(not meant to be a catalyst for a discussion about the rights and wrongs of regulator policy, just a statement of fact that might be missed by pilots from other parts of the world, who might have been familiar with a more formal introduction to the type)
Clearly that was wasted effort.......
Can you say that about your conversion course for the Bell 212 done by the outfit that turned you into a 212 Pilot?
No, I did two weeks systems groundschool with an instructor that normally did the LAEs (Mechanics) training, then about 10 hours in the aircraft. Seemed to work ok.
Did that same company require all EC-155 Pilots to attend similar two week Initial Training courses as part of their "Conversion Training"?
Whilst I was involved,
all pilots did the two weeks factory groundschool. Prior to 2004 there was no simulator so practical training was in the aircraft, followed by non-rev hours building on type (as you know). After I left, the training staff introduced some new exercises, such as how to land with the wheels up after a rejected takeoff and how to write off an engine by using the actual 30 second rating, rather than the training mode. I tended to prefer less paperwork......
leanring Monkey Memory skills it does not take that long as when you move the flight controls the aircraft all respond with the same results.
The real difference in them all (generally) is their systems and how they are constructed and monitored and controlled and the operating limitations.
Absolutely correct, of course. Reminds me of my S-61 line training, with a local LTC that had only ever flown the 61 and had never flown with a pilot with so few hours on type - I'd just done 100 hours on the Penzance operation to meet minimum time-on-type, plus add-type TRE. After the first landing offshore, he turned to me and said "that was really great!" I looked back and said "thanks, I've been practicing landing for the last ten thousand hours....."