It is noteworthy that simulator based training had been recently introduced; and, conversely that Air North have safely, successfully conducted many 'in flight' simulated failures prior to the introduction of 'simulator' techniques. It is of concern that several things occurred which should give a check pilot the screaming heebie jeebies, airborne.
Perhaps we could ask of the ATSB to investigate 'in depth' the contributing factors to this situation occurring. We have the almost self evident facts of the accident, we have the why, but maybe it would be nice to know the wherefores.
A lot of what was covered in the ATSB report touched on the areas of operational concern and hinted to several differences in history where the Check Pilot had started to diverge from his 'norm'. This quote from page 54 of the report is significant:
Two of the pilots who were recently assessed by the PIC reported that he selected flight idle (zero torque) to simulate an engine failure after takeoff in their check flights. It was possible that the PIC had decided to deviate from the operator’s approved procedure in order to test the recognition by the candidate of the additional failure of the autofeather, before setting zero thrust.
However it isn't clear whether this 'divergence' from his 'norm' started after he had been to the simulator or before. If it was after then one may suggest that he was operating in a 'simulator induced complacency' manner i.e. it was proven that Flight idle (aircraft) or 'Autofeather Failed' engine failure (simulator) could be successfully recovered from while conducting a V1 cut.
This also appears to have been an area of concern for the regulator, as they used this accident as an example in Annex A of the NFRM for Mandatory Simulator, see here:
From CASA NFRM Mandatory Simulator training Annex A:
COMMENT 1.2
Some respondents proposed adding wording to allow training and checking to occur in the aircraft provided the exercise had been conducted by all pilots in a simulator in the preceding 12 months.
CASA Response
CASA is firmly of the view that where a qualified STD is available for aircraft of this size, this should be used for all training and checking activities. The ATSB has reported that the training captain of the aircraft involved in an accident in Darwin in March 2010 had undergone training and checking in a flight simulator, however the actions by the training captain in simulating an engine failure in the actual aircraft during the accident flight was not consistent with the training received during the simulator course. This suggests that doing one session of training and one check per year in an STD (with the subsequent session/check in an actual aircraft) does not satisfactorily address the risk of conducting non-normal exercises in an actual aircraft.
If the Check Captain was inducing this scenario (FI V1 cuts) prior to having gone to the simulator, whereas previously he always only induced a Zero Thrust EFATO scenario, then there must have been input from somewhere/someone to change him to suddenly start breaching the company T&C SOPs??
As 'K' suggests there has been many takes, ambiguity and debate..etc..etc..on the regulatory requirements of CAO 40.1.0:
There is much documented proof that CASA have been enforcing 'black letter' CAO 40.1 requirements which conflict with both the AFM (see CAR 138) and a common sense approach to airborne EFATO exercises.
Maybe there is an element of rogue FOI's, that lack the necessary industry experience, that insist on adhering to the letter of the law in CAO 40.1.0. Instead of applying practical safeguards and risk management to high risk training and checking scenarios!!