A37575, yes crews should have regular training in the simulