AltHold
A debate that will always harbour two camps. On the one hand are those who subscribe to the immediate concerns associated with training accidents and opt for throttle. Alternatively are those who prefer mixture as the safest course of action. In the latter technique two schools of thought sway trainers; a more realistic demonstration and consideration for the next guy to fly or travel in the aircraft.
Centaurus has suggested that the PA44 manual prefers the former method and if the manual states such, one cannot diverge. Sweet Surrender raised the issue of Lycoming bulletin 245D and that must certainly have some weight on the larger GA piston engines.
I think your CAA is having an each way bet on AIC 52/1999. A government approach to risk management. There are two ‘outs’ in the AIC, the first is the word ‘generally’ and the second deals with ‘engine manufacturer’s recommendations should clarify the technique in particular cases’.
In either case risk management issues must prevail. The trainer must consider the possibility of the student to incorrectly identify a failed engine and be in a position to restore power to the opposite side. As Centaurus so correctly pointed out, much of initial asymmetric training is conducted at a safe altitude, then the student is introduced to asymmetric go-rounds before dealing with the final stages shortly after take-off. This in itself is a form of risk management.
In training and checking line pilots it is incumbent upon the operator to prescribe a method that will both safeguard his pilots during training and not lead to possible damage that may occur at some later stage of flight. Training and checking organisations are normally attached to a transport type operation and therefore the AOC holder has a greater responsibility towards the travelling public.
I have some further issues to take up with Centaurus in relation to his last post but at this stage I choose not to cloud the debate.