far fetched idea with the ferry coming

[MauiScubaSteve]

It was explained to me that 6-pax aren't considered "inspected" vessels, so the rules are a little different (including the designated spotter).

While I have worked for a company in Hawaii with a true 6-pax dive boat, and contend that they are in fact "inspected", the application may have been neccessary for the boat I'm speaking of because it is actually certified for 12 divers, just limited to 6 by the owners for various reasons (guest comfort among them)

 

[KrisB]

Attempting to post and prepare breakfast at the same time caused me to miss your osha post until now. If you will re-read Subpart T - Commercial Diving Operations, you might come to a similar conclusion to me that these regulations apply to commercial divers, aka hard hat divers. I linked us to an old wild goose chase and thanks to Kris we can now try to find the regulations for Recreational Diving Operators.

The Subpart T does talk about scuba diving, and it also talks about recreational diving operators -- but only insofar as it relates to workers. If there is no dive master in the water (a la California or Florida scene that I've been told about), then it's completely irrelevant.

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

My first employement as instructor/guide was for Sundowners or some such in Key Largo and they had the same style operation as I have seen here; guide in the water on every dive.

If these rules apply to recreational instructor/guides it is hard to believe any recreational charter boat complies. It is also hard to believe OSHA allows non-compliance, as they do not seem to take it easy on any other industries to my knowledge.

I still doubt this is the reason every operator I know of in Hawaii has a guide in the water on every paid dive from their boat. There must be another set of regs employers are following, 'cause they certainly aren't following OSHA's.

 

[rdbean]

it may get dave L back from guam but will it get richard back from china is the real ?
8)

How true...nah I don't think it would entice Rich to return from China, but maybe I can get him to come here to Western Australia, reports are they found the HMAS Sydney in 150 meters of water!

Cheers Scotty,

Rich

 

[DiveWestOahu]

who dat?? cheers back @ ya Rich

 

[Charlie99]

Are any of you going for a ride on the ferry Sunday before injunctions stop it on Monday?

 

[KrisB]

Are any of you going for a ride on the ferry Sunday before injunctions stop it on Monday?

And they just announced that between when it starts running (next weekend?) and Sep, it's $5 per person and $5 per car!

At those prices, I'm half tempted to make a day trip to Oahu...

 

[Charlie99]

And they just announced that between when it starts running (next weekend?) and Sep, it's $5 per person and $5 per car!

Move quick. It's THIS weekend, Sunday Aug 26th, and there's a good chance that the ferry will be stopped by an injunction on Monday (day after tomorrow).

It looks like the HI Supreme Court ruling on Thursday prompted them to move the start day up a few days.

 

[bobmaggi]

It looks like the HI Supreme Court ruling on Thursday prompted them to move the start day up a few days.

what did the HI Supreme Ct. rule? Just wondering. . . Maggi

 

[Charlie99]

It's kind of weird. The background is the that about 3 years ago the HI Dept. Of Transport ruled that the ferry didn't have to file an environmental impact statement. So people sued. A judge found that they didn't have standing to sue. The HI Supreme Court was supposed to rule on whether or not they had standing to sue. The court not only found that they could sue, but also directed the lower court to The Supreme Court subsequently instructed the circuit court to enter a summary judgment in favor of the Sierra Club, Maui Tomorrow Inc., and the Kahului Harbor Coalition on their claim as to the request for an environmental assessment. And furthermore stated that they would reserve to the Supreme Court the power to make factual decisions as to the results of the environmental statement (unusual in that normally an appellate court abides by findings of fact made by a lower court).

Very strange, since the only matter under review was whether or not the lawsuit could go forward. Two years ago the circuit court ruled that the above groups didn't have standing to sue. That ruling was appealed and supreme court was supposed to rule on that finding. The supreme court not only decided that they could sue, but also directed the lower court, which had not yet held the trial, to find in favor of the plaintiffs. Very strange. Unprecedented. A bit fishy.

Since even without ever having had a trial, the plaintiffs have now won, it is expected that they will go for an injunction to prohibit the ferry from running.

The original start date for operations was supposed to be next Tuesday. After the HI Supreme Court ruling last Thursday, the ferry operator suddenly moved forward the start date to this weekend. My guess is that they want to have started operations before being shut down, and then they will file suit against the state for lost profits since the HI DOT had given them assurance that EIS wasn't needed.

http://www.mauinews.com/edit/2007/8/25/01sup0825.html

Charlie Allen

p.s. There are some other lawsuits going on also. In a different lawsuit, a judge of Maui decided that some lanes had to be restriped and an extra parking lot opened. Some more strangeness where the judicial branch is meddling a bit. What's behind all this is a Republican governor and a bunch of judges appointed by previous Democratic governors.