Clinton, you are once again completely missing the point, and your own words convict you yet again.
as a general rule,
As a bureaucrat, you don't get to abide by "general rules" at all, ever, unless your own internal procedures spell out, in writing, available to all, exactly under what circumstances an official is allowed to use their own discretion and apply "general rules", and that, in my experience in working in a bureaucracy is almost never.
The fact that in 2010 people are even arguing about the behaviour of officials in performing an engine out procedure is complete and damning proof that CASA has failed, not necessarily as a regulator, but as a
bureaucracy.
Were CASA actually focused on being a good bureaucracy (in the best sense of the word) the "pull mixture" and other finer points of some of these discussions would have been settled Thirty years ago and committed to print for the guidance and compliance not only of students and organisations
but also FOI's etc.
To put it another way Clinton,
the fact that we are even having these discussions invalidates your argument that a lynch mob exists.
To put it yet another way. Nobody but a criminal does
not want to comply with regulations, but there appears that there is ample evidence that "compliance" is in the eye of the CASA official. This is simply wrong.
CASA should direct how an engine is to be "failed" for testing purposes, then all this BS automatically goes away. This of course leaves CASA with the responsibility for accidents if such detailed procedure produces unwelcome ATSB statistics.