G'day Chuck,
I certainly agree with your stance about taking the time to think. It's rare that an instantaneous action would achieve a better result than a considered response.
Sorry about the delay responding to your earlier comments.
You're quite right, a C337 doesn't count for 'standard' multi training. It's probably a bad example however I was trying to highlight that relying on a single symptom without corroboration isn't a 'good thing'.
BMEP is what I had in mind re not using just yaw cues. Also EGT.
Re mixture cuts, Lycoming recommended mixture cuts for their engines in the 'Lycoming Flyer'. They maintain it is less stressful for the engine than a throttle cut. They argue that using the mixture leaves airflow still able to get into the cylinders which, in turn, gives the piston & it's connecting gubbins something to push against. As it was designed to do.
The next issue, I suppose, is whether or not adequate safety can be maintained using mixture. Many of us believe so, many others don't. Fair enough. I believe it's important for the student to have to choose which which engine has failed & test the assumption without having a throttle position cue.
As a slight change of direction: How many here feel that engine power won't be restored when the mixture is returned to full rich (or even less than full rich, if that's more appropriate for the conditions), and how many feel it would be restored?