So how often do you think people get certified for Decompression Procedures without either nitrox or Advanced Nitrox? Do they use air for their bottom gas and air for their deco gas? Seriously?
Tech through PADI or TDI?
- Thread starter Black Cat
- 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
Have you actually read the standard, Jay?
I'm talking about the actual standard... the letter of the standard.... not the internet posturing about it....
Firstly, you should be familiar with the standards if your still teaching TDI, regardless is if it's common practice or not. then try to read my posts without thinking there's any evil intent.
Nope, never read standards, they don't apply to me. But in seriousness, this could be a fun exercise....as we both have access to the agencies (PADI and UTD/GUE OW) standard, let's post a comparison of which standards we think are "Higher" and "lower". Just actual written standards....we can do other agencies later if you wish.
Last edited:
I stopped teaching TDI two years ago. I have the standards on CD-ROM, but someone borrowed my CD-ROM drive and I don't have it with me right now.
Where do you see I was reading your post as if it were written with evil intent?
Dan_P
Contributor
I see how terminology got the better of us here. By "standard" I mean:
As for the letter of Standards and Procedures, I'll be happy to learn more: answering your question, yes, I read the letter of the Standards and Procedures for the specific course you mention, but it was a long while back and subject to both my distant memory as well as any and all updates in the meantime;
is it correct that the standards you refer to require all skills to be carried out neutrally bouant, carrying out proper ascend and calculate correct gas requirements, ascertain a balanced rig, using non-silting swimming techniques and carrying out compass navigation during the dive?
If not, then I definitely don't agree with the notion that, at least UTDs standards, are low by comparison.
John, I included the link to the Standards for TDI and quoted it in my post. I even mentioned its rare to teach a DP that doesn't either include or already have some form of EANX, but that is the standard. Just showing that by you saying "it's required" isn't correct. Just like you saying Deep diver isn't "required".
So here is what I'm saying again......the PADI path to Deco and 150' "requires" more steps. That's not a bad thing.
So here is what I'm saying again......the PADI path to Deco and 150' "requires" more steps. That's not a bad thing.
@Diver0001 - wow - thank-you for considering my post. you gave it more consideration than I expected.
I have considered the differences between agencies for a long time, and the conclusion I have come to is that the only difference IS the history. You disagree, so we will have to agree to disagree.
The reason I have come to this conclusion is because when one tries to reduce comparison down to standards, the result and conclusion are they same - which you have come to - it's the instructor that matters - and I think that is pathetic! Why? Because it means that despite all the instructor candidates within the same agency being taught by the same standards, there is a wide variation in the instructors produced. This obviously results in a wide variation in the students produced by those various instructors as well. Thus the need for "a couple of dives to "test drive" them before doing anything ..."
Doesn't this frustrate you? It does me on many levels. First, have you ever gone on a dive vacation and had trouble getting to do the dive you wanted - just because the person(s) you were trying to get to take you doubted your qualification? Second, If everyone is supposedly certified to the same standards, then why is there this variation in actual qualification? Answer - because the standards of most scuba agencies don't matter!
Doesn't it frustrate you that you may turn out only qualified divers, but the card you issue is the same exact card as the instructor who turns out poorly trained students? It's like you putting your Ferrari logo on a Chevy and expecting people to 'respect' and pay just as much for your Chevy just because you put your Ferrari logo on it! Don't you feel like the Chevy instructor is stealing from you? You are producing Ferraris, while he / she is producing Chevys - but the certificates of authenticity you are both issuing are reduced to the lowest common denominator - the Chevy value! Doesn't that frustrate you?
From a student perspective, you are expecting them to "find a good instructor". But without to tools (knowledge they don't have yet - which is why they are students), students end up with poor instructors - because the student is relying on the agency to verify the instructor is duly qualified.
From another perspective, have you ever traveled without your buddy, and then been faced with being stuck with someone "certified" but less qualified than you. Even more frustrating is when the assigned buddy either doesn't know how to be a buddy, or doesn't dive similarly enough to you to be your buddy?
The point is that standards don't seem to make any difference within the same agency, and rarely differentiate in a discernible way between agencies either. So I ask: is there is any way to differentiate between agencies other than direct comparison of standards?
I don't care if you choose to ignore what I have seen or not, but that doesn't change what I see. For example - throughout one agency's history, the culture has been to state one thing and then do another, as well as constantly reduce standards, and create bandaids for poorly thought out methodology. They are never cutting edge - they are followers (nothing particularly wrong with that either) - but if you look for it - you can see these attitudes and methods of diving in their instructors / divers. That is why there is a wide variation in quality as you call it. Maybe some of their instructors want to be more cutting edge, and maybe even study outside of agency materials. But they are the exceptions - not the rule.
