H500, for you TR malfunctions are easy because you teach and practice them very often. However, a commercial pilot carrying passengers every day, and particularly in offshore where there is ZERO opportunity for the crews to do general handling or practise anything but normal procedures,their skills fade.
This is the most widely recognised problem of intensive compluant CAT operations. It is EXACTLY why the crews are afforded the chance eac 6 months the practice these exercises prior to being checked for competency. The entire EU-OPS training system is based on this fundemental principle. Without regular practise performance deterioratesand you are correct. Theoretically the day before his 6 monthly check istheoreticlly his most incompetent day. Now older pilots who have been through many regular, AND PRODUCTIVE training and Check cycles show less fade than those who have not done that many both in theory and in general practise. There are exceptions and they generally end up as TRI TRE as a result.
You can carry on and buck the system and believe that all pilots should, at the drop off a hat, safely solve all emergencies but I can tell you that is generally not the case and it has very little to do with their appititude, suitability or prior training and EVERYTHING to do with lack of adequate practise time.
As an Instructor/Examiner myself, like I guess all my contemporaries, we would always argue that more training time should be afforded and more practise offered. However the practical and fiscal constraints of most flight operations make this difficult and in my heart I am so grateful that EASA continue to mandate the training and checking regimes as is.in addition, huge respect for the UK CAA for the content and guidance in Standrads Doc 24 H for their clear recognition, that during checking, proper briefing should occur and appropriate training and guidance offered for those procedures that the candidate does not normally do during his day job. The "2 Attempt" principle of checking clearly recognises that the candidate should at least be able to diagnose his own errors but is allowed a second go at the exercise. It also recognises that if the Examiners sees a successful competent exercise that could be further improved with some hints and guidance, he can offer it.
This is "Checking". You were tasked to do training Iam sorry but in my honest opinion, if you actually proceeded as you described, you broke just about every principle of the Part-01 Teaching and Learning module for the Core Instructors course. I list the, for you:
BRIEF THE FLIGHT and FLY THE BRIEF
BY EMPATHETIC WITH THE STUDENT
PROGRESS LOGICALLY THROUGH EACH EXERCISE
RE-BRIEF WHERE REQUIRED
DO NOT INTRODUCE EXERCISES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BRIEFED
DO NOT INFRINGE SAFETY MARGINS (letting a student descend to 100 feet with no yaw control when he has already told you he does not know how to proceed could have ended very differently if he panicked as the ground came up and caught you out)
So how you took a student out for some VOR practice, combined with critical flight control malfunctions that were not briefed, knowing he was already behind the aircraft in the briefed VOR exercise is beyond my comprehensio. However, for free, and to help you gauge you conduct, if you did that to an offshore pilot in a real helicopter I suspect your training management would look very chisels at you. Not him.
I am trying to think of something positive to say to you but it's not easy.