Oh, yeah, I didn't see that. Did you use it?
I was wondering how "confrunted" got passed up in your message?
I think that some people may be tired of debating such intangible entities as the "Qualified" Person. It is much easier to point out the shortcomings of a definition than it is to come up with a consise one. I'll go around with you a few times, but take it easy on me OK?
I don't know as I would have any better Ideas, but I am more interested in knowing the intent of this code change, I mean how should this be interpreted and carried out?
We have other areas in the Code with poorly worded language but We all (most anyway) know what is meant by it so it's not a problem. I can see this as creating much controversy if it is left as is without additional explanation.
To start off, let me ask you - plain English, OK? - What is your opinion, as an Instructor as to how this well-meaning Safety Training requirement should be implemented and according to what guidelines and who should be Judge and Jury on this?
I'm just asking opinions here. I don't mean to put you on the spot but I'd like to know.