Problem is, Dave that the primary POLICY ISSUE in the minds of the current decision-makers might not be in line with the primary purpose of a head-and-neck system. That was the upshot of my letter - that SFI 38.1 is thought to serve an apparent (if untested?) indemnification purpose, and gets tangled up in secondary purposes (egress, mandate of particular design features) to the potential detriment of actually serving your stated first purpose.

The Club has to get its goals and priorities (what we policy geeks talk about as "intentions") straight for this policy implementation - and communicate them with the membership - before it gets wound up in the detail language of the rule.

K