[ddlsmurf]

You're making a distinction I'm not, whether they signed off on it directly or indirectly, thanks for pointing that out. I don't really see the difference as that important though, in the end it's their procedures that are meant to safeguard against this, and they failed. Believe it or not, I have no motivation to incite an argument or anything of the such, why not simply assume I'm mis-informed but in good faith, and correct me ? Anyway thank you for the details about the DOT etc, that's what I was asking for.

[eganist]

> why not simply assume I'm mis-informed but in good faith, and correct me ?

In the absence of information I would've done just that, but I had a look at your comment history first before I replied. lol

Happy to have been helpful. Cheers mate

[ddlsmurf]

I would dispute that I am trolling or starting arguments here. There's that time I was rude because that article hit a spot I've contended with repeatedly when training juniors (and possibly some alcohol was involved) - but apart from that, I would appreciate any pointers as to why you'd conclude I'm in bad faith. This is very unconducive to interesting conversation and I would like to work on that.