I first went to the RHC safety course in 1987, and then again in 2006 because I started flying Pathfinder insured aircraft and they require the safety course within the previous six years if you want to instruct in their aircraft.
I have to say, it hadn't changed that much since 1987 except that it now covered the R44 as well.
The only other manufacturer course I've been to is the Bell Helicopter school. Of the two, I think Bell is a much better course. It focuses on every detail of the mechanics of the helicopter. You come away with a very complete understanding of the machine.
The RHC safety course, on the other hand, is 50% self serving propaganda (why do they need to convince us that the piston engine is reliable? We're obviously already flying their product if we go to their course). The other half is the company opinion on how pilots crash Robbys. Okay, that part is useful, although still comes across as pretty defensive on the part of the company. Partially it's the pilot makeup - the Bell course was all professional pilots the week I was there, Robinson is 85% brand new pilots.
The flying I did with RHC in 1987 was very very good. The guy I flew with was a very high time experienced guy, and there was nothing he wasn't willing to show me. I have bumped into the guy over the years and still have tremendous respect for him. My experience in 2006 was not nearly as good. The instructor was relatively low time, and seemed inexperienced. Also, I told him I wanted to spend quite a bit of time on the preflight knowing that I would be teaching it to students when I got home. The best I could do was get a 5 minute preflight out of him (it's just like an R22 he kept saying). He really just wanted to go flying. I kept trying to get him to talk about the best way to give throttle chops (okay, simulated engine failures!) to students. All he would repeat is that he never gives throttle chops. How about just roll the throttle to 90%? "I don't do that". In his opinion the only thing to do was to announce "simulated engine failure" and wait for the student to lower the collective. Not a very realistic technique! (but then, Robinson engines never fail, do they?)
Compare that to the preflight in Bell school where we spent a half a day going over a partially assembled helicopter so that we could get at the guts of it and see everything about how it was put together. Also, the instructors at Bell were tremendously more experienced than the Robinson instructors. Granted, you were paying top dollar at Bell and the hour at Robinson is practically given away (why not? It's being paid for by Robinson's customers, not the factory!).
On a scale of 1-10, I would rate Bell school as a 9.8 and Robinson as a 6. The course has not changed much over the years and could really do with a tune-up.
Pat Cox is a tremendous speaker and I enjoy the time he teaches the class, but I would like to see the group break up and spend 1/2 day on preflight.
I would suggest that they break the student body up into two groups: new pilots and experienced pilots/CFIs. When I took the course in 1987 it was CFIs only. I'd kind of like to have a CFI only course where we can spend less time on newbie questions (which are legitimate for the newbie pilot to ask) and spend more time on topics of interest to experienced CPL+CFI pilots.
I would love to see more experienced instructors to fly with the CFIs.
Just my opinion....