An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc

[The Chairman]

Also this represents PADI making the clear distinction, that if you care alot about your income, that Willis was about to make you poorer...

I don't read that in there at all. Not even between the lines. However, if one of their instructors had an accident and were not within their insurance's limit, then they could have been negligent for not telling them about it, n'est pas? Again, how should have PADI dealt with this? Send a letter and they've pissed of Dan. Don't send the letter and they expose their instructors to potential liabilities.

At the same time, it shows how Willis wanted each instructor to be a better, safer instructor....as the 2 to one ratio is clearly a better, safer format to take non-divers out with.

Again, the reasoning was more economic than otherwise. Which brings up another interesting point. If Willis thought more than two was indefensible, why on earth are they trying to defend an instructor who not only exceeded common sense for the lake, but also broke standards at the same time. It's either indefensible or it's not.

 

[Wookie]

Again, the reasoning was more economic than otherwise. Which brings up another interesting point. If Willis thought more than two was indefensible, why on earth are they trying to defend an instructor who not only exceeded common sense for the lake, but also broke standards at the same time. It's either indefensible or it's not.

Now, that is a good question. I can't find the e-mail, but Peter was very clear that if you had a ratio of more than 2:1, you wouldn't be covered. Oh, yeah. His letter came as a result of this incident.

Pesky timeline. Makes so much difference.

 

[The Chairman]

Now, that is a good question. I can't find the e-mail, but Peter was very clear that if you had a ratio of more than 2:1, you wouldn't be covered. Oh, yeah. His letter came as a result of this incident.

Pesky timeline. Makes so much difference.

Then why not simply settle??? If the captain announces 'abandon ship' and gets into a life raft, shouldn't you take the hint? Dude, if I see your butt getting off of the Spree, you can bet I won't be far behind.

 

[danvolker]

I don't read that in there at all. Not even between the lines. However, if one of their instructors had an accident and were not within their insurance's limit, then they could have been negligent for not telling them about it, n'est pas? Again, how should have PADI dealt with this? Send a letter and they've pissed of Dan. Don't send the letter and they expose their instructors to potential liabilities.

One of our resident attorneys would need to weigh in on this, but to me the responsibility would have been on Willis ( not PADI) to send out a letter to ALL of the instructors it was insuring, explaining any changes they just made, and how it would effect the instructor--or how it WOULD NOT effect the instructor with present , in-force policies...and when it would.
Pete, I think you are dancing now....Is this the Waltz or a break dance?

If Willis thought more than two was indefensible, why on earth are they trying to defend an instructor who not only exceeded common sense for the lake, but also broke standards at the same time. It's either indefensible or it's not.

If Willis has insured you, I think they have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to deal with a suit against you....As many of us believe, the law is not about justice, it is a game that can be won or lost, based on many issues far removed from RIGHT and WRONG. With their obligation as the insurer, they don't necessarily have the luxury of "doing the right thing" ....If you don't like the way they are handling this, I would blame this more on the legal system, than on Willis.

 

[RJP]

Also this represents PADI making the clear distinction, that if you care alot about your income, that Willis was about to make you poorer...

Interesting that you didn't see it as PADI watching out for its members, ensuring they don't get caught short insurance-wise. I'f you'd been doing 4:1 DSD's for years you might not think twice that your insurance carrier would have changed its standard coverage to not cover the standards. And sure, they would have included this communication somewhere in a stack of paper they mailed you... that they know most folks don't read. Unless you though they were going to put a big red sticker on the envelope saying

"New For 2013: Reduced Coverage at The Same High Price!"

Though you're right about one thing. If you had an accident with a 4:1 ration and LATER realized you were only covered for a 2:1 program... you'd sure as heck end up a lot poorer when your insurance carrier said "so sorry... you didn't read the fine print."

 

[danvolker]

Interesting that you didn't see it as PADI watching out for its members, ensuring they don't get caught short insurance-wise. I'f you'd been doing 4:1 DSD's for years you might not think twice that your insurance carrier would have changed its standard coverage to not cover the standards.

Though you're right about one thing. If you had an accident with a 4:1 ration and LATER realized you were only covered for a 2:1 program... you'd sure as heck end up a lot poorer when your insurance carrier said "so sorry... you didn't read the fine print."

Again, I think if PADI was watching out for it's members the RIGHT WAY, they would have changed their standards to reflect the safer 2 to 1 ratio.
But maybe you have never watched a really bad 4 to 1 DSD group on a dive ?

 

[RJP]

Again, I think if PADI was watching out for it's members the RIGHT WAY, they would have changed their standards to reflect the safer 2 to 1 ratio.
But maybe you have never watched a really bad 4 to 1 DSD group on a dive ?

Never seen a bad one. Never done a bad one.

I wonder why Willis/SDI didn't go to 1:1... that'd be even safer.

PS - How much safer would David Tuvell have been if he was in a 2:1 program and had been left ALONE on the bottom?

 

[danvolker]

Never seen a bad one. Never done a bad one.

I wonder why Willis/SDI didn't go to 1:1... that'd be even safer.

PS - How much safer would David Tuvell have been if he was in a 2:1 program had been left ALONE on the bottom?

One on one is clearly safer, but you have 2 arms, and you should be able to control two students. if you can't , stick to one.
At 3 to one or 4 to one, a student can bolt in any direction, and you are hosed.

David could have been carried by one arm of the instructor--there would have been no excuse for leaving him. There IS no excuse for leaving him.

 

[redacted]

Never seen a bad one. Never done a bad one.

I wonder why Willis/SDI didn't go to 1:1... that'd be even safer.

PS - How much safer would David Tuvell have been if he was in a 2:1 program and had been left ALONE on the bottom?

While 2:1 may be an improvement over 4:1, 1:1 totally prevents the situation where the instructor's attention is drawn away by one diver having a problem. Another way to deal with that would be to add a qualified assistant for higher ratios. That way it would take two failures (two very low probability events) to create an unmanageable situation. In that case, 4:2 (or even 6:2) may be quite workable and off-sets the business disadvantage of a 1:1 or 1:2 requirement.

PPS - With a qualified assistant the diver in the uncontrolled ascent could have been immediately attended to without leaving the other two divers alone for any time.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

The last two I have done were one to one. And ya know what? I liked it that way. So did the participants. Both are now OW students. They got individual attention which allowed for not only a safe experience but a more comprehensive one. Instead of one hour in the water it was nearly two plus the topside classroom stuff. First 20 minutes spent on weighting and trim. We did mask clearing and r &r (not a big deal since they had to do it during the skin dive before being put on scuba), reg remove and replace, air shares, tossed a torpedo, worked on trim. As a result an hour in and they were using lung volume to control buoyancy while I held onto them and controlled the inflator. Which due to proper weighting was not needed. Neither guy was ever on their knees. Was not necessary.
Before being put on scuba we did an abbreviated swim test, UW breathhold swim, 5 minute tread, and they learned how to clear a mask and snorkel.

As a result I don't ever see doing more than 2 to 1. Can't now anyway with SEI standards and kids are 1 to 1. Period. Unless parent/guardian is a certified diver and then they can be in the water. The one to one with kids is also why I have my child clearance from the state and State Police and FBI background clearance. And will not do any classes with boy scouts unless the other adult they require is a certified diver.