Another agency prides itself in deep air, solo, and computer diving. They don't care if they sell a product that they know is flawed, and have a history of selling instructor certifications for $20 to anyone who can prove they might be an instructor. These ethos are apparent in the way that they offer training. This again accounts for a wide variation in their instructors and divers.
The list goes on for more agencies ....
So to recap - it's nice that some instructors on this forum care enough about standards that they attempt to compare and contrast agencies by their respective standards, but as you point out - one has to search for the right instructor because of the wide variation in quality - because standards ultimately don't mean anything - they are just check boxes for instructors to fill in (if they choose to). And yet there are distinct differences between agencies if you choose to notice - otherwise, how do instructors choose to become a member of one over the other? How do you quantify the differences? You can't - because the differences aren't measurable by standards - they are only discernible by the culture of the agency. That is why I propose that it is the history that matters - not the standards.
They say the best way to predict future performance is to review past performance (history), and for me that definitely applies to agency culture.
I don't blame you for wanting to deny this - you are invested in your agency - and that is fine. But if there were a choice, wouldn't you prefer that the Chevy instructor didn't devalue your certification? Wouldn't you like to be able to to go somewhere and dive with a new buddy at both your stated levels with no worries? I don't care about looking good on paper, plastic, or digital download, etc. What I am interested in is exploring what has caused the "vast VAST quality differences" you cite above. You seem to present it as unexplainable but unavoidable. I think it is the respective culture.
Finally - getting back to the OP and what I suggested and why - he asked how to choose between padi or tdi. Clearly picking based on 'the instructor' doesn't work, because I know plenty of divers that attempted to pick based on instructor and think their instructor is the greatest - and are quite blissful in their ignorance. Many replies suggested basing it on the instructor and not the agency - because standards don't matter, and quality varies. I don't wish to be a part of the system of devalued certifications that picking based on instructor suggests, so I suggested he compare histories - agency culture - and pick the one he related to best.
cheers
I have considered the differences between agencies for a long time, and the conclusion I have come to is that the only difference IS the history. You disagree, so we will have to agree to disagree.
The reason I have come to this conclusion is because when one tries to reduce comparison down to standards, the result and conclusion are they same - which you have come to - it's the instructor that matters - and I think that is pathetic! Why? Because it means that despite all the instructor candidates within the same agency being taught by the same standards, there is a wide variation in the instructors produced. This obviously results in a wide variation in the students produced by those various instructors as well. Thus the need for "a couple of dives to "test drive" them before doing anything ..."
Doesn't this frustrate you? It does me on many levels. First, have you ever gone on a dive vacation and had trouble getting to do the dive you wanted - just because the person(s) you were trying to get to take you doubted your qualification? Second, If everyone is supposedly certified to the same standards, then why is there this variation in actual qualification? Answer - because the standards of most scuba agencies don't matter!
Doesn't it frustrate you that you may turn out only qualified divers, but the card you issue is the same exact card as the instructor who turns out poorly trained students? It's like you putting your Ferrari logo on a Chevy and expecting people to 'respect' and pay just as much for your Chevy just because you put your Ferrari logo on it! Don't you feel like the Chevy instructor is stealing from you? You are producing Ferraris, while he / she is producing Chevys - but the certificates of authenticity you are both issuing are reduced to the lowest common denominator - the Chevy value! Doesn't that frustrate you?
From a student perspective, you are expecting them to "find a good instructor". But without to tools (knowledge they don't have yet - which is why they are students), students end up with poor instructors - because the student is relying on the agency to verify the instructor is duly qualified.
From another perspective, have you ever traveled without your buddy, and then been faced with being stuck with someone "certified" but less qualified than you. Even more frustrating is when the assigned buddy either doesn't know how to be a buddy, or doesn't dive similarly enough to you to be your buddy?
The point is that standards don't seem to make any difference within the same agency, and rarely differentiate in a discernible way between agencies either. So I ask: is there is any way to differentiate between agencies other than direct comparison of standards?
I don't care if you choose to ignore what I have seen or not, but that doesn't change what I see. For example - throughout one agency's history, the culture has been to state one thing and then do another, as well as constantly reduce standards, and create bandaids for poorly thought out methodology. They are never cutting edge - they are followers (nothing particularly wrong with that either) - but if you look for it - you can see these attitudes and methods of diving in their instructors / divers. That is why there is a wide variation in quality as you call it. Maybe some of their instructors want to be more cutting edge, and maybe even study outside of agency materials. But they are the exceptions - not the rule.
