Who has our backs???

[LocalScuba]

It's been awhile, but I think the question needs to be asked and answered

How and Why does an Instructor following agency standards get kicked to the curb by that same agency?
Who really has our backs?

Did you guys see this PADI vs Willis confrontation?? I am curious to know about your opinions. Is this a low blow to their members/instructors? Should we be worried that our insurance and training agency leaves us out to hang even though we have followed their standards?
Read on…

Dear PADI Member,
Our records show you carry professional liability insurance for 2012-2013 though Willis, the insurance broker for the SDI/TDI sponsored program, Willis recently issued a notice stating that its insurance carrier will no longer provide insurance coverage to dive professionals conducting introductory scuba programs with a participant to instructor ratio greater than 2:1 in open water (1:1 for minors). This change is reflected in the Warranties of the policy which are provided online:
“For any Claim arising out of any Event involving the insured’s conduct of an introductory experience program (any program designed to introduce uncertified divers to recreational scuba diving via a supervised, controlled open water experience) where the participant to Instructor ratio exceeds two to one. This ratio may be increased to four participants per Instructor when the Instructor is assisted by a certified Assistant Instructor or certified Dive Master.”
“For any Claim arising out of any Event involving the insured’s conduct of an introductory experience program (any program designed to introduce uncertified divers to recreational scuba diving via a supervised, controlled open water experience) involving minors where the participant to instructor ratio exceeds one to one.”
We are informed this change was effective 1 January 2013.
This decision only affects Willis/SDI-insured dive professionals, dive retailers and dive resorts. This decision by SDI’s insurance carrier does not affect industry standards for introductory programs; PADI, RSTC and ISO standards remain at a 4:1 ratio.
This restriction from SDI’s insurance carrier means that PADI Members carrying SDI’s professional liability insurance, along with PADI dive retailers and resorts using the SDI group professional liability program, must take the precaution of immediately reducing introductory scuba program ratios to no more than two participants to each instructor for open water dives, or risk denial of coverage for claims from dives in which a higher ratio was used.
PADI Members with PADI-endorsed individual and group professional liability insurance remain covered, as in the past, for Discover Scuba® Diving or other introductory scuba programs that meet RSTC standards, including a 4:1 ratio for the open water dive.
If you have questions about this change please contact Willis directly.

This is the response from Willis!!!
You are receiving this email from us in response to the recent PADI Insurance Alert which was sent out via bulk email. If you did not receive the PADI Alert, please accept our apologies and ignore the contents of this email. We would also invite any and all concerned members of the dive community to contact me directly with any additional questions or concerns regarding this issue at any time.

