Thanks for the lesson in where section D comes relative to F!
I hadn't appreciated how logical the CAA had become on the QSP issue, and it can only be aplauded. however, in the interest of pedantry, the Lynx is still not a true rating and is not a National rating. It appears to be a sensible mechanism to allow licence issue and is analagous to the SE IR(H) - you can't use it but it serves as a vehicle to obtain a rating you can use.
I still can't believe that the CAA would not accept a sensible Training Needs Analysis for the required training of a pilot with significant ME experience and a type with extremely similar systems and handling characteristics. I'm damn sure they wouldn't expect a Bell 205 rated pilot to flog around for 8 hours doing a Bell 212 TR course. Having had 2 TRI and TRE ratings issued on the sole basis of observed flights I know how pragmatic the CAA can be.
I guess what I take away from this enlightening thread is how fluid the whole process is and, no doubt, will continue to be with the EU-FCL transition. The Sea King reference is a case in point - I know for a fact that S-61 ratings were being added at initial licence issue quite recently. Only 2 years ago we had PLD arguing that our S-92 rating applicants needed an MCC certificate to add their first MPH despite having thousands of S-61 hours: "it's not an MPH - the Sea King is flown single pilot!" (sense prevailed with a little help from the FOI dept!) Now it is specifically deemed not to be the same type, albeit with the obvious assertion that a TRTO may deem the experience allows a shortened TR course.
I'm pleased I came accross this thread - always nice to learn something new!