Another agency prides itself in deep air, solo, and computer diving. They don't care if they sell a product that they know is flawed, and have a history of selling instructor certifications for $20 to anyone who can prove they might be an instructor. These ethos are apparent in the way that they offer training. This again accounts for a wide variation in their instructors and divers.
The list goes on for more agencies ....
So to recap - it's nice that some instructors on this forum care enough about standards that they attempt to compare and contrast agencies by their respective standards, but as you point out - one has to search for the right instructor because of the wide variation in quality - because standards ultimately don't mean anything - they are just check boxes for instructors to fill in (if they choose to). And yet there are distinct differences between agencies if you choose to notice - otherwise, how do instructors choose to become a member of one over the other? How do you quantify the differences? You can't - because the differences aren't measurable by standards - they are only discernible by the culture of the agency. That is why I propose that it is the history that matters - not the standards.
They say the best way to predict future performance is to review past performance (history), and for me that definitely applies to agency culture.
I don't blame you for wanting to deny this - you are invested in your agency - and that is fine. But if there were a choice, wouldn't you prefer that the Chevy instructor didn't devalue your certification? Wouldn't you like to be able to to go somewhere and dive with a new buddy at both your stated levels with no worries? I don't care about looking good on paper, plastic, or digital download, etc. What I am interested in is exploring what has caused the "vast VAST quality differences" you cite above. You seem to present it as unexplainable but unavoidable. I think it is the respective culture.
Finally - getting back to the OP and what I suggested and why - he asked how to choose between padi or tdi. Clearly picking based on 'the instructor' doesn't work, because I know plenty of divers that attempted to pick based on instructor and think their instructor is the greatest - and are quite blissful in their ignorance. Many replies suggested basing it on the instructor and not the agency - because standards don't matter, and quality varies. I don't wish to be a part of the system of devalued certifications that picking based on instructor suggests, so I suggested he compare histories - agency culture - and pick the one he related to best.
cheers
Last edited:
Tec 40 Prerequisites
Student divers must meet the following prerequisites before starting the Tec 40 course:
1. Certified as a PADI Advanced Open Water Diver or provide a qualifying
certification from another training organization. For this course, a qualifying
certification is proof of training beyond entry level with experience in deep
diving and underwater navigation.
2. Certified as a PADI Enriched Air Diver or qualifying certification from another
training organization. For this course, a qualifying certification is proof
of training in enriched air nitrox diving with training that includes gas analysis,
cylinder labeling, oxygen toxicity, oxygen exposure, determining maximum
depth limits, and planning enriched air dives with different enriched air
blends (not just EANx32 and EANx36).
3. Certified as a PADI Deep Diver or show proof of at least 10 dives to 30 metres/
100 feet.
4. Minimum age: 18 years.
5. Have a minimum of 30 logged dives, of which at least 10 dives were made
with enriched air nitrox deeper than 18 metres/60 feet.
How many times do I have to post this? John, you obviously don't agree that there are more steps to PADI's path but I don't really care, this thread is for the OP.
This seems pretty simple to me.....
PADI- ADV+EANX+Deep Diver(or 10 deep dives)+tec 40+rescue=tec 45
TDI- ADV+ EANX*= Deco Procedures
Now it's up to you, the OP, from all the previous posts to decide which path is a better fit for you.
This seems pretty simple to me.....
PADI- ADV+EANX+Deep Diver(or 10 deep dives)+tec 40+rescue=tec 45
TDI- ADV+ EANX*= Deco Procedures
Now it's up to you, the OP, from all the previous posts to decide which path is a better fit for you.
So, if you are a recreational diver with AOW (or SDI equivalent), have your Nitrox cert, and have 30 logged dives, with 10 past 100':
- With PADI, you can take Tec 40, then Rescue (a requirement for Tec 45), then Tec 45, Tec 50, then Tec Trimix. Along the way, you'll have to get up to having 150 logged dives before you can start Tec Trimix.
- With TDI, you can take 1 course that includes all of Intro to Tech, Adv Nitrox, Deco Procedures, and Helitrox, then Trimix, then Adv Trimix. Along the way, you'll have to get up to having 100 logged dives before starting Trimix.
TDI's first step certifies you to 150', unlimited deco, use of O2 up to 100%, and use of trimix with up to 20% Helium. I say this is one step because it's 1 course fee and 1 set of checkout dives (6, total, I think). Total course cost, around here, seems to run about $1000.
PADI's nearest equivalent is Tec 45, but that doesn't get you any use of Helium, I don't think. And, you would have to do Tec 40 and Rescue first. Each with their own fee and their own sets of checkout dives. I think a shop could offer all 3 as a combined course, with regard to the fees, but I don't think they can combine checkout dives, so in practical terms, it's still like taking 3 separate courses.