PADI “INSURANCE ALERT”​

​

You have to hand it to PADI, they do know how to cause a fuss. They should, however, stick to trying to explain their own program because they inevitably get it wrong when talking about ours. Here are the facts:
1. While we do want to make some changes to the ratios we insure for Discover Scuba diving (DSD) type programs, those changes will not affect any policies already in force at January 1, 2013.
2. We have been discussing introductory program ratios with many of the training agencies out there and believe that changes are needed (some have already changed and some are reviewing changes as we speak). You should know, however, that this has nothing whatsoever to do with SDI as suggested by the PADI alert. We have never had any issues, or claims, involving SDI introductory programs, or SDI members involved with introductory programs. Our issues are strictly with the PADI DSD program. The real problem is that PADI ratios are not defensible in many circumstances (more on that later).
3. This is not new information and there is no need for any drama. PADI have been aware of our concerns for quite some time (years in fact) and we have been discussing those same issues with Willis insured’s on a continuing basis.
4. If you are a current Willis insured with a policy issued prior to January 1, 2013 you are fully covered for PADI DSD Programs, even with a 4:1 ratio. You do not need to take the precaution of “immediately reducing introductory scuba program ratios”, “or risk denial of coverage” as the PADI Alert says. Your current policy guidelines remain in effect. I’m not sure why PADI has to misrepresent the truth when they could have simply asked us, but that seems to be their typical modus operandi.
So, the PADI “Alert” is incorrect as usual. Now let’s turn our attention to the real issue at hand.
INCIDENT #1
On July 13, 2011 two minors (a 12 year old boy and a 13 year old boy) and an adult participated in a Dive Experience program (Discover Scuba Diving) led by a certified PADI Instructor. During their return to shore along a safety line, at a depth of 14 feet, the adult had issues with buoyancy and began to make a rapid ascent to the surface. The Instructor quickly caught the surfacing diver and returned to the safety line to find both boys missing.
One of the boys was found safe and sound on the surface and the other was found unconscious on the bottom. He never recovered.
This incident has resulted in legal action against PADI and the individual Instructor involved (The Estate of David Christopher Tuvell v. Boy Scouts of America, Professional Association of Dive Instructors (“PADI”), et al, Case No. 1:12-cv00128 U.S. District Court for the District of Utah).
Now comes the interesting part. Willis insures the instructor involved and immediately assigned a well-known dive attorney, David Concannon, to perform a site evaluation and review the incident. Based on this investigation, it was clear that all PADI DSD standards had been met. The instructor involved reported the incident to PADI in the required manner and was summarily expelled from PADI, just 13 days after the incident. The only reason given by PADI was: “your continued membership is not in the best interests of PADI.” PADI did not do an on-site investigation, interview any witnesses or even obtain a copy of the police report. PADI also did not provide the instructor with any reference to standards that may have been violated, yet they expelled him immediately (copy of the redacted letter attached). The instructor formally requested a review by PADI (copy of his redacted letter attached) but he has had no response whatsoever.
Who is currently defending this PADI instructor? The Willis Dive Program underwriters!
PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY IS A PADI INSTRUCTOR
Interestingly, the plaintiffs’ attorney who is suing PADI and the PADI Instructor on behalf of the family in the Tuvell case is also a PADI Master Instructor. See: Meet Bobby Delise & Alton Hall | Attorneys at DiveLawyer.com According to the plaintiffs’ lawyer’s web site, “Mr. Hall has been a PADI open water instructor since 1984, with a Master Scuba Diver Trainer rating having provided instruction on every level of diving including numerous specialties. He is a certified NACD cavern instructor, a cave diver through NACD, GUE and NSS-CDS and a recipient of the Wakulla award, and holds additional certifications through IANTD. He has vast experience with mixed-gas diving, deep diving, cave exploration and wreck penetration.”
And what are some of the allegations he is making in the complaint?
· “The PADI DSD program in use by the defendants was defective in all its design and elements negligently created, and inappropriate for use.”
· “The Defendants were all aware of the defects in the program,”

INCIDENT #2
There is current case law which indicates that 4:1, 3:1 and even 2:1 ratios are dangerous under certain circumstances.Isham v. Padi Worldwide Corp., 2008 U.S.District Court Hawaii…, is a good example for several reasons:
1. The PADI Instructor involved, who was seriously injured himself during the accident, actually sued PADI for “Fraudulent Concealment” and “Negligent Misrepresentation” with respect to the safety of the DSD program. There was a “confidential” settlement in that case.
2. The injured DSD participant also sued PADI and there was a “confidential” settlement with him as well.
3. The judge in that case, included several negative comments in one of his orders (copy attached for review):
a. “PADI received letters from its members who ran PADI dive instruction classes. One such letter said “Please consider changing the ratio to 2:1 (but whatever you do – DO NOT increase the ratio)”
b. “PLEASE-PLEASE-PLEASE DO NOT change the maximum depth limit of 30 feet.”
c. “Shortly after the Discover Scuba Experience was released, PADI received another letter, which was written by a PADI member who employed 102 PADI instructors and averaged 55 introductory dives a day, The letter stated that “past experience has proven that even the most experienced of staff can have difficulty with only four participants even under “ideal” condition.”
d. “In 1997, a participant in the Discover Scuba Experience got separated from the group and died by drowning. The Coast Guard investigated that death and determined that the drowning occurred because of the participant’s diving inexperience and the lack of direct supervision by the dive instructor. The Coast Guard further determined that the Discover Scuba Experience instructions were ambiguous with respect to the meaning of direct supervision and in other respects.”
e. “The Coast Guard strongly recommended that PADI clarify their Discover Scuba Experience manual and that it was imperative that they provide clear instruction to help prevent dive casualties.”…”PADI did not provide evidence that it clarified its instruction manual regarding direct supervision”.
“Direct Supervision”, or the inability to provide it, appears to be the real issue here. If you have a problem with a DSD participant and have to attend to that individual, the rest of your participants are technically “alone” at that point. Regardless of your ratio it seems clear that this ends up being a violation of PADI standards!

