h a l f b a k e r yLike gliding backwards through porridge.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
You need to somehow link the training (which more than likely will be exemplary) to insurance - PADI have the upper hand because (I assume) because membership/fees are used to fund insurance premiums etc. |
|
| |
No, PADI members are expected to provide their own indemnity insurance.
If they abide by PADI procedures and maintain a proper paper trail, then PADI will defend any action against a member. PADI claims never to have lost.
If, however they don't abide by procedures or don't maintain proper records, PADI will simply walk away. Yer on yer own, mate. |
|
| |
Or you could get a BSAC qualification - far superior to PADI, of course... |
|
| |
//you could get a BSAC qualification // If you can wait that long. |
|
| |
//If they abide by PADI procedures and maintain a proper paper trail// - OK, so it's a legal insurance of sorts then - how would you get the same safety net for your open source thing? |
|
| |
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great idea - but there should be some element of liability protection in there somewhere - if it wasn't a requirement, this would have happened already. |
|
| |
//but there should be some element of liability protection in there // How about guaranteed anonymity for contributors? |
|
| |
No, I mean for the people who run dive schools. If you run a dive school, or take people out on dives for money (i.e. a professional divemaster) you need to be comfortable that you're not going to get sued if something goes horribly wrong. The service that PADI provide to the dive school is that of a parent organisation (a kind of union, almost) that looks after the little guys. |
|
| |
How would an open source organisation be able to provide that same protection? |
|
| |
//How would an open source organisation be able to provide that same protection?// Open sourcers don't need no steekin' union <phthatt> |
|
| |
Dude, Jacques Cousteau didn't need any steenkin' insurance either - there's nothing stopping you from learning how to dive on your own. Nothing at all. |
|
| |
PADI et all are *insurable* ways of teaching people to dive *insurably* - the actual diving technique is secondary - if you don't care about insurance, then just do it. Just do it very, very carefully - and don't expect to ever be able to become a pro without PADI or any of the other certification people, because nobody will touch you until you're insurable. |
|
| |
//Jacques Cousteau didn't need any steenkin' insurance either // 50 + metres on air? He'd be uninsurable. |
|
| |
The point being that Jacques made that mistake so you don't have to. Pioneers must, almost by definition, operate without regulation - they learn things a different way, and through their exploration, find out all the pitfalls through experience. |
|
| |
If you run a business, neither you, nor your customers can afford that luxury. And that's what regulation is for. |
|
| |
//If you run a business// I don't think I ever said this was the foundation of a business, just a different way of approaching dive training. |
|
| |
You did say that you wanted to //challenge PADI's market dominance// |
|
| |
If you're just writing a dive manual, then fine - but PADI et al don't corner the market on "How to dive" books, they sell (as mentioned before) an "insurable" technique and certification programme - which is where the value is - but this idea isn't going to do all the things that these other, regulated organisations do - You will be operating in an entirely different market to them, so where's the challenge? |
|
| |