Bravo73,
While I always appreciate reading your insightful posts, I believe that on this topic it is really a matter of "interpreting the JARs in a way that one sees fit" as you stated earlier but clearly not the way both rotarywise and yourself interpret them on this occasion. We are all quoting the same reference but interestingly reading it differently, I sincerely do not see how one could claim that the 5 hours dual instrument instruction for the purpose of the extension of an existing SE IR(H)
must be conducted by an IRI(H) and
cannot be conducted by a TRI(H) who holds an ME IR(H).
Your point of view suggests that whenever companies such as CHC, Bristow, DanCopter, NHV, Bond... hire a pilot who holds a SE IR(H), say on a B206, and send him to, say a S-92 Type Rating course, the instrument portion of the course will have to be taught by an IRI(H) rated on the S-92 since a TRI(H) with Instrument privileges on the S-92 will not be qualified for the job. Does that make sense?
Ultimately I don't really care about this since I am instrument rated, what bugs me is seeing fellows being misled when trying to navigate the JAR maze.