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLMENTS
Confidential settlements seem to be a recurring theme with respect to DSD litigation and we must wonder why that is? We also have to wonder why there are so many? Of course, we don’t know the real numbers, but we think it would be beneficial to the industry at Large if PADI shared these numbers. After all, isn’t that how we improve the safety of our sport for all participants?
I could keep going on and on with examples like Veasey v. Hubbard et al..., 2011 U.S.District Court Hawaii, but the few we have discussed here surely have to be enough to cause some concern about the safety of current PADI DSD standards.

QUESTIONS?
So, if the information presented here has caused you some concern, we would suggest you contact PADI and V&B and ask for formal clarification of the following questions:
1. If a PADI Instructor conducts a DSD program with 4 participants and has to deal with an emergency situation involving one of the participants, is he / she still able to meet the PADI requirement to maintain “direct” supervision of the other participants?
2. If a PADI Instructor cannot maintain direct supervision of all his / her DSD participants because he / she need to address an emergency issue, and an accident results, will PADI expel the Instructor as they did with the instructor in the Tuvell case?
3. If I am expelled from PADI, will my V&B insurance still defend me like the Willis insurance is doing in the Tuvell case?
I think you need to get the answer to these in writing, because your future, or the future of your business, may well depend on it.

If the answers to these questions (if there are any!) leave you a little less than reassured, maybe it’s time to start looking for a different training agency?
While our primary goal is to provide appropriate insurance coverage for our client’s activities, we also feel it is important to help our clients avoid significant exposures of this nature, and that is the reason for this update. All Dive Leaders, Dive Facilities and Dive Vessels providing DSD type programs to their customers, need to be aware of these important issues, and should spend some time developing proactive Risk Management protocols specifically aimed at preventing DSD accidents.

ONE LAST COMMENT TO PADI
I would like to offer one last personal comment to the powers that be at PADI. Why do you have to behave like this? DIVE INSURANCE ALERT indeed! This is serious stuff – many people have lost their lives, a 12 year old boy is dead, an instructor who followed your standards is expelled by PADI without due process and is sued as a result – and you are concerned about selling insurance!
Shame on you.

Best regards.
Peter Meyer
Willis Recreational Dive Programs

Thoughts???

 

[The Chairman]

Personally, I think the Willis restriction of 2:1 and 1:1 for minors is about right. One of the agencies I teach for has discontinued this type of program altogether.

 

[flots am]

Thoughts???

Yes, I have a thought.

"Discover SCUBA Diving" should have a 1:1 student:instructor ratio.

Anything else is just looking for trouble. I don't know a single human that can give 100% attention to more than one thing at a time. Any problem with one diver means the other one is on his own, which is completely unacceptable for non-certified divers.

Our shop doesn't even offer DSD in Open Water. We have "Try SCUBA" and it's only in the pool. In the shallow end.

I can't even imagine the "pucker factor" involved with taking a non-diver out into the ocean.

flots

 

[LocalScuba]

PADI STATISTICS
This is only one of many reported incidents involving DSD programs over the last few years, and it is clear from these reports that current ratios and age requirements are not adequate for these programs. According to PADI statistics (DAN Dive Fatality Proceedings 2010) there were 36 DSD fatalities reported between 1989 – 2008 and there have been many more since. The following statistics were provided by Drew Richardson at the DAN workshop:

Program	Historical Fatality ratio (fatalities per 100K dives)
	1989 - 1998	1999 - 2008	Average
Entry Level	0.341	0.415	0.378
Advanced Open water	0.74	0.589	0.6645
Discover Scuba Diving (DSD)	2.898	1.14	2.019
Rescue Diver	0.143	0.091	0.117
Specialties (deep, night, wreck etc.)	0.287	0.82	0.5535
Divemaster	1.016	0.031	0.5235
		*ratio was reduced from 6:1 to 4:1 in 2001

Their own numbers suggest that the DSD program has issues!

