Who has our backs???

[The Chairman]

All this is to say that the insurance company, in my reading of this, is out of line with respect to what their ACTUAL responsibility is.

Are they really out of line? I think they are well within their right and you can vote to go elsewhere with your wallet if you don't like the restriction. No one is forcing you to do business with them.

It's about acceptable risk. To them, it's just not acceptable to believe that an instructor can look after more than two non-divers at a time. They are the ones having to write the checks for the repeated failures. I don't blame them for wanting to stem any financial hemorrhaging on their part.

 

[Diver0001]

Are they really out of line?

Pete, I think they are. I do NOT think it's out of line for them to go to the agencies and express their concerns/findings and to negotiate (also on behalf of their customers!) for safety improvements. That, I would find normal and productive behaviour.

What I don't like is when the insurance company starts feeling that it is their right/responsibility to decide outside of the agency's sphere of control HOW delivery of their product will be done.

I fully understand that they're doing it with the best of intentions and I respect that, but in my mind, at least, it's bypassing those who are ACTUALLY responsible. That's not productive because it lets the agencies off the hook and puts the insurance company in the improper position of steering standards.

It's about acceptable risk. To them, it's just not acceptable to believe that an instructor can look after more than two non-divers at a time. They are the ones having to write the checks for the repeated failures. I don't blame them for wanting to stem any financial hemorrhaging on their part.

Well of course you're right about this, but then the ones who need to vote with their feet are the insurance agencies, not their clients. If even one insurance company refuses entirely to insure instructors for DSD then the legal implications for the agencies would put such a noose on them that they would effectively be forced to negotiate. As it is right now, the insurance company is telling instructors what to do instead of the agency, and the agency can sit back and pretend that everything is perfectly ok. See the difference?

R..

 

[flots am]

What I don't like is when the insurance company starts feeling that it is their right/responsibility to decide outside of the agency's sphere of control HOW delivery of their product will be done.

I fully understand that they're doing it with the best of intentions and I respect that, but in my mind, at least, it's bypassing those who are ACTUALLY responsible. That's not productive because it lets the agencies off the hook and puts the insurance company in the improper position of steering standards.

Someone has to. The insurance company is actually the perfect balance for the certification agency.

The CA has a vested interest in shoveling as many people as possible though it's program given it's current number of instructors, and the insurance company has a vested interest in keeping it's risks as low as possible.

I hope to see more insurance-forced conservative practices in the future, since it;'s unlikely to come from the big agencies.

The only place this doesn't work is in locations where insurance isn't required (I don't believe insurance is required in all countries).

flots.

 

[The Chairman]

Someone has to. The insurance company is actually the perfect balance for the certification agency.

I concur with this. It's my opinion that the insurance companies probably did approach the agencies first. When they would not listen to reason, they felt they had to do something. Again, I am glad that NASE does not allow DSDs outside of a pool environment. I agree with them.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

SEI also does not allow DSD's outside of a pool environment and at the Instructor update at DEMA we were told to go by the insurance recommendations and guidelines as put forth by Willis. They are the company that SEI recommends but as long as you are insured they don't care what company it's with. I've been with Witherspoon for going on 6 years now and have been abiding by the no more than two students with an instructor or one to one with kids ever since 2009. I did a Scuba Intro (what we call it) with 4 adults once. All were ok in the water, all could swim very well, but one had a minor issue when she got water up her nose just as we were going under. That was right at the beginning of the session. Right then and there I stopped and asked two of the four to give me a minute. After a short discussion we agreed that one couple would wait while I took the other for their session. And it worked out well because each got more individual attention.
As a DM for another instructor we did a Discover Scuba for a group of college students. There was the instructor, two DM's, and the teacher for the class who was a certified diver. We broke the group down into smaller groups of six. And that was a handful. One kid who was actually on the swimming and diving team was so freaked out by the experience that he immediately bolted. His mind just would not accept that he could breathe while his head was under water as he explained it. But that one kid had he not been near one of us could have had a serious issue.
So I see the insurance company mandating no more than two and one on one with jr divers as a very good thing. I have seen too many times discovers done in open water where the instructor is at the front of a line of people single file. Maybe a DM at the back. Playing Russian Roulette with all of them. Of course this is likely the same instructor who would lead OW students single file on checkouts so it's not surprising that he/she would so easily risk the lives of others.
Where this is going to get the most resistance is from those who see the participants as dollar signs. Not people. Check your ego at the door as far as I have certed 5000 students I can handle three or four no problem. And maybe you can, until you can't. Then when the SHTF and your house and business are gone because you had to take money from four people who wanted to go at the same time there will be no one to blame but yourself.
Morals, ethics, and safety have to trump $$'s at some point. Good that the insurance companies are seeing that they do so they are not paying through the nose.

 

[pmilomeyer]

You might want to remember that my comments were a "response" to PADI's alert, and it was not directed to the general public, it was directed to those clients of Willis who receivved the PADI alert. Having others move my comments into the public domain is a result, but not the intent. I take your comment about being responsible to heart, but would also point out that it is the lack of this type of commentary that let's large entities (like PADI) get away with this stuff. My quotes were from court archives, Drew Richardson's own presentation, and other 3rd party entities (coast guard, various judges etc.). If that information is not valuable, what is? Peter Meyer.

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 . . . .