities for improvement. Some of these are small.

Some, like those described in this thread are not so small.

I also believe that they can address some issues/opportunities for improvement if they have a will to do so.

Name calling and calling for violence are not helpful.

As a 30+ year member of PCA, I hope that folks involved are listening and take appropriate actions in the best interests of PCA.

And by PCA, I mean its members.

Zhao

Probably. One can assume the doctor did their job competently and the driver isn't lying without any evidence to the contrary so plausible deniability. No other racing club operates the way PCA is, and no insurance company used by any other racing organization requires that information or decision making PCA is asking for. Why does PCA want to be different?

This is far from my expertise but if 99/100 guys are doing it one way with sign offs by their own legal advisors and insurance companies, and you're doing it a different way, sounds to me like you're the one creating a lot of risk.

LuigiVampa

PCA's position is "THE WAY WE DO THINGS IS THE CORRECT WAY TO DO THINGS AND HOW DARE YOU SAY OTHERWISE."

I promise you, the way we are doing things is adding risk to PCA.

Manifold

Perhaps, but PCA can do what it wants with respect to increasing their liability risk, and it may be reasonable to do so if the goal is to increase safety. The people in PCA who get to decide how things will be done are the various leaders, not the members (by some sort of vote).