 

[nimoh]

if there is a standard ratio of more than 1 student per instructor, and there is also a standard that a non-certified diver (student) cannot be left alone, what is the protocol if the students split up (e.g. one bolts for the surface, and the other doesn't)?

 

[Wookie]

I have many times taught DSD at an 8:2 ratio. I did it every day for a year. My conditions were pool like, and I far exceeded PADI standards by actually teaching participants to dive, not just to follow. People aren't stupid. It doesn't take long to teach them to add air or remove air from a BC. We would start our ocean dive over the sand so that I could see who was and who wasn't going to be able to handle a coral reef, and those who couldn't got sent back with the other instructor. I never had an incident, and truly believe that I am smarter than PADI when it comes to control of students.

Now, with that said, I would never go more than 1:1 if I didn't have a CA available. An instructor is so task loaded leading the dive that it takes a CA to head off any potential problems with the 7 that you just can't pay attention to. I believe that instead of reducing the ratio to 2:1, Willis should have moved the second number to 2.

But then, you couldn't make a fortune in the scuba industry as an independant instructor, could ya.....?

 

[Colliam7]

Thoughts???

I am truly astonished that any responsible representative of a business / corporate entity (such as Willis) would make such statements about another business (PADI) in a public third-party communication!

The credibility of any negative potential action that Willis might need to take at a future time involving any insured PADI professional would seem to be seriously compromised by the obvious bias evident in the response.

Now, I suspect you actually wanted thoughts on a different aspect of the communication chain. But, my comment, above, was my immediate reaction.

With regard to the PADI DSD program:

1. I (and our shop) NEVER do OW DSDs. If a customer requests one, we decline to offer it.

2. We do a considerable number of Confined Water DSDs each year, for which the ratios are within PADI standards. If we have group DSD activity with 8 participants, we will normally have an Instructor and at least one, and usually 2 Divemasters in the water as well.

3. We do not accept minors in our group DSD offerings.

4. I infrequently participate in DSDs, but enjoy doing them when possible, and I believe they are a very appropriate way to introduce potential divers to SCUBA.

5. I would be reluctant to ever participate in an OW DSD with anything other than a 1:1 ratio, irrespective of participant age. Even then . . . .

 

[Peter Guy]

Thoughts -- Hmmm --- I'd love to represent the instructor who has V&B insurance if V&B failed to fulfill its obligation to defend. Other than that, I'm just very glad I'm a pool only DSD person -- although I did take my grandson on a DSD with a ratio of 2:1 and then my grandson and nephew with a ratio of 2:2.

 

[Wookie]

I am truly astonished that any responsible representative of a business / corporate entity (such as Willis) would make such statements about another business (PADI) in a public third-party communication!

Are you equally astonished that PADI would make such allegations about Willis failing to cover those of us PADI instructors following PADI standards, when that statement was blatantly untrue, just because we don't have V&B insurance?

Are you equally astonished that PADI would drop a member in good standing who had an unfortunate accident and was found by a third party investigation to be following all appropriate standards without that member even receiving a phone call from their member organization?

I was. So I called my friend who works for PADI. That person told me that there was more to the story. I'm guessing that PADI management lied to them, too.

 

[kaerius]

One place I worked for we did up to 10:3 ratio DSDs in confined open water(a very gently sloping sheltered bay with a max depth of 6m and vis of 20m+ with sand bottom). It was essentially a perfect DSD enviroment. We always had 3 instructors on every dive, one in front, one behind, one where needed. Even if one customer had trouble, the rest still were under the watchful eye of 2 more instructors, even if two had trouble, the rest are under instructor supervision, but it would be time to either call the dive, or just let one instructor take the two with problems back to shore, on the surface.