Chronograph checks?

[Bolter]

Well you're obviously happy to attend events that don't care about your safety.

Ive been to the same events, Ive even played a tournie with Liam. Its too easy for you to just jump on this and say these events dont care for our safety when it is OUR own responsibility to make sure our tanks are in date.

Bare in mind that an in date tank can be damaged and dangerous, but still in date. What is the actual point of checking tank dates at a tournie? It should be a full visual check of the entire tank and a date check in that case. Im willing to bet that your "safe" events you attend dont so this, so by virtue of your own wisdom, your events dont care for your safety either. They do the minimum to get by.

Or are we jumping the gun a little with an over reaction?

 

[Liam92]

Well you're obviously happy to attend events that don't care about your safety.

i know my tank is safe and i'm not going to blow myself up. anybody else wants to risk blowing themselves up then its not my problem. And i find it a bit worrying that you think the largest UK tournament series 'don't care'.

EDIT: never noticed Bolter's post first, but basically what he said

 

[BOD]

Well i'd be very nervous about standing next to some one at a fill station knowing their bottle hadn't even been looked at, and yes i'm well aware that just because a bottle is in date it doesn't mean it hasn't been damaged since. Whenever i've been doing bottle checks at events the whole bottle has been looked at. I was under the impression bottle checks were mandatory for any UKPSF sanctioned/accredited events.

 

[BOD]

i know my tank is safe and i'm not going to blow myself up. anybody else wants to risk blowing themselves up then its not my problem. And i find it a bit worrying that you think the largest UK tournament series 'don't care'.

EDIT: never noticed Bolter's post first, but basically what he said

I have no idea where you play you just said you've never had your bottle checked all the time you've been playing which i find very worrying, and of course it's ok for some one else to blow them selves up just as long as you aint stood next to them when it happens.

 

[Tom]

As a scenario player, and a game organiser - I've often said this and expect I will be saying it again ....

There are measures that have been taken over the years that I have often felt scenario was following the tournament scene, (e.g. UKPSF air training and air passes), either I've been wrong and have seen people discussing measures and they've not been taken up in general or they have been taken up and later faxed out and forgotten

With UKPSF air passes and the training given at events, this only gives general air awareness and the individuals sign a form stating they understand what they have been shown, and that they are aware that they are responsible for their equipment
It's not a disclaimer for the site, and it does not take on responsibility for allowing you to use and fill your system

Checking a cylinder at a site is just one control measure, the two main factors are checking it is uk legal and in date
But part of even just a general check is condition. If an alumimium cylinder has had the paint worn then that's fine, it does not affect the integrity.
A full look over a fibre cylinder will find scratches etc, but also takes longer.
If a cylinder looks like its been around I'd give a bit more of a look over for its condition

I'm not running weekly games so haven't checked over thousands of cylinders, but I've only picked out a handful of cylinders to reject
These have been a brand new us dot cylinder (the first time that I met a guy that I now know well, as he said to me recently be was a kid on his first time paintballing and didn't know until I told him), a couple that were recently expired and at our game the other week a group of lads all had new cylinders, the majority had new steelies a couple of months in but one had a fibre cylinder.
He was disappointed to find me rejecting it as out of date and was worried he had been conned.
In fact it had about 2 years life left but had no test markings at all. This implies its been used for 13 years and missed 2 tests, perhaps it's been stored and not used whilst out of date. He had paid £80 for it so was unimpressed at the prospects of not being allowed to use it without paying more for a test
(I don't know where he bought it, but he confirmed it wasn't from the forums, which all have rules that would prevent sale of an out of date cylinder)
I did let him know that £80 was the general going rate for second hand fibre cylinders - even though depreciation values don't always add up.


Back on topic -
I would not be impressed if chrono checks and bottle checks were not taking place
It is the responsibility of the individual, but as above the individual may not be fully aware

 

[urbangreg]

i am pretty sure that the reason the max FPS is 300 is due to firearms law, when i had my Firearms Cert, i asked my officer about this and he mentioned something to do with pound per foot ratio and with a 68cal paintball 300FPS is max without needing an FAC but if you use a 50cal legally you could turn it up a little more. but don't count me on any of this as he whent off on one when i asked him about it and wouldn't shut up.

 

[urbangreg]

For a paintball marker to be classed as an “Air Weapon” and therefore not require a licence it must not be fired above 12 ft/lbs for a “rifle” type and 6 ft/lbs for a “pistol” type. Nearly all paintball markers come under the “rifle” type, only markers like the “splatmaster” come into the “pistol” category. If a marker fires above these limits they will then come under the Firearms Act and require a licence or be classed as a prohibited weapon. The recent amendment included carbon dioxide as an approved propellant previously only compressed air was allowed. Paintball markers must also only fire approved paintballs. Paintball markers must not be fully automatic i.e. when pulling the trigger once, two or more paintballs must not be discharged.
To stay within the law a paintball marker must not be fired above 330fps when using an average weight paintball, this equates to 12 ft/lbs. All tournament markers are restricted to a maximum velocity of 300fps, which equates to 9.9ft/lbs and site markers should be used at between 250-280fps to be safe for customers. This equates to 7ft/lbs-8.7ft/lbs.


there we go my FAO was correct.

 

[BOD]

Does the UKPSF undertake unannounced Chronograph checks? From SOME sites I have been to that claim UKPSF membership, they don't seem to give a rat's ass about safety, especially during walk-on's.

To me, that would make a small step in making the accreditation worthwhile to site owners (I am NOT a site owner!).

Back to the original topic, seeing as the UKPSF is virtually run by one man Steve Bull going around the country doing spot checks on sites when they're having walkons seems to be asking a lot if you ask me, but if ukpsf members know about accredited sites not doing the basic checks then surely those members should be informing the ukpsf about those sites, that would make more sense wouldn't it?.

 

[Gee Tee]

Goggles are rated at 300fps max. I wouldn't want to loose my eyesight so won't use a site that doesn't make sure players are below that limit... although most sites run at around 280. Any idiot that can't manage to adjust a marker properly, and maintain a safe velocity shouldn't be on the field

 

[MajorFaff]

Back to the original topic, seeing as the UKPSF is virtually run by one man Steve Bull going around the country doing spot checks on sites when they're having walkons seems to be asking a lot if you ask me, but if ukpsf members know about accredited sites not doing the basic checks then surely those members should be informing the ukpsf about those sites, that would make more sense wouldn't it?.

Yes, this seems like a sensible way to go. I'm not actually a UKPSF member, as as it stands at present, I don't think accreditation actually means anything towards site safety. I highly doubt any member has been reporting a site for lack of a chronograph. I certainly take on board that Steve is only one guy, so your suggestion does indeed make more sense.

I do believe that sites need to be reassessed on a relatively frequent basis though. I have no malicious intent. I don't want to see any sites go down the pan, I'd just like safety to get better, and those sites improve