Who has our backs???
- Thread starter LocalScuba
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Wookie
Proud to be a Chaos Muppet
Staff member
ScubaBoard Business Sponsor
ScubaBoard Supporter
Scuba Instructor
SDI TDI have nothing to do with PADI. Furthermore, I was insured through Willis long before I was an SDI/TDI instructor. Every year when I renew my PADI membership, I have to submit my proof of insurance multiple times because it is Willis insurance. PADI gets butthurt when you buy your insurance from anyone besides V&B.
I use willis, and PADI only asked for my proof of insurance once.
I dont do DSD's so I'm personally not concerned about the restriction.
I agree that if the current raitios cause a higher incidence of accidents, then maybe the ratios SHOULD be changed?
I dont do DSD's so I'm personally not concerned about the restriction.
I agree that if the current raitios cause a higher incidence of accidents, then maybe the ratios SHOULD be changed?
Wookie
Proud to be a Chaos Muppet
Staff member
ScubaBoard Business Sponsor
ScubaBoard Supporter
Scuba Instructor
I don't believe that ratios cause accidents. I believe that the nature of the beast (performing DSD's, basically a short course in dive instruction) is ripe for accidents, and that a loss of control of the student is what causes accidents. While taking care of one problem, the instructor is distracted from many other potential problems, resulting in accidents. It may be semantics, but I think the difference is huge.
I agree with you Frank... It may be semantics? But I think they are dangerous.
With the lack of data fidelity provided I could argue that DSDs are the "most dangerous" statistically as they are often taught by the most junior member of the teaching staff. We need just a little more information behind the numbers as they say.
Renegadenow
Registered
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 1
Handling minors is a very serious responsibility. Also some minors do not just do as they are told and try to be adventurous which makes up in a very compromising situations.
Last edited:
swamp diver
Contributor
Well....
It looks like two issues to me. First it looks like an insurance company that is trying to decide for the agency how that agency will conduct certain programmes.
That's not too surprising since insurance companies routinely push doctors around like this as well so it's not an uncommon phenomenon. Ideally the insurance company should only be deciding how much their coverage should cost for that programme, not how the programme is conducted. If they have a problem with the ratios then they should be talking to the agency, not pushing the issue down to the instructors. If they really feel that the ratios are too irresponsible to offer coverage at all then they should simply withdraw from the field and leave it to other insurance companies to pick it up.
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.
The other issue is the background issue about whether or not the DSD is safe enough. Despite that I think that the insurance company is out of line with how they're dealing with this, I do respect that they want to see improvement. It's a sad commentary on the agency, in this case, that the insurance company would appear to be more interested in seeing safety improvements than the agency itself.
R..
It looks like two issues to me. First it looks like an insurance company that is trying to decide for the agency how that agency will conduct certain programmes.
That's not too surprising since insurance companies routinely push doctors around like this as well so it's not an uncommon phenomenon. Ideally the insurance company should only be deciding how much their coverage should cost for that programme, not how the programme is conducted. If they have a problem with the ratios then they should be talking to the agency, not pushing the issue down to the instructors. If they really feel that the ratios are too irresponsible to offer coverage at all then they should simply withdraw from the field and leave it to other insurance companies to pick it up.
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.
The other issue is the background issue about whether or not the DSD is safe enough. Despite that I think that the insurance company is out of line with how they're dealing with this, I do respect that they want to see improvement. It's a sad commentary on the agency, in this case, that the insurance company would appear to be more interested in seeing safety improvements than the agency itself.
R..
Similar threads
