B73 I don't doubt the sincerity of your statement above. However, the Examiner would have failed to follow the very clear CAA published guidelines. In my case STDS doc 24H. And I quote:
"It is perfectly proper for Examiners to include some training input during the briefing...."
It goes on to describe this SHOULD not be a full training brief but rather facilitate, by Q&A technique that the candidate has a reasonable understanding of the exercises he will fly, aimed mainly at critical failures, and in the interests of the Examiner serving both the testing requirement and the essential safety brief for those exercise.
Of course the guidance is generic and open to interpretation. However, to protect the candidate and myself I would ALWAYS brief simulated TR malfunctions both for training and testing when I am conducting them in the actual aircraft. In the FFS there is a little latitude BUT only in so far as the essential safety brief. The training element must be served always.
Above all, committing a student or candidates money, or in our case the Company's money to Flight or FFS time where the brief is inadequate or non existent makes no sense economically or is indeed fair to the PPL who I guess is paying for the Instruction or Check.
The primary purpose of Instruction is to improve knowledge skills and thus safety. In H500 story I cannot see how this was achieved.
So in the future B73 feel free to challenge your Examiner if he fails to brief adequately for this exercise. Otherwise the check is simply a chop ride and most certainly could never be conducted as safely as when a full, sympathetic and relevant brief has been given that at least conforms to the CAA guidelines. Maybe that's what H500 struggles with the Authority!