diving under bridges

[perpet1]

does anyone know of any requirements regarding how close you can dive to a bridge.

Another question;
Are there limitations (other then a dive flag) as to where you can dive relative to a boating channel? What constitutes a hazard to navigation?

If anyone knows where to find the regulations to support the requirements I would be very greatful.


THANKS!

 

[pipedope]

I don't know the regulations where you are but if you dive bridges you want to go in on the downstream side and work your way upcurrent.
This way you are much less like to get caught in entanglements like trees and other stuff you often find under bridges.

On surface supplied working dives (like the bridge inspection) it is even more important to work upstream as you also have the umbilical to consider.

 

[perpet1]

thanks but that is not what I was looking for. Here is what happened and I was wondering if it is correct.

I was diving the Saraha Long Bridge today. This is one of the three bridges between NH and Maine and I was on the Maine side. You pretty much dive right under the bridge,

Well during the dive you have to cross a boating channel. The idea id to do it quickly with a flag understanding it is better to stay deep.

We were two buddy pairs and I got out befor the second buddy pair. There aere a few boats waiting for the dive flag to clear the channel (like 5 min) and the boat operator we yelling so I ignored him.


After we got out a NH harbor patrol (yes we were in Maine) came over in his little boat and started off by saying that because of 9/11 you can no longer dive within 150 feet of any bridge. He also went on to say that we were causing a hazard to navigation and that we were in the wrong. He made it clear that we should not diver there any more. This is a pretty popular dive here in NH and this is the first I have heard of any of these requirements.

I am looking for the right answer supported with documentation. If I was in the wrong I would gladly not dive there again but if the harbor patrol was blowing smoke then I would like to know.

Thanks.

 

[pipedope]

Once more 9/11 is being used to shaft the people.

All sorts of government agencies are doing all sorts of crazy things "because of 9/11." Many of these things are flat out unconstitutional and nearly all of them are useless.

Does that mean that there is not a law? No.
Lots of stupid laws have been passed.

Remember this phrase; "Can you please cite the law on that for me?" If the officer cannot or will no cite a statute that you can go look up then he (she) is almost certainly blowing smoke. Remember, for them to write you a ticket they must cite (name) the law on the ticket.

At all times be polite and don't argue with an officer but do your best to get a straight answer.

Seems this administration wants to protect American freedom by eliminating all freedom for americans.
ut:

 

[perpet1]

I called the NH Horbor patrol and they sited a CFR that basicly said that any area that the coast gaurd deems a security threat is off limits and according to them (the locol harbor patrol) all bridges are included.

So doing the obvious thing I called the Coast Gaurd to see if there are any restrictions and if so what they are. The person I spoke with did not know off hand if there are any restrictions and he is going to research it for me.

 

[Bob3]

There may be differing statutes between the state & locals; I used to drift dive the Shark River Inlet in NJ, but only in winter when there were no boats.
State law didn't mention anything about it being "not ok", but the local township had an ordnance against it.
In Charlevoix MI I used to dive the canal but didn't use a float/flag for very obvious reasons (heavy boat traffic). I was only run over by the Beaver Island Ferry once. Not sure of how much clearance it had over me as I didn't want to lift my head to look up. I wasn't concerned 'cuz I was next to a concrete buggy that was laying on the bottom that was higher than I was.
If you wanted to make a habit of obstructing waterways, (not a good thing) carry a float/flag that can be submerged & just launch it up before you surface outside of the channel.
See: http://carterbag.com/personalfloat.html

Remember; it's always easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

 

[LobstaMan]

Called a buddy with the Massachusetts State Police Marine Unit and told him your story. The trooper said he is unaware of any specific Federal or Mass law, mandate, rule, order, whatever prohibiting scuba diving under bridges. That said, he also added that under the same circumstances(i.e. since 9-11) he'd probably have done the same thing the NH official did. There have been some warnings and unsubstantiated reports issued to law enforcement officials regarding terrorists trained in scuba attacking infrastructure and power facilities located near water.

Regarding the boat traffic aspect, that's probably a case by case call on the part of the law enforcement officer. I'd be willing to bet that the boat/s who were inconvenienced by your diving made a call to the harbormaster or whatever he was and complained. I don't think he found you by accident.

Good luck w/ the research and dive safe.

LobstaMan

 

[perpet1]

You know is the official came over and asked who we were to make sure we were not up to nogood I would have been fine and actually appreciated the concern. However, that is not how it actually happened. He came over told us diving was prohibited within 150 feet of a bridge because of homeland security and the President (yes he actually mentioned the President) which led me to believe her was blowing smoke.

I will post the results of my research as I learn more.

 

[mer]

I was part of the buddy team that was the last to surface at the bridge dive yesterday. The end of that dive was bit f*cked up, and I've thought about it alot in the past 24 hours, as to what I could have done to make things better. Our flag got snagged on the piling to an old bridge and cause the float to drift in to the channel.

1. Bridges and 9-11: guess we'll just have to wait and see. But by all means I encourage the harbor patrol to come and ask me some questions just to see that I'm diving for fun and not damage. An actual terrorist would probably book it in the other direction if the saw the harbor patrol coming over.

2. Obstructing a channel: Here's where I would make the biggest changes.
I would probably anchor my flag half-way between the shore and the channel and then stay within 100 feet of that, with my head down of course. I would carry my Carter Personal Float or other DSMB in case I needed to surface away from my flag or shore. This way, my flag will never be in the middle of the channel and I'm still compling with the "must fly the flag" laws. The boaters must also comprimise, when they get within 100 feet of the flag they must "approach with caution and under 3 mph (paraphrasing the regulation we looked up yesterday)." The waterway would still be passable, and going 3mph for 200 ft maximum should not be much of an incovenience.

Any comments/critques on this strategy??

 

[perpet1]

You know I do not think it was a problem in any case. I have looked at the hazard to navigation ther is nothing that specifies a diver being a hazard. You could argue that is the flag was not visible for some reason then it could be a problem but your flag was very visible.

You were clearly posted and the boats chose not to proceed with caution as was their right. The only regulation NH has on the books that relate to Scuba divers is http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxii/270/270-31.htm which specifies the requirements in NH for navigating around a dive flag. Maine had no regulations (that I could find).