I am open to anything that offers us a greater chance of surviving a serious event. However, when we are faced with a student on a formal package of training, regardless of how much time is left for free play, its extremely problematic attempting to teach something that is not backed up by the OEM manuals regardless how tempting it may be. The SFI/TRI will invariably be outside the regulated package and that leaves him open to criticism and weakens the systems we are supposed to operate within. We are not test pilots. Nor should we try to be.
SAS I wholly agree with your approach that presenting such exercises provokes thought.
We should also keep in mind, that under current regulations, an EOL in a MEH is not required either for ITR or Recurrent Training and Checking even in the FSTD! By teaching and practising candidates in this exercise alone we are already beyond the scope of what EASA require. I have no problem with this but, in my view, places an even greater responsibility on us to remain within at least, the confines of the RFM.
In the light of this accident I know in the EC135 world greater efforts are being made to cover AUTO to EOL. The regulator has yet to catch up.