Can't quite let this cobblers go unanswered
flying a training exercise incorrectly just reinforces the mistake and drains confidence, whereas flying it correctly builds confidence and "burns the right neural pathways". So it is better to be fairly sure the excercise will be flown correctly and this is best done by briefing thoroughly on the ground beforehand.
HC I presume you are not a FI either from this statement.
An exercise is briefed on the ground, demonstrated in the air and then the student has a go - what are the chances of him perfectly flying the manoeuvre? Somewhere between nil and bugger-all.
So now the real skill of the instructor - the fault analysis - begins, where you identify what wasn't correct (and praise what was) then give corrective guidance (or if required another demonstration) then the student has another go - that process continues until the student has reached the required standard. It is often poor control action, poor trimming technique or simply looking in the wrong place for the attitude/speed/height/power etc.
In an ideal world, you want the student to begin to self-debrief because if he realises what mistakes he has made it is much easier for him to avoid them the next time (however the instructor will still need to fine tune the corrective process).
The idea that only perfect reproductions of an exercise are valuable when learning is total fallacy - I learned to play the piano by making mistakes and then having them corrected and latterly by recognising them myself.
What I think your piano teacher meant was that, one a skill is learned correctly, the repetition of that exercise/skill is positive reinforcement and therefore a good thing.
But with something like stuck pedals where there is not such a sense of urgency, on a training flight it is better done having reviewed the excercise in the classroom first.
if the student has been taught this before then it is perfectly fine to introduce it unbriefed - if he asks for a lesson on TR malfs then of course you would brief it on the ground before hand. You just don't seem to get the context in which H500 was operating.
An Instructor described taking a student on a sortie, the aim of which was to develop VOR skills, the Instructor told the student during briefing that they may do some malfunctions. He did not brief the malfunctions and therefore, arguably, compromised the requirement for essential safety brief. During the flight student was behind the aircraft so to wake him up the pedals were simulated seized down 100 feet of the ground despite the student admitting by 500 feet he had no idea how to land the helicopter.
YOU robustly defended that Instructor. Given all the sound and healthy teaching and learning principles you state you follow, buried in the Crab-Rhetoric of your posts, how can you rationalise now this scenario.
Firstly, the student asked for GH revision and simulated emergencies - it was REVISION and so he should be expected to deal with whatever was given without pre-briefing (remember he was going for CPL again shortly, do they brief every practice emergency on the check ride?
Secondly, although the primary part of the sortie wasn't so hot, it is possible to recover the student's self confidence by giving him another exercise to do (practice stuck pedals) - if he does it well there is something positive for the debrief. It didn't work out that way but sometimes the student just has a bad day and you have to drag what positives you can out of the sortie to keep his morale up and (commercially) make him want to come back for more.
Giving the student time to consider the stuck pedals during the approach is fine - there was nothing unsafe as it wasn't real and H500 could have taken his feet off at any time. Again - CONTEXT - not a basic student but someone going for CPL to fly commercially should at least have an idea of what to do if not the fully finessed technique to a smooth landing. What would have happened on his check ride if the examiner had given him that - instant fail I suggest. What about if it happened to him for real on a commercial job with pax???
H500 did him a big favour for either scenario - he identified a big gap in his knowledge/retention and I suspect fully rebriefed him on the ground. On the next sortie with this chap, I would have revised the emergency and got him to fly the same approach to landing but now with the correct technique.
At some stage during training, ESPECIALLY when you are preparing a student for a check ride, you have to test them, unbriefed, because that is what will happen on the check and that is what happens in real life.
If neither of you can see my viewpoint then you really don't have the wide range of instructional experience that you think - Of my total flying, just short of 4000 hours are instructional time in a very wide variety of roles and conditions but you will surely see that as bragging rather than stating facts.
I suspect many fully civilian FIs would be horrified to hear you claim a TRI ticket was equivalent to a FI course pass - just how much demonstration flying and fault analysis do you do on a TRI course?
I suspect neither of you do any general handling (basic and advanced transitions, quickstops, basic and advanced autos, PFLS etc etc) instruction of the type that has been my bread and butter since I did my QHI course and is what a FI will have done on his FI course - it is also what you are critiquing H500 for.
Type rating instruction in a FFS (and yes, I have done that as well) is a completely different kettle of fish but the same principles apply - in my world it is something only a QHI/FI would deliver.