3 ms·

This is meant to serve as an extra data point during the decision-making process when we first get to a driver, especially when we don't have immediate access t

This is meant to serve as an extra data point during the decision-making process when we first get to a driver, especially when we don't have immediate access to them. As other posters have pointed out, we try to minimise additional risk to the driver and rescue workers as much as possible. Pulling a car out of the barriers quickly could potentially injure a driver that was perfectly fine. The data will also be useful in post-analysis, as much of the time it can take up to 2 minutes for us to reach a driver at some circuits. If we can see that a driver wasn't moving and had low blood sats, that could be useful info when deciding on further treatment/imaging/etc. I drive the F1 Medical Car, and came up with this system together with my colleague Dr. Ian Roberts, and have spent the past 2 years developing it. Any questions, ask!

TallGuyShort 9y ago
I never seem to be able to think of intelligent questions when I suddenly have a rare opportunity to ask someone cool - so may I just say it's really awesome to see you commenting about this on HN?
- avdmerwe 9y ago
  Personally, I think it's really cool that anyone would post this on HN or even have questions about it!
sandworm101 9y ago
Then your guys must be operating in a much lower energy environment than mine. In an aviation crash my driver (air crew) will be inside a mess of aluminum, high voltage wires, fuel and burning carbon fiber. Extraction is the first priority. Unless the pilot is talking and can give a great reason to stay, he is comming out. It isnt so much for his safety but for the five or more rescuers who dont want to be caught in the inevitable fireball. Our SAR guys are backing away from even checking vitals in situ, let alone o2 sat. In the extreme, ejection seat aircraft often have instructions for activating the canopy/seat on the ground, if necessary to "extract" a pilot. A twice-broken back is better than burned to death.
- avdmerwe 9y ago
  Interesting to read this. It sounds like the opposite approach a rescue crew would take in a motorsport environment, in most cases. I guess F1 is a much more controlled environment, due to car and circuit design working together as a safety system. Perhaps F1 safety focuses on minimising injury when things go wrong, whereas aviation systems are optimised to avoid things going wrong in the first place?

TallGuyShort 9y ago

I never seem to be able to think of intelligent questions when I suddenly have a rare opportunity to ask someone cool - so may I just say it's really awesome to see you commenting about this on HN?

avdmerwe 9y ago
Personally, I think it's really cool that anyone would post this on HN or even have questions about it!

sandworm101 9y ago

Then your guys must be operating in a much lower energy environment than mine. In an aviation crash my driver (air crew) will be inside a mess of aluminum, high voltage wires, fuel and burning carbon fiber. Extraction is the first priority. Unless the pilot is talking and can give a great reason to stay, he is comming out. It isnt so much for his safety but for the five or more rescuers who dont want to be caught in the inevitable fireball. Our SAR guys are backing away from even checking vitals in situ, let alone o2 sat. In the extreme, ejection seat aircraft often have instructions for activating the canopy/seat on the ground, if necessary to "extract" a pilot. A twice-broken back is better than burned to death.

avdmerwe 9y ago
Interesting to read this. It sounds like the opposite approach a rescue crew would take in a motorsport environment, in most cases. I guess F1 is a much more controlled environment, due to car and circuit design working together as a safety system. Perhaps F1 safety focuses on minimising injury when things go wrong, whereas aviation systems are optimised to avoid things going wrong in the first place?