I'm reviving this thread I posted some time ago, as I have finally completed the new PADI Tec 50 (50m max depth, unlimited deco, max decompression gasses that can contain up to 100% oxygen). I want to share my experiences regarding my research and the program itself.
First, I spent a lot of time speaking with potential instructors about the program. I live in South Florida and have access to many tec instructors. I am somewhat knowledgeable about the instructors who have better reputations, as referred to me by other divers I trust. I spoke with 5 instructors, which were a mix of PADI only (1), PADI and TDI (3) and TDI only (1) instructors. 3 of the 4 PADI instructors had moved to the new program and had issued certs, while one was just transitioning at the time.
The overwhelming message from PADI instructors was that the new PADI program better reflects modern diving and is more flexible to teach than the old program. Each dual agency instructor noted that they believed the PADI program is more "up to date" compared with TDI both in both approach and material. However, all issued the big caveat, of course, that the instructor is going to make all the difference. Each agreed that they didn't care about which program they taught and left it up to me to choose. They all basically said that my ultimate experience would not differ at the end of it all, but the approach might be a bit different based on differences in e-learning/theory and the respective performance requirements of each program.
As discussed earlier in this thread, there are some slight misalignments between the TDI and PADI levels, but at the end of the day, what you can do with your C-cards is similar. I would say that TDI AN/DP is equivalent to PADI Tec 40/45. With these certifications, you can go to a depth of 45m and deco with one deco gas containing up to 100% O2. As the the case with TDI AN/DP, PADI Tec 40/45 can be taught together, and the dives and theory can be comingled for convenience purposes. PADI Tec 50 is more along the lines of TDI Extended Range, both focusing on the use of two deco gases. TDI Extended range caps the depth at 55m, while PADI limits you to 50m. All the PADI courses can be taught with trimix if the student desires, and there are flexible equipment configurations that range from single tank with Y-valve + deco bottle (Tec 40 only), backmount doubles, or sidemount. (I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak to the equipment or helitrox/trimix allowances for TDI, and my intention above was not to give a comprehensive comparison of both programs)
The PADI TecRec e-learning does, indeed, feel modern. It focuses more on the computer diver and the diver that will be using dive planning software. And while it is heavy on theory, it is light on formulas - much, much lighter than TDI and old PADI. Much of the heavy dive theory formulas have been left to optional supplements that can be accessed in the e-learning, but are not required or tested as part of the exams. So, for example, a new PADI approach would be to ensure that you know what Equivalent Air Depth (EAD) is and how it is applied in diving, but it would assume that you'd have access to an app or a table that would tell you what the EAD is for a particular Nitrox blend at a specific depth. It would not ask you to calculate it by hand. In fact, if you've ever taken the PADI Self-Reliant Diver course, you will find that course to be more "formula heavy" than the new tec courses. You can argue whether this is a good or bad thing, but ultimately, it will be up to your instructor to ensure that you know what you're doing, regardless of the approach.
That being said, there should be no surprise: I.T.I.S. It's the Instructor, Stupid.
The actual delivery and specifics of the PADI course are going to vary greatly based on both your instructor and your local environment. I'm a Florida-based, warm water diver and took my course in Utila, Honduras. - we don't really know what a dry suit is. If you take the course in the Great Lakes in October, your experience will differ. We had relatively calm waters in Utila and my instructor's preference was to do 100% bluewater ascents for all dives - we never used an ascent line in any of our dives. The basic theory here is that if you can do 13 simulated deco/full deco divers with bluewater ascents, you can undoubtedly deco on an anchor line. However, to address an earlier question, this is not a performance requirement. Again, your local conditions might make this impossible. My instructor also required us to dive from deco schedules on a wrist slate until very late in Tec 45 before finally transitioning to the computer in the later dives. Again, this is an instructor preference (that I agree with) but it may differ based on your instructor's philosophy.
So, I'll wrap this by saying I was very happy with the new PADI TecRec material. It was well-delivered, modern, and relevant. I didn't feel like I was burning a lot of time calculating formulas that I'd rarely use again. I felt as if I was having a conversation about diving that is taking place in 2024, not in 2010. All that being said, I chose my instructor FIRST, and THAT led me to PADI (my instructor only teaches PADI). If he had taught TDI, I'm sure I would have had a similar outcome at the end of the day, with just a slightly different path to getting there.
I will refer back to the original link I posted from Michael Menduno, who is far more qualified and elegant in his description of the program: The Way The World Will Learn to Tec: Exploring PADI’s TecRec Update
I also found Chris from divezonescuba's links in the post above incredibly helpful in my research.
