The more I hear about asymmetric work in light twins, the stronger my resolve never to go near one of the things.
I find it quite astonishing that there is no defined Engine Out Allowance or Visual Committal Height published for each MEP aeroplane in the POH, being:
EOA: An allowance made to cater for the height loss incurred when carrying out a single engine go-around. This should then be added to the relevant DH/DA, so that a pilot executing a SE go-around does so from a height/altitude which will not involve him descending further below the normal minimum had the go-around been conducted with all engines operating at the normal DH/DA.
VCH: The height below which the aeroplane is committed to land following an asymmetric approach.
These values should be based on the average performance of an average pilot rated on type following the failure of the most adverse engine. Quite why there should be any 'personal' flexibility to invent one's own allowances, I cannot quite understand. Of course initial training should be conducted prudently, but the student should be capable of executing a go-around at a properly defined minimum altitude specific to a/c model.
Bitter experience with asymmetric training on things like Meteors led HMFC to be very, very careful about SE go-arounds. I was once told that the VCH for the RAF's last Meteor 7 at Brawdy in the mid-'70s was 650 ft a.g.l. - and that it was rigidly observed!