Belowradar, I am not writing to be argumentative with you personally, we are all entitled to our opinions, but because in general I find it depressing how easily European pilots are sometimes willing to defend over-onerous rules and regulations.
Human factors comes into this
Really, in what way that is different from HF coming into any differences or type-specific training?
and I would really wonder why a high time commercial pilot with no Cirrus time would balk at the investment of 10 hours to really understand a new aircraft and it's systems ?
For exactly the reason that a high time commercial pilot will be well aware he can convert to many other more complex types in less time. 10hrs is a ridiculous requirement for a fixed-gear SEP.
In my experience for most pilots new to the type (whatever their hours or experience) it is a sensible investment.
Don't you see a huge difference between the following
In
your experience 10hrs is a
sensible investment for
most pilots
and
10hrs is a
must for
all pilots
Pace is likely a pilot outside your experience, he is not the "most" pilots.
Seems like you are experiencing a much needed reality check and finding it a bit annoying
I think you need a reality check on the difference between things you personally think are good idea and things that should be imposed on others.
If anyone needs to understand why aviation in Europe is so over-regulated, you only need to look at the mindset in some pilots who jump with ease from the former to the latter.
I personally took about 6hrs to convert to the SR22, about 1hr refamiliarising with flying in the US and 3hrs of that was because I wasn't very good at landing it. For a pilot experienced in the G1000 and complex aircraft, it should be about 2hrs minimum. The rest is competence based. I rightly needed more time because I wasn't very competent!
In practice I would expect an insurer to waive the 10hrs requirement for a very experienced pilot.