In Reply to: So read Ariticle VI posted by Chuck Tribolet on November 16, 2005 at 17:42:55:

Chuck wrote: "Sec. 103 is just the enforcement section. What counts is what's being enforced (Artice VI)."

Actually, I'd disagree with that. Section 103 specifically states that each vessel must file a letter with the Director that they're in compliance. No letter, no compliance since the filing of the letter is part of the compliance. May only be a "tehcnical" violation but a violation nonetheless.

The stuff I'd like to see updated would be the required dives (bump it to four instead of two) to rbing the oridnance in line with national training standards, I'd lose the "marker buoy" reference for boats (tehcnically a dive flag is NOT a "marker buoy", I'd add something about familiarity with dive tables and dive computers, I'd add a BC requirement for gear, and you might even want to re-think the requirement of one shore and one boat dive since that part means that stores that still do all beach/shore diving (and there are still a few) to keep their classes cheap are in violation of the ordinance.

- Ken

• Re: Re: So read Ariticle VI Chris 11:57:08 11/17/05 (1)
  • Agree on BC's Walt 16:42:53 11/17/05 (0)
• Section 302 (a) already has USN table requirement Walt 22:29:52 11/16/05 (0)
• An update is definitely in order, but its not enforced today anyway... Walt 21:36:18 11/16/05 (0)
• Re: So read Ariticle VI Chuck Tribolet 18:56:09 11/16/05 (0)