For Your Viewing Pleasure

[pgipson]

The basis of my concerns with the SFI system starts with the fact that its membership includes both the sanctioning bodies that require that standards be met, and the manufacturers that sell the stuff that meets them...

Kirk

I don't think that is such an unusual relationship. Most standards setting bodies operate in similar fashion. maybe not through memberships directly, but certainly through collaboration between industry, users and regulators. And all of the ones I am familiar with in aerospace rely on suppliers for the bulk of their financial support. The subject matter experts are found in industry, not in the standards organizations.

[Knestis]

Okay - I'll bite. give me an example of a situation in the aerospace industry that "operates in a similar fashion."

To clarify the "fashion" that I'm talking about...

1. Manufacturers and sanctioning bodies join SFI
2. They - with SFI - develop standards
3. Tests get done, stuff gets approved
4. Santioning bodies demand that racers in their series use that stuff
5. Manufacturers sell that stuff, passing on the price of testing and SFI tags to the racers
6. SFI makes money
7. Manufacturers and sanctioning bodies decrease liability exposure claiming that they are adhering to "standards"

Why WOULDN'T they love this system? Why WOULD you, as a racer?

Replace "SFI" in the above example with "AIAA" and fill in the rest of the steps for me.

K

[gsbaker]

I agree with Pauls (?) analogy to a point, as I spent several years in aerospace as well. But the primary difference is crucial: only those affiliated with the development of the HANS device were consulted in writing the spec. Gee, guess what the spec looks like?

In 2002 I met with SFI at the SAE conference to discuss the standard. We recommended a graduated scale represented by a percentage head load reduction, similar to SFI's specs for drag racing roll cages.

Two years later, without any further communication with us, SFI announced a spec that excluded every product on the market except the HANS device.

I agree that the expertise lies with the manufacturers, who are closest to the R&D and willing to invest in it, but that's not what's happening.

[pgipson]

Replace "SFI" in the above example with "AIAA" and fill in the rest of the steps for me.

We can use RTCA in the example (except the FAA doesn't join). Or SAE. Or Arinc. I said the model is similar and it is.

But the environment is also open. And that is Gregg's point about the difference.

My point is that the expertise lies with the developers, not with the standards writers.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by pgipson@Dec 23 2005, 08:02 PM
... My point is that the expertise lies with the developers, not with the standards writers.

That much is absolutely reasonable, no question.

I do evaluation work for a living and I've found that it's easy to get bound up in methodologies, data collection, and analysis to the detriment of doing really important things like explicating the purpose of any given evaluation or research effort. THAT'S where I have difficulty with 38.1.

Drivers and their families operate as if that standard defines some level of protection when evidence strongly suggests that the purpose of the process has everything to do with indemnification of manufacturers and sanctioning bodies. If different stakeholders understand the purpose of the standard differently, then it doesn't matter what the actual test IS.

I would LOVE to convene a panel of engineers, doctors, EMTs, critical care nurses, constructors, racers, and sanctioning body people to revisit the whole range of possible responses to the needs of drivers buying H&N systems - with industry needs set aside completely.

K

[lateapex911]

Well put Kirk...

My issue is that the entire "standard setting" amounted to essentially ONE company writing their own standard, and the SFI going along with it.

Maybe I am missing something, but it appears that the bottom line here is a HUGE conflict of interest.

Any standard that is set based on the input from essentially one organization is, in my mind, a farce, regardless of whether the actual standard is good or not! With no other input they are totally lacking any system of checks and balances.

My gut reaction is, if indeed the HANS organization, and it's research partners were the sole contributers of the standard, then it is probably not a good standard after all.

To my untrained eye, it appears the standard favors devices that perform well straight on, and it gives significantly less value to offset hits...but in the real world, is that what really happens?

Perhaps there is scince that can interpolate data to give a bigger picture, but I have always theought reality was the best test.