I welcome any thoughts / questions / criticisms / rants.
First, I spent a lot of time speaking with potential instructors about the program. I live in South Florida and have access to many tec instructors. I am somewhat knowledgeable about the instructors who have better reputations, as referred to me by other divers I trust. I spoke with 5 instructors, which were a mix of PADI only (1), PADI and TDI (3) and TDI only (1) instructors. 3 of the 4 PADI instructors had moved to the new program and had issued certs, while one was just transitioning at the time.
The overwhelming message from PADI instructors was that the new PADI program better reflects modern diving and is more flexible to teach than the old program. Each dual agency instructor noted that they believed the PADI program is more "up to date" compared with TDI both in both approach and material. However, all issued the big caveat, of course, that the instructor is going to make all the difference. Each agreed that they didn't care about which program they taught and left it up to me to choose. They all basically said that my ultimate experience would not differ at the end of it all, but the approach might be a bit different based on differences in e-learning/theory and the respective performance requirements of each program.
As discussed earlier in this thread, there are some slight misalignments between the TDI and PADI levels, but at the end of the day, what you can do with your C-cards is similar. I would say that TDI AN/DP is equivalent to PADI Tec 40/45. With these certifications, you can go to a depth of 45m and deco with one deco gas containing up to 100% O2. As the the case with TDI AN/DP, PADI Tec 40/45 can be taught together, and the dives and theory can be comingled for convenience purposes. PADI Tec 50 is more along the lines of TDI Extended Range, both focusing on the use of two deco gases. TDI Extended range caps the depth at 55m, while PADI limits you to 50m. All the PADI courses can be taught with trimix if the student desires, and there are flexible equipment configurations that range from single tank with Y-valve + deco bottle (Tec 40 only), backmount doubles, or sidemount. (I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak to the equipment or helitrox/trimix allowances for TDI, and my intention above was not to give a comprehensive comparison of both programs)
The PADI TecRec e-learning does, indeed, feel modern. It focuses more on the computer diver and the diver that will be using dive planning software. And while it is heavy on theory, it is light on formulas - much, much lighter than TDI and old PADI. Much of the heavy dive theory formulas have been left to optional supplements that can be accessed in the e-learning, but are not required or tested as part of the exams. So, for example, a new PADI approach would be to ensure that you know what Equivalent Air Depth (EAD) is and how it is applied in diving, but it would assume that you'd have access to an app or a table that would tell you what the EAD is for a particular Nitrox blend at a specific depth. It would not ask you to calculate it by hand. In fact, if you've ever taken the PADI Self-Reliant Diver course, you will find that course to be more "formula heavy" than the new tec courses. You can argue whether this is a good or bad thing, but ultimately, it will be up to your instructor to ensure that you know what you're doing, regardless of the approach.
That being said, there should be no surprise: I.T.I.S. It's the Instructor, Stupid.
The actual delivery and specifics of the PADI course are going to vary greatly based on both your instructor and your local environment. I'm a Florida-based, warm water diver and took my course in Utila, Honduras. - we don't really know what a dry suit is. If you take the course in the Great Lakes in October, your experience will differ. We had relatively calm waters in Utila and my instructor's preference was to do 100% bluewater ascents for all dives - we never used an ascent line in any of our dives. The basic theory here is that if you can do 13 simulated deco/full deco divers with bluewater ascents, you can undoubtedly deco on an anchor line. However, to address an earlier question, this is not a performance requirement. Again, your local conditions might make this impossible. My instructor also required us to dive from deco schedules on a wrist slate until very late in Tec 45 before finally transitioning to the computer in the later dives. Again, this is an instructor preference (that I agree with) but it may differ based on your instructor's philosophy.
So, I'll wrap this by saying I was very happy with the new PADI TecRec material. It was well-delivered, modern, and relevant. I didn't feel like I was burning a lot of time calculating formulas that I'd rarely use again. I felt as if I was having a conversation about diving that is taking place in 2024, not in 2010. All that being said, I chose my instructor FIRST, and THAT led me to PADI (my instructor only teaches PADI). If he had taught TDI, I'm sure I would have had a similar outcome at the end of the day, with just a slightly different path to getting there.
I will refer back to the original link I posted from Michael Menduno, who is far more qualified and elegant in his description of the program: The Way The World Will Learn to Tec: Exploring PADI’s TecRec Update
I also found Chris from divezonescuba's links in the post above incredibly helpful in my research.
I welcome any thoughts / questions / criticisms / rants.
