what makes a diving agency a diving agency?

[Adobo]

I know UTD is insured and I would be stunned to find that GUE is not.

If I understand correctly, its not a function of UTD or GUE being insured. Its a function of the shop being insured to provide ongoing education or dive related activities. If I am understanding correctly, their insurance only indemnifies the shop if the participating diver provides proof of certification from one of the approved agencies. And I am guessing neither GUE nor UTD are on the list.

All this is fine. Except, it doesn't sound like a logical argument for whether or not GUE/UTD are agencies. Because presumably, other shops have gotten equivalent insurance wherein GUE/UTD are not excluded.

---------- Post Merged at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 01:22 PM ----------

There's also the subtle redefining of the argument at play. It's gone from "UTD/GUE are not agencies by definition" to "our insurance doesn't cover us for instruction (emphasis theirs)" by these agencies, to "you still can't dive with our groups with these cards," presumably even outside of a class/instruction scenario. It's a bit all over the place and I can't tell what is the actual argument being attempted.

A bit of Romnesia going on here.

(OK Republicans, don't get your panties in a twist. I'm just messing around.)

 

[Wookie]

You're all just like Hitler. And Warhammer. I'll wear my split fins and snorkel in a cave if I want to, they help me fin against the surge.

Just wanted to make sure that this thread had all of the elements before everyone left in disgust.

 

[leabre]

I wonder if this is the reason that UTD/GUE divers tend to create their own diving groups and excursions. If a local shop/shops insurance does not recognize the training/legitimacy of these (and other non-listed) agencies and exclude them, then these divers have no choice but to look elsewhere or form their own exploration group. It then continues the perception that "they keep to themselves" or "they don't shop here so why should we bother".

That a shop's/instructors insurance doesn't recognize an agency is one issue altogether for purposes of dive excursions and liability -- even understandable. But doesn't PADI/NAUI itself have its own standards about accepting equivelant training as valid cross-over/pre-requisite requirement satisfaction? Or does the insurance agency itself dictate what prior training is acceptable?

As many others have pointed out, it does sound like a business and/or personal decision to omit certain agencies from their list of accepted ones. But, it seems specifically personal to only single out UTD/GUE ones and not others (in this discussion). What's that saying: "their shop, their rules".

 

[Wookie]

I wonder if this is the reason that UTD/GUE divers tend to create their own diving groups and excursions. If a local shop/shops insurance does not recognize the training/legitimacy of these (and other non-listed) agencies and exclude them, then these divers have no choice but to look elsewhere or form their own exploration group. It then continues the perception that "they keep to themselves" or "they don't shop here so why should we bother".

That's silly, and it isn't how insurance works. A shop/dive professional/resort/destination has liability insurance to protect them against their own liability, not what some other organization has done. Lets say a diver was trained in a SSI shop, buys their BCD in an online shop, and goes on an SDI/TDI charter boat. 3 different insurance companies are in play here when the bereaved widow shotguns the lawsuit and alleges that the BCD failed, the instructor didn't teach the deceased to use the failed BCD properly, and the charter boat didn't do enough to affect a rescue of the deceased. None of this have to do with the fact that the deceased also has a GUE HOG diver card. The HOG diver card isn't in play unless it is for some reason.

That a shop's/instructors insurance doesn't recognize an agency is one issue altogether for purposes of dive excursions and liability -- even understandable. But doesn't PADI/NAUI itself have its own standards about accepting equivelant training as valid cross-over/pre-requisite requirement satisfaction? Or does the insurance agency itself dictate what prior training is acceptable?

As many others have pointed out, it does sound like a business and/or personal decision to omit certain agencies from their list of accepted ones. But, it seems specifically personal to only single out UTD/GUE ones and not others. What's that saying: "their shop, their rules".

I would be shocked if Moonglow's shop would reject a GUE/UTD card. They might ask for another card for their comfort, but if push came to shove, I'm sure that the GUE/UTD diver would be allowed on the excursion. The larger question begs. Would a team diver of whatever vintage (DIR/GUE/UTD/ETC) want to go on an excursion with Moonglow's shop. From what I've seen on the Spree, Team divers like to dive with each other. And they are unobtrusive, make good decisions, come back when they promise, and dive the same rig. I know what to expect when they are here, and it's all good. Team divers are welcome here any time.

Post edit - Moonglow has informed me that I didn't understand what she said about this thread, and I missed the point. What she said was that her shop does not recognize the equivalency of GUE cards to NAUI cards, as in a intro to cave from NAUI is not the same as Intro to cave from GUE, so that they can't be used interchangeably. She didn't actually use the term Intro to cave, she used Cave I. My mistake and apologies, I had not seen that nor recognized that that was the gist of her post. No offense was meant, it was truly a mistake on my part.

 

[Moonglow]

Funny, in 2009 you posted you were a brand new NAUI instructor. That would only be three years.

Good catch, glad that you're paying attention. I have been an instructor for six years, crossed over to NAUI from PADI three years-ago. Sorry for the typo.

 

[leabre]

Good catch, glad that you're paying attention. I have been an instructor for six years, crossed over to NAUI from PADI three years-ago. Sorry for the typo.

Moonglow, I'm curious. Would your shop change its position and accept the card if your insurer updated their list to recognize any of the other agencies that are not currently on the list?

 

[Cyprian]

......I would be shocked if Moonglow's shop would reject a GUE/UTD card. They might ask for another card for their comfort, but if push came to shove, I'm sure that the GUE/UTD diver would be allowed on the excursion. The larger question begs. Would a team diver of whatever vintage (DIR/GUE/UTD/ETC) want to go on an excursion with Moonglow's shop. From what I've seen on the Spree, Team divers like to dive with each other. And they are unobtrusive, make good decisions, come back when they promise, and dive the same rig. I know what to expect when they are here, and it's all good. Team divers are welcome here any time.

+1 Frank

Mental note to self: Remind team that we need to schedule a charter on the Spree when time permits.

 

[Thalassamania]

Never have I seen so much stupidity posted in one thread. And this endless "7' hose or die" debate that some of you participate in is pathetic.

I have now have been a NAUI instructor for six years and a cave diver for five-- I use the Hogarthian rig for all diving except when teaching. Our shop does not recognize as agencies GUE, UTD nor a 100 other groups that offer training and "c-cards". Whether a group can get, and keep, insurance for their standards is not relevant-- our insurance does not insure us for instruction outside of the agencies listed above.

I find it surprising that some of you can't see the difference between the way NAUI opperates than that of GUE. We welcome GUE divers all, but to dive with our groups you will need to present a level appropiate c-card from the above listed agencies.

I am off this thread.

I have never seen an instructional, club, shop, operator, or institutional liability policy that has the sort of restrictions that you are identifying. I have, on the other hand, known lots of LDS owners who either did not know what their polices actually said or were happy to lie about the restrictions for some reason or other.

I'd like to know the carrier and agent and see the policy exclusion, not because I do not believe that you believe but simply because in my experience you've been sold a bill of goods.

 

[lv2dive]

Never have I seen so much stupidity posted in one thread. And this endless "7' hose or die" debate that some of you participate in is pathetic....

Never have *I* seen such condescension spewing forth from two short sentences...

Maybe if I had six years of being an instructor I could reach such a heightened level of enlightenment?

 

[randytay]

A bit of Romnesia going on here.

(OK Republicans, don't get your panties in a twist. I'm just messing around.)

Im kinda thinking about the same thing. She is from Texas right?