TDI's second step certifies you to 200', and use of unlimited Helium. If you want the equivalent of that in PADI, you would have to add a step that is not required, which is Tec Trimix 65, that comes in between Tec 50 and Tec Trimix.
So, starting from just meeting the PADI prerequisites for Tec 40, with PADI, you would have to get through 5 separate courses (6, if you want to do Tec 65 as an intermediate step) to complete the full path to hypoxic trimix diving to 90m/300'. And you have to have 150 dives before you can start the last course.
With TDI, you can get there by taking 3 separate courses to complete the full path to hypoxic trimix diving to 100m/330'. You have to have 100 dives to start the 2nd course.
I prefer the TDI path and that is why I have chosen to follow it.
I have completed the first step and I think a first step of 150' and 1 deco gas makes sense. I also appreciate only having to shell out the money for one course to get there.
My next step, TDI Trimix, also makes sense to me. I'll add a second deco gas and my depth limit will take me to 200'. That means I'll be diving with trimix with unlimited helium, but I won't be making the jump into hypoxic mixes yet.
The final step is to step up to diving hypoxic mixes and that also makes sense to me. I would definitely not feel comfortable going straight from PADI's Tec 50 to Tec Trimix (using hypoxic mixes). Having the intermediate step of 60 - 65m depth and normoxic trimix seems like a safer set of steps. But, if you do that with PADI, it means 6 steps - each with it's course tuittion - to work through.
To me, it's not about going fast. It's about having logical increments in the skills required while also not paying for extra steps that aren't necessary. Lots of people have followed the TDI 3-step process and are successfully doing hypoxic trimix dives, so I would be hard to convince that more than 3 steps are needed in order to produce safe and high-quality divers.
- With PADI, you can take Tec 40, then Rescue (a requirement for Tec 45), then Tec 45, Tec 50, then Tec Trimix. Along the way, you'll have to get up to having 150 logged dives before you can start Tec Trimix.
- With TDI, you can take 1 course that includes all of Intro to Tech, Adv Nitrox, Deco Procedures, and Helitrox, then Trimix, then Adv Trimix. Along the way, you'll have to get up to having 100 logged dives before starting Trimix.
TDI's first step certifies you to 150', unlimited deco, use of O2 up to 100%, and use of trimix with up to 20% Helium. I say this is one step because it's 1 course fee and 1 set of checkout dives (6, total, I think). Total course cost, around here, seems to run about $1000.
PADI's nearest equivalent is Tec 45, but that doesn't get you any use of Helium, I don't think. And, you would have to do Tec 40 and Rescue first. Each with their own fee and their own sets of checkout dives. I think a shop could offer all 3 as a combined course, with regard to the fees, but I don't think they can combine checkout dives, so in practical terms, it's still like taking 3 separate courses.
TDI's second step certifies you to 200', and use of unlimited Helium. If you want the equivalent of that in PADI, you would have to add a step that is not required, which is Tec Trimix 65, that comes in between Tec 50 and Tec Trimix.
So, starting from just meeting the PADI prerequisites for Tec 40, with PADI, you would have to get through 5 separate courses (6, if you want to do Tec 65 as an intermediate step) to complete the full path to hypoxic trimix diving to 90m/300'. And you have to have 150 dives before you can start the last course.
With TDI, you can get there by taking 3 separate courses to complete the full path to hypoxic trimix diving to 100m/330'. You have to have 100 dives to start the 2nd course.
I prefer the TDI path and that is why I have chosen to follow it.
I have completed the first step and I think a first step of 150' and 1 deco gas makes sense. I also appreciate only having to shell out the money for one course to get there.
My next step, TDI Trimix, also makes sense to me. I'll add a second deco gas and my depth limit will take me to 200'. That means I'll be diving with trimix with unlimited helium, but I won't be making the jump into hypoxic mixes yet.
The final step is to step up to diving hypoxic mixes and that also makes sense to me. I would definitely not feel comfortable going straight from PADI's Tec 50 to Tec Trimix (using hypoxic mixes). Having the intermediate step of 60 - 65m depth and normoxic trimix seems like a safer set of steps. But, if you do that with PADI, it means 6 steps - each with it's course tuittion - to work through.
To me, it's not about going fast. It's about having logical increments in the skills required while also not paying for extra steps that aren't necessary. Lots of people have followed the TDI 3-step process and are successfully doing hypoxic trimix dives, so I would be hard to convince that more than 3 steps are needed in order to produce safe and high-quality divers.
Last edited:
Similar threads
