[modeleng] Re: Accidents
- From: "Barrie Purslow" <bpduo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <modeleng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:22:30 +0100
Alan,
> However, over the course of time, the list of "near misses", would, no
> doubt, be an impressive one, at which point some authority or other is
> virtually certain to use it to prove how dangerous our hobby is, and from
> tha point onward, we would be tightly regulated, if indeed we were allowed
> to continue at all.
That's not the way things have worked in the gliding movement. On the
contrary, the "powers that be" (CAA) have, from time to time, looked at the
way accidents are handled by the movement, have been satisfied - and left us
alone.
> I wont do any public running due to the plethora of rules and regulations.
> I
> am pleased that some people are willing to, but how much more
> "officialdom"
> does it need to make those enthusiasts give up and take up knitting
> instead.
You amaze me - I have done public running at many tracks and have never been
subjected to anything but the very minimum of "rules and regulations".
Indeed, at many tracks all one needs to do is arrive with an engine and
boiler certificate and raise steam!
> No, let us not have anything that allows the slightest chance of more
> rules
> and regulations, and sadly, in the present cliamte, even admitting that
> there may have been the possibility of an accident can do just that.
Let's get this clear - I am not proposing any more rules and regulations. I
simply think it is good practice for the movement itself to keep a record of
accidents and publish it at regular intervals for the education of all
concerned. Not admitting to accidents is certain to upset the "powers" - it
is tantamount to deception.
Barrie
MODEL ENGINEERING DISCUSSION LIST.
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list, send a blank email to,
modeleng-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
Other related posts:
