I have found 2 excellent instructors one that teaches NAUI and the other PADI. I would like to hear the pros and cons of each from people who have taken either of these courses up to Trimix.
I have completed the DSAT / PADI tec sequence through Tec Trimix. I did so under the three course sequence, which included two pre-trimix Tec program courses (Tec Level 1 and Tec Deep), not the current 5 course sequence (Tec 40, Tec 45, Tec 50, Tec 65 and Tec Trimix). My goal in pursuing the program was to a) improve my diving skills in general, b) expand my scope of diving skill and experience to include doubles and decompression diving, and c) enhance my confidence in diving at depth. I had no specific plan to dive the AD, for example, or to pursue Cave or any particular overhead diving environment. The program allowed me to meet all my goals. I found the course content to be very useful, the course manuals to be very informative, AND the particular instructor to be a key ingredient in the quality of the course sequence (same instructor for all).
Walter makes an excellent point (and Saspotato's comment relates to this as well) - decide what YOU want to accomplish in 'technical' training and then pursue the course sequence that meets your needs. Jim also raises two particular issues that merit attention - 1) the current course PADI sequence now divides the pre-trimix portion into 3, possibly more 'bite-sized' chunks, which may have more appeal to some, and 2) the PADI sequence previously did not allow the use of helium in the Tec Deep course, in which the final dive (Dive 12) could be as deep as 165', and that has now changed slightly, to allow (but not require) normoxic trimix in Dive 12.
I didn't have a problem with the 3-course Tec sequence. I believe the current 5-course sequence is probably more manageable for some / many, but also adds a level of repetition and redundancy (and, yes, expense). The issue of helium use is a continuing debate, with two extremes - a) everyone should start using helium at 100ft, vs b) divers can pursue Deep Air training to effectively minimize any narcosis they might experience at 200ft on air - probably obscuring the reality, that individual divers experience narcosis at depth to varying degrees AND with varying manifestations (and neither extreme is a reasonable posiition). I personally have not
yet found air at 165' to be a problem, and have even purposefully completed identical dives to 165', on air and on trimix, to compare subjective impressions. But, my regular dive buddy feels a sense of paranoia on air at the same depth, that he doesn't experience with trimix.
One other aspect of the new DSAT / PADI sequence that I like is the increase in depth requirements in the Trimix 65 course. Before, divers were being certified when they may not have even been to 200ft, and I think providing a 'controlled' (as much as anything can really be controlled at 240 ft) exposure to depth is a very good idea.
As for the issue of currency of inclusion of research findings, I understand Jim's point. After attending two recent PADI Tec conferences, my perception may be a little different. While PADI is well aware of current research findings, they are probably a little less quick to include new findings in course sequences, instead taking a more cautious 'we'll see how this turns out' approach. Their approach to deep stops, and to helium use in the pre-trimix curriculum, are both examples of that behavior. That may be an additional consideration in which agency-speciufic course you decide to pursue.
