oldrotorhead,
methinks you have asked for two things:
give us a response on what the order actually does say
and
what is the opinion of the industry please?
The order reads as it reads, but the question what does it say, and this is where "opinion" and "interpretation" run rampant.
I think that it may allow your case in one interpretation, and not in another. A literal interpretation may well get legs, but a look at the intent may change that outcome. Why would it be the intent of CASA to allow helicopter CIR candidates to be awarded the CIR without ANY dual instrument instruction time in helicopters? I am not sure this is the intended outcome of the order, and that is probably what has snagged you. Or your colleague.
Now the personal opinion: I believe that it would be a disservice to your colleague to rate him without some helicopter instruction within his learning background. I think the intent was that at some point he gets some instructional exposure, but I agree that the order does not entirely close this loophole out. We move into what is "legal" Vs what is "best practice". And as always, best practice is in the eye of the beholder, with 10 different answers from 10 different pilots.
good luck with the wrangle.
Twist & Shout, you sound a bit disenchanted, and I have no knowledge of the letter, but from the information you have posted, I cannot see a line between the ATO's concerns and his "impartiallity" as you call it. What do you mean? Does the ATO run a school and is trying to drum up business?
I think the real question you are poking around is: does the rating prove a competency or does certify a training level AND a competency? Can you just competency test people, or should we expect some minimum training first. Could we do a CPL H on a guy who has only flown a non motion sim plus 5 hours in the aircraft? What if he passes it? Intresting sides to this discussion hey?