I have taught at DHFS and in accordance with DSAT protocols, the 'customer', read Sqns and in particular OCFs, were invited for face to face liasion to confirm that DHFS output standards were compatable with input expectations. This was not embraced at all by the Sqns and one can therefore logically assume that they were happy with the standard being provided. *Although the ammount of out of office (deployed) messages was also a reflection of reality. To clarify, this was post multi engine rather then Squirrel, but I assume that the single engined side of the house was similar if not identical.
It was usually as a result of newly posted in military instructors bring contemporary protocols with them that the course developed. To cut to the chase, if DAAvn or the staff working for him were unhappy with the standard or quality of army students, what, if anything, was done to staff a solution? ...especially after "I enjoyed my training there and the standard of instruction was second to none", for DHFS were not adverse to change, far from it.
Regarding focus on the battlefield and mission effect. I suggest that all military helicopter crews regardless of service serving today, tomorrow and every day thereafter have that argument truly squared away.