And there are MANY approaches to instruction. For example, in my previous life as paramedic, you could see a very distinguish between civilian paramedic and military paramedic,
I 100% agree - different approach to training, and probably different standards for different organizations. Civil and military organizations are different, with different learning objectives. I have received flight instruction from former military instructors, who obviously had excellent skills from that experience. As I was flying with them for civil pilot training, that's the training that they gave me. Civil and military [most everything] have differing objectives and hazards. A military paramedic (and I have been trained by a few) have being shot at while giving aid high up their hazard awareness. Being sued for negligence is way down their worry list. Reverse that to civil first aid. Unless it's on fire, going to explode, or fall off the cliff, take your time, reassure the patient with calmness and no rush, and take notes for future reference.
The industry you choose to instruct in, will prescribe the standards of the training, and regardless of your skills and background, you will, of course, very agreeably train to those standards. Introducing "other things" to students should be done in harmony with FTU agreement, and great caution. It is a safety and liability hazard to have a newish student out "trying" things because their instructor introduced them. When you're running a paramedic course to show students how to hold C spine, would you be enthusiastic about one of your instructors "having a better way"? You'd sure review that before you allowed it to be incorporated into the training!
In aviation, a little bit of knowledge is "awareness" level. Comprehensive training - to an accepted curriculum could be tech level training. I have seen pilots and instructors do something in an airplane, though while doable, contained elements of increased risk with no benefit whatever. I have discussed some of these events with them from time to time, to see for myself that their knowledge of the background as to why to do, or not to do that (or when not to do it) was incomplete. Thus they could possibly introduce this maneuver/technique to a student without being able to articulate cautions around it. One example, is climbing after liftoff at Vx instead of Vy when there is no obstacle to be cleared - needless hazard below a few hundred feet, needless above a few hundred feet. So, not only don't do it, don't demonstrate it, and don't allow it, but also brief why not to do it. Yet I see circuits being flown that way at FTU's.
(I might need 10 hours on type if it's not PA34). I even got myself 20 hours PIC in IMC
Yes, those are "awareness level" hours, certainly not "tech level". Be proud of that experience, of course, but recognize it for what it is, a first step.
The point I'm trying to make is that as you appear to be hoping to enter the training industry, present yourself as a team member, eager to embrace what your employer is already doing, and accept it as your way. When you have been flying for a half century, had many scares, a few bumps, and learned a tremendous amount, take up an advisory role - that is what I have done!