NASAs H&NR rule

Jim, of COURSE they "thought this one out"....and of course it was decided by risk management.

Thats the point. They are taking the path that they perceive to be safest....for the organization. And, by their admission, they are following the herd

(and yes, I expect to hear the arguement that "for the organization" is for the racers, because if there is no organization, there is no racing, but NASA is a profit driven organization, so the motives aren't so clear)

What many are saying is that the bottom line to many racers is a huge expense, just to take a big step backwards in real safety.

And when we talk about what will REALLY happen in court, it gets all cloudy.

I, for one, don't think that, if required, you'd find many risk management types who would risk their salaries on their prediction of what might happen in certain court room scenarios...the "legal bet"

.....but we are being told we must spend our salaries ....when we know we're less likely to win the safety bet.
 
Ask Jerry to get you a copy of the sanctioning body version of the SFI licensing agreement, that NASA signed onto when it became a member. Read it critically, asking yourself what each clause attempts to accomplish. (It wouldn't hurt my feelings to be able to see it but I'll bet you a nice dinner in Danville that SFI will be VERY reluctant to make it public. Ask yourself what that means, too.

And ask if NASA's "risk management people" got to review all of the licensing agreements - including the manufacturers' version - before endorsing the idea.

K
 
Ask Jerry to get you a copy of the sanctioning body version of the SFI licensing agreement, that NASA signed onto when it became a member. Read it critically, asking yourself what each clause attempts to accomplish. (It wouldn't hurt my feelings to be able to see it but I'll bet you a nice dinner in Danville that SFI will be VERY reluctant to make it public. Ask yourself what that means, too.

And ask if NASA's "risk management people" got to review all of the licensing agreements - including the manufacturers' version - before endorsing the idea.

K
[/b]
Click to expand...

And you do the same with SCCA. Then we'll compare notes.

P.S. Where in Danville can you get a nice dinner. :114: :023:
 
Does anyone really believe that NASA did this without consulting their "risk management" people. You may not like what they have come up with but I think they thought this out.[/b]
Click to expand...

Nahh, thinking it out implies full understanding of the ramifications of all actions (remember the Law of Unintended Consequences). My guess is that NASA painted themselves into a corner. They were thinking they could continue to impose rule upon rule on their Customers (it worked with all the rest -- why not this?). They had, after all, given fair warning in the past that this is what they would do. After publicly stating such, they were stuck. Can't back down now.

They have built a pretty solid bedrock of "NASA does no wrong" adherents. And, along the way, found effective ways to marginalize their critics. And they have implemented quite a few restrictions that have been accepted by most of their participation base (spec tires, right side nets, seat bolsters, 2 year window nets, 2 year belts, lats minute rules changes, lax rule enforcement, lack of adequate "due process"). And while most of their participants will probably embrace this new rule (and the others to follow) a few will grumble and complain and look for alternatives.

What's interesting is that the NASA business model is totally non-dependent on racers for sustainability (at least that seems to me to be a very obvious conclusion). Yet their primary customer base is least well served by their adoption of safety standards. At the very least one would expect that NASA will have to, at some point, require all HPDE and TT participants to wear some sort of H&NR system that is independent of racing shoulder harnesses.

It would be interesting to know who they use as their "in house" counsel and what other role that person (or firm) may play. You often find risk mitigation activities are managed solely by the legal staff, and I don't think NASA has much in the way of "technical" staff. I would hazard a guess that risk management is delegated exclusively to their liability underwriters.
 
It would be interesting to know who they use as their "in house" counsel and what other role that person (or firm) may play. You often find risk mitigation activities are managed solely by the legal staff, and I don't think NASA has much in the way of "technical" staff. I would hazard a guess that risk management is delegated exclusively to their liability underwriters.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Instead of hazarding a guess of this, why don't you contact them and ask and then tell us what you have learned?
 
Instead of hazarding a guess of this, why don't you contact them and ask and then tell us what you have learned? [/b]
Click to expand...

For a public organization that would be a sound recommendation, but NASA is a private company. I would expect their response (as would be mine) would be "None of your business". So why go to the bother. It's only an academic question anyway, as the answer has no bearing on the subject under discussion.
 
Figured I'd go for the Hail Mary first. Who knows - weirder things have happened and I might be completely underestimating the current SFI administration...

To: [email protected]
Re: Membership agreements

As a NASA and SCCA member, I would be very interested to read the agreements
that these organizations entered into, to become SFI member sanctioning
bodies. Would that be possible? I would equally enjoy the chance to review
the terms of manufacturer membership - the licensing agreement described in
the various spec's - again, if an example could be made available?

If you aren't able to provide these, can I get them from the clubs and
manufacturers?

Thanks in advance,

Kirk Knestis (a longtime racing safety nerd)
 
Mr Knestis:

Thankyou very much for your interest in the SFI. The items you refer to are legal documents and are considered private matters between the signed parties..

Thankyou for your interest, and safe racing!
SFI
 
Mr Knestis:

Thankyou very much for your interest in the SFI. The items you refer to are legal documents and are considered private matters between the signed parties..

Thankyou for your interest, and safe racing!
SFI
[/b]
Click to expand...

PS - go F yourself.
:P

(Kirk, I personally appreciate your continued fight on this - you do it very well and are able to vocalize points in a much better manner than a lot of us that agree with you. My letter to SCCA is on the way).
 
