Crab - I agree with your first point. However the students standard SHOULD have been established in the briefing room where something could be done to address it before wasting the students money in the air AND increasing the risks in the actual training.
For your second point. All that I have indicated has nothing to do with being rigid in training. EASA Regulations for a TRI are THE LAW whether you agree or not. For practical purposes, CAA guidelines to an authorised TRE are as good as the law.
You do not know me. You have no idea what my training standards or technique is like and like most of your posts they smack heavily on anti-authority mixed with the arrogance that a few years in SAR makes you believe you are entitled to.
Well guess what, eventually in the Civil world, just like the military world you will realise that compliance is a must. Not an option.
Finally, don't try to tell me that in your old SAR world you would BRIEF THE FLIGHT and FLY A COMPLETLEY DIFFERENT BRIEF during SAR training.
Briefing for a VOR sortie, realising that the student can't cope so electing to introduce a TR malfunction, unplanned and unbriefed, prolonging the exercise from 800 feet to 100 feet despite the student announcing clearly at 500 feet he does not know what to do, ( no surprise to me seeing as he received no brief). Is not and never will be an acceptable method of progressing a student. Now Crab. DO you agree with that or disagree.
If you choose to disagree please explain in a rational manner the following;
1. the compliance of the activity against published documents fine/rules etc
2. The training value the student received from the training
3. The Safety Management TEM principles deployed.
4. The overall value for money the student received. Is he entitled to a brief before he is expected to fly etc.
Answer those Crab before you try to critics even me again.