It makes you wonder why the Operator didn't just simply comply with what the Regulator was asking for instead of arguing the toss..?
Oh really? Try writing an operations manual and submitting it to half a dozen different district offices (or individual FOIs). When I last counted there were about 90 FOIs and (with some exceptions) they all have different views on a wide variety of operational and training procedures, and they obviously can’t all be right.
This particular FOI was trying to impose on a flying instructor (who had about 14,000 hours of instructional time) a “requirement” that didn’t exist. If you own a fleet of light twins you are obviously aware that sudden shut-downs, particularly at takeoff power where they are usually conducted, considerably increase wear and tear through thermal shock, potential counterbalance damage, torsional transmission stress on geared engines, and other effects, and should only be done where it is necessary in training, and then as gently as possible.
The problem was quite a simple one. Polar at the time operated only two twin types - Cessna 310R and three Barons. It was common at the time to have pilots who had only flown Duchess or similar to join the company. If they had no Baron endorsement or 310 endorsement it was provided by the company, and of course that would require asymmetric training because it was an initial issue.
If however a line pilot in the company had already been endorsed on a Baron and was required to fly the 310, he would also be provided with an endorsement, however It is not necessary to do asymmetric training, if the pilot gives all the correct responses to the asymmetric training on the ground.(as in the CAAP). Barons and 310s have the same engines and about the same MTOW and fly at similar speeds, also have similar asymmetric behavior. It is not a requirement to conduct the asymmetrics in the air, however if the owner felt the pilot lacked the knowledge in asymmetrics, that part of the airborne training would be included in the endorsement.
It should also be noted that due to CASA pressure, Mr Butson agreed to do asymmetric training on all endorsements. This was still not good enough for the regulator. When the court decided on who was right or wrong about that, Polar Aviation was vindicated.