Just to be (extra ) clear, That's not what I want you to get in return, kirk, but, sadly, that's what i'd bet my money on.

I second the "attaboy" comments.
 
I don't believe any agreement with the sanctioning body would be of that much interest. Of maximum interest is the question, Why join? Seriously. What possible benefit is there?

If you want to reference an SFI spec, just do it. How can a sanctioning body reduce its risk exposure by joining an organization that writes design specs for safety equipment? Good grief, writing the design spec carries more liability than manufacturing the product.

Does anyone "join" FIA? In like fashion, no one "joins" RSI.

(Kirk, da man! :026: )
 
Except that, there are those who proclaim to be in the know, (a HANS rep) that state the 38.1 spec was NASCAR driven.

(Now, a simpleton look shows the HANS to be pre-existing and NASCARs involvement to be that of a big bear leveraging the existing HANS product into "spec", but then perhaps I've been watchng too many "Bourne Identity" movies...)

In the end, this is a big onion, and it's very multi layered. Howver, the more you peel, the worse it smells.
[/b]
Click to expand...
The HANS and Hutchens devices were in use in NASCAR post Earnhardt. NASCAR wanted to get rid of the Hutchens (good idea) by a ban meant NASCAR was engaging in product evaluation (=risk). Enter SFI.
 
Does anyone really believe that NASA did this without consulting their "risk management" people. You may not like what they have come up with but I think they thought this out.
[/b]
Click to expand...
With all due respect Jim, it was cursory at best. NASA said, "Hey, we need insurance," and went to a carrier(s) who asked, "Do you subscribe to the industry standard?" NASA said, "Sure. We're even members of SFI." The carrier looked around, saw a bunch of SFI labels and cashes the premium check.

The carrier did not ask, "You guys wouldn't be engaging in gross negligence by way of ignoring safer products just so you could CYA with a label, would you?" Why did they not ask this question? Because gross negligence leads to punitive damages and, in most states, insurance carriers are not allowed, by law, to cover punitives--it won't cost them a dime extra.

A jury comes back with $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and the carrier says, "Here's your check." The jury then adds $20,000,000 punitive and the carrier says, "Good luck, and have a nice day."

And heaven help any NASA officers/agents/stockholders/franchisees who may also be HANS/R3 dealers.

Someone needs to get their head in the game.
 
...Of maximum interest is the question, Why join? Seriously. What possible benefit is there? ...[/b]
Click to expand...
That's what I'm trying to understand. My education has left me solidly of the belief that language matters, and that it's possible to make sound inferences from documents re: the actual intentions of a person or organization. It is NOT incidental, for example, that only a relatively small portion of the actual text of 38.1 describes the test protocol and thresholds. SFI wouldn't have gone to all of the trouble to put the rest of that stuff in there if it didn't matter to them. I'm hoping that the licensing agreements will help clarify the bigger picture - the "why join?" question included. The answer to that particular question then gets at the real motives of the sanctioning bodies and manufacturers, and there's a chance that racers won't be thrilled to understand them.

(Disclaimer - I DO have preconceived notions about what we might find in those docs, based on my personal experiences and evidence to this point. It's been pointed out that my suppositions aren't enough, however so we go looking for the actual factual.)

Contrary to the belief of some, I don't actually think there's some giant conspiracy driving sanctioning bodies' decisions on safety equipment. I frankly think that they just do the easiest thing and cross their fingers. Following "industry standards" becomes a game of monkey-see, monkey-do.

And to hopefully dispel an assumption that might underly some comments here, I am NOT framing this as a NASA-vs.-SCCA thing. I think I've demonstrated no ironclad loyalty to one or the other: I'm an equal-opportunity critic. :) Each sanctioning body is in a different place in terms of their expectations of safety gear - NASA got out in front on seats and right-side nets, for example - and progress on this front is a good thing. They are also very different kinds of organization, which bears on the policies and practices of each.

Each has however opted to join SFI. It will be informative to the discussion to find out what they agreed to, and maybe why they did so.

K
 
Contrary to the belief of some, I don't actually think there's some giant conspiracy...[/b]
Click to expand...

Whatever happened to Mattberg? :lol:

In restrospect he did offer a different viewpoint and was entertaining at times. In a way I kinda miss him and kinda don't.
 
Contrary to the belief of some, I don't actually think there's some giant conspiracy driving sanctioning bodies' decisions on safety equipment.[/b]
Click to expand...
Agreed. I suspect that, at one time, sanctioning bodies found an affiliation with SFI to be an asset. That is no longer the case.
 
And to hopefully dispel an assumption that might underly some comments here, I am NOT framing this as a NASA-vs.-SCCA thing.
K [/b]
Click to expand...

I agree with that. NASA might have, for whatever reasons, done it first, but I think SCCA made a feeble attempt to do something similar even earlier. But the wording of the proposed rule was absolutely bass ackwards. (It recommend that you use a device, but if you did, it must be 38.1. Which meant that anyone currently using a davice had to take it off if it wasn't 38.1)

I think the BoD got hit with a groundswell of opposition, and backed down.

But, I fear it is only time until the other shoe drops.

This SFI/liability issue isn't limited to any single sanctioning body, it's systemic.
 
Whatever happened to Mattberg? :lol:

In restrospect he did offer a different viewpoint and was entertaining at times. In a way I kinda miss him and kinda don't.
[/b]
Click to expand...

According to the records, he was here at 12:26PM, EST, on 12/31/07.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top