It seems that one of those countries vich must haff rules for everything can't live with the concept of leaving it to the FI and pilot to decide what they wish to include in the flight
In the UK an Instructor could decline to sign off the dual flight if they
felt the pilot was unsafe/required further training.
Is that still possible?
As written, the rules only state that a dual flight has to be completed
(a Log Book signature not being required) - which means there is no check
on preventing potentially unsafe pilots from legally continuing to fly.
The CAA used to recommend some content for the dual flight (stall recovery, PFLs, etc)
so I am not against this in principal. But, if the content is mandated, what
happens if the pilot is not competent?
This is supposed to be a training flight, not a check or test.
A Pass in an IR or IMC test (in an aircraft) not being an acceptable substitute for
the dual flight is an anomaly (given that a Fail is a Dual flight and,
providing it was 1 hour long, would fulfil the requirements).
However I am not too bothered as I see it as an anomaly in the concession
(not to require the dual flight) and, if BEagle's amendment (Post "12)
comes to pass, then it will eventually be resolved.
To the OP:
You asked a good question but, as a restricted FI, you should have
discussed it with your supervising FI.
To give a dual training flight you, as the instructor, must be able to
(legally) log PIC. If you have only flown tricycle gear aircraft then,
as previously stated, you require difference training (which must be
signed off) before you can be PIC in tail wheel aircraft.
Even if legal, what could you teach someone in an aircraft you had never
flown before? I am guessing you were thinking of this as just a
paperwork exercise: going up, in effect, as a passenger - relying on
your
student to make all the decisions, hopefully correct ones, because you have
insufficient knowledge yourself to know when, as the instructor, to override them
or otherwise properly exercise your duty(ies) as PIC.