Wow! Isn't that a little harsh? Not to mention rather self-righteous?
The guy was new to type but apparently had done substantial type training and (I surmise) was trying to carry out a procedure quite familiar on his previous type, albeit without the benefit of the comprehensive type training we'd get making that change in Europe. But he wasn't in Europe and different rules apply.
He's imagine he was perfectly capable of landing on a dolly as he had always been, wouldn't he? Is that so unreasonable? It might , in retrospect, prove to have been a bit ambitious to keep trying after the first scare but "ego over..."? That's probably not fair.
The position of skids on a dolly from the pilot's perspective is vastly different between a Bell206 (my experience) and a Squirrel and knowing Bells the family resemblance is likely to be very similar vis a vis pilot's position relative to skids. Even after years on the 355 I found placing the skids on a dolly invisible behind behind me which I rarely had to do a real challenge whereas on the Bell it was a doddle because you could actually see the damn thing.
Poor guy, I feel for him, and don't think hip-shooting accusations of "ego" are at all fair. Lack of experience probably, but to blame it on his ego seems to me, well, based on an excess of someone else's ego if you see what I mean.
I'd call it unfamiliarity. OK, he probably should have recognised he was out of his depth but failure to act on that can be down to many things beyond "ego". Determination, for instance. Or inexperience at trying a familiar manoeuvre in an unfamiliar type. From the description I feel he simply tried to land the Squirrel as he would have dome a Bell and came unstuck. It looks so obvious to me that he was using a Bell sight picture on that dolly. What else would you expect him to do if he hadn't been shown how, which I guess will prove to be the case?
Cut the poor bugger some slack?