DAN Responds

[Baker_Dive]

Abaco Cave Diver Evacuation

Just before Christmas, a DAN member who was diving in Abaco, Bahamas, experienced an incident that resulted in decompression illness. When he contacted DAN and tried to access the benefits […]

dan.org

DAN responds the the issue surrounding Woody from Dive talk.

 

[also_anon_dc]

I think that's a detailed, well-thought out response and I continue to remain confident in DAN and their ability to provide services if I'm ever in an emergency.

I'm curious to hear what others think. In the other threads discussing this incident there were comments from members taking pretty radical steps like opening an AMEX card and deeming DAN "useless" before they even issued their response.

 

[rhwestfall]

I have, and will continue to carry DAN (20+ years). I also carry what I hope is enough working credit to assist me should things go sideways...

No changes, but an appreciation for DAN continuing to evolve.

 

[NW Dive Dawg]

Thanks for the reference. I just printed this response to keep in both my electronic and hard DAN files.... Suggest others do the same. I'll continue to use DAN.

 

[Wookie]

I wouldn't use anyone else. I have no idea who the person was that got bent, but sometimes stuff happens and it looks to me like DAN ponied up and took responsibility for their actions as well as failures.

 

[tmassey]

Wow. My reaction is the exact opposite of the sentiment that I'm getting from the replies above.

DAN acknowledges *several* 'deviations from SOP' in this case, or requirements that clearly worked against the victim either by them or their selected transportation provider (for which they bear the ultimate responsibility):

* Failing to find a transport, when the local staff *were* able to.

* Insisting on unnecessary paperwork during an emergency while suffering from a DCI!

* Paying for everything out of pocket. Reimbursing is *not* nearly enough, because most people couldn't come out of pocket immediately with $50,000 on a credit card -- and DAN acknowledges that.

Those are just the items that DAN states that they will change in the future.

I haven't seen any of the original claims, and I don't really need to. I'm just going by DAN's own statement. And I find those admissions unsettling to say the least.

If this had happened to me, there's a very good chance I would have been seriously injured or even dead because of those obstacles, not least because I wouldn't have the resources to overcome the obstacles.

DAN has stated that they will make changes to improve this. But some of those changes are not actually changes, but expectations that they actually do what their SOP says they should do. If they couldn't follow the old SOP, why would we be confident that they will follow their improved SOP in the future?


I really do hope DAN uses this opportunity to improve to actually improve -- and that it sticks for longer than the attention of a YouTube video brought to it. Because my life may depend on it.

But that's also a reminder about the nature of any insurance. As a victim, you sit *across* the table from the insurance company. They do not have an incentive to be generous. That doesn't mean that they *will* be evil: I've been in three car accidents with significant or total loss to my vehicle, and my car insurance company was both easy to work with and more generous than I had expected in the moment. But you can't necessarily expect an insurance company for example to fight hard to find a more expensive solution that they don't already know about. Unfortunately, in the end, no one cares about your life more than you do: sometimes you have to advocate for yourself even when someone else might be expected to on your behalf.

Unfortunately, the biggest question I have is: what is the alternative? I don't know of another service that offers the protection that DAN (nominally) offers. So even though I may not be as confident that they will do the right thing, it's still better than the alternative of not having *any* protection. And I'm sure there are a number of people for whom their experience with DAN was only beneficial. Even so, I will be looking for such alternatives myself. Does anyone have any suggestions?


ETA: Just to be clear, I don't think there's anything better DAN can do right now but to put out that statement. And I *applaud* them for doing so. They have outlined a number of clear improvements that they want to make. And if they do make them, there is little doubt that the service they offer will be more valuable. I *really* want them to do this because it's better for all of us! But the statement is just the beginning. In a situation where multiple life-threatening obstacles were put in place, it is clear that there is a serious need for improvement. I'm not ready to just assume that because they've admitted to the weaknesses and state a desire to improve that they actually *will* improve. But again, where else can we go?

 

[noserider]

This is a very comprehensive, refreshingly honest and candid response with clear admissions of failures and improvements that have been implemented and thus completely restoring faith in DAN.

I wish all companies were this honest in their responses and should be used by PR professionals as to how you can get responses completely right.

 

[DirtFish]

Wow. My reaction is the exact opposite of the sentiment that I'm getting from the replies above.

DAN acknowledges *several* 'deviations from SOP' in this case, or requirements that clearly worked against the victim either by them or their selected transportation provider (for which they bear the ultimate responsibility):

* Failing to find a transport, when the local staff *were* able to.

* Insisting on unnecessary paperwork during an emergency while suffering from a DCI!

* Paying for everything out of pocket. Reimbursing is *not* nearly enough, because most people couldn't come out of pocket immediately with $50,000 on a credit card -- and DAN acknowledges that.

Those are just the items that DAN states that they will change in the future.

I haven't seen any of the original claims, and I don't really need to. I'm just going by DAN's own statement. And I find those admissions unsettling to say the least.

If this had happened to me, there's a very good chance I would have been seriously injured or even dead because of those obstacles, not least because I wouldn't have the resources to overcome the obstacles.

DAN has stated that they will make changes to improve this. But some of those changes are not actually changes, but expectations that they actually do what their SOP says they should do. If they couldn't follow the old SOP, why would we be confident that they will follow their improved SOP in the future?


I really do hope DAN uses this opportunity to improve to actually improve -- and that it sticks for longer than the attention of a YouTube video brought to it. Because my life may depend on it.

But that's also a reminder about the nature of any insurance. As a victim, you sit *across* the table from the insurance company. They do not have an incentive to be generous. That doesn't mean that they *will* be evil: I've been in three car accidents with significant or total loss to my vehicle, and my car insurance company was both easy to work with and more generous than I had expected in the moment. But you can't necessarily expect an insurance company for example to fight hard to find a more expensive solution that they don't already know about. Unfortunately, in the end, no one cares about your life more than you do: sometimes you have to advocate for yourself even when someone else might be expected to on your behalf.

Unfortunately, the biggest question I have is: what is the alternative? I don't know of another service that offers the protection that DAN (nominally) offers. So even though I may not be as confident that they will do the right thing, it's still better than the alternative of not having *any* protection. And I'm sure there are a number of people for whom their experience with DAN was only beneficial. Even so, I will be looking for such alternatives myself. Does anyone have any suggestions?

My sentiments exactly! You ALWAYS have to be your own advocate, whether it's a simple annual checkup or a DCI hit. I think this incident has served as a wake up call that things can go pear shaped quickly when we least expect it and we should be prepared to get the situation taken care of with or without help from the insurance company.

 

[Wookie]

My sentiments exactly! You ALWAYS have to be your own advocate, whether it's a simple annual checkup or a DCI hit. I think this incident has served as a wake up call that things can go pear shaped quickly when we least expect it and we should be prepared to get the situation taken care of with or without help from the insurance company.

I agree with this without necessarily agreeing with tmassey.

I have DAN insurance to do what is needed when things 1) go wrong and 2) then go right. When things 1) go wrong and then 2) go way wrong, you will need more tools to fix the problem. Relying on someone else to do the right thing the first time, every time is just silly. At the end of the day, no one cares about the condition of my butt as much as I do. Which is why I carry a number of high limit credit cards, multiple medical evacuation plans, and surround myself with competent people who can bail me out when I need to. DAN is only a part, admittedly the first part, in my bag of tools.

I was badly bent in Cozumel. I went to the chamber where they insisted I only had a barotrauma. I was left untreated for 5 days, flew home, and called DAN, who had me in the chamber within an hour. The valuable leson learned was to not place your eggs in one basket. No one knows my dizzyness more than I do. No one understands my loss of balance like me. I was never seen by a doc in Coz, only a chamber tech who couldn't have treated me without the doc anyway. The mistake I made was not going to the other chamber.

 

[rhwestfall]

The occurrence revealed (from how I read the statement) issues in how DAN and the affiliates they have partnered with carried out their assumed/expected roles and responsibilities and also identified weaknesses in their system; in-depth resource familiarity. The second is an ever changing scenario.

What I feel I mostly read was the "call center"/resource DAN partnered with (appears to be external) did not hold up their end of what they were expected to do from DAN as well as the user. It seems from the DAN statement that there is a new partner (possibly internal now) to be the facilitator.

The DAN response is certainly not worthy of "dancing in the streets", but identifying the issue certainly helps resolve it for future occurrences.

I still feel the dive team was significantly irresponsible in their emergency action plan for the activity and location as well as their implementation.

It appears DAN is attempting to improve, how about the Dive Team?