I'm a bit concerned about Len Wingfield's 'problem that will not go away', as I am sure that it doesn't really exist. I have always been under the impression that the DCA was an informal association of mildly eccentric people who preferred to use their dinghies for pottering or cruising rather than racing. It organises rallies because some people like attending them for a yarn with like minded folk, or to form a focus for a minicruise. I am not aware that anybody attends rallies as a means of proving themselves and if they bite off more than they can chew, it can only be their own fault. They would presumable take the same sort of chances whether there was a rally or not. I, therefore, find the suggestion that we should add the equivalent of a Board of Trade seamanship exam syllabus to the rally venue details somewhat ludicrous.

Likewise to imply that one rally venue is easier than another is manifestly absurd. Weather apart, one would not find Fowley Island easy if one started from Poole. One of the most enjoyable rallies I attended was one in which I launched next to the rally site and sailed round the harbour to get back to it! Another member sailed 30 miles to get there. We both had the choice unhampered by a well meaning safety officer giving his advice.

When sailing boats, man's natural caution, bred by natural fear is the safeguard and this fear often comes from inexperience. Pete Culler in 'Skiffs and Schooners' said 'experience starts when you begin' and this is as true of sailing as it is of boatbuilding or even cooking ham and eggs. One has to start somewhere and 'it's fun finding out'.

The DCA offers guidelines on choosing a dinghy, but a lot of people have to buy a boat because of price or what is readily available. Personal preference may also decree that one departs from the safety ideal, because one values speed, space or some other feature. This does not debase the original guidelines.

Reasonably intelligent people allow for the shortcomings of their craft when deciding when and where to sail, but I hope that we do not consider an IQ test necessary before allowing a person in a boat. An open boat at sea is vulnerable and one would have to be pretty dense not to appreciate this the very first time one goes afloat. I apologise, but must quote from 'Swallows and Amazons': “better drowned than duffers, if not duffers won't drown”. This is obviously a reactionary philosophy for anyone who believes in the ultimate welfare featherbed state; but it is a philosophy that adventurous people, and that must include dinghy cruisers, however modest their aims, had better believe in. The idea of the DCA disclaiming liability infers that the DCA is responsible for its members in some way. This is just not true.

A final word on behalf of our members who own Wayfarers and Wanderers. I am sure that they did not choose their dinghies just because they attended a sailing school which used them. Neither design was intended to be a racing dinghy; the Wayfarer only gravitated in that direction as it filled a niche in the racing fleets of the time. They can be considered good general purpose craft in the modern idiom, i.e. that they can plane, but can equally well capsize. Those who attended sailing courses on them will be the ones most aware of this, without being advised by the DCA, as they will have undergone capsize drill as part of the standard routine of such courses. It is no coincidence that the development of buoyancy aids was contemporary with the proliferation of lightweight modern dinghies. Membership of the DCA should make one aware that there are more restful and safer alternatives, but no more than this. One chooses what one likes; I was nearly seduced by the superb finish of the early Wanderers, with their flat sleeping area, myself.

Can Len Wingfield now keep his worries to himself and let us all, beginner and old salt, ham-fisted and capable, get on with accumulating our experiences as we ourselves think fit?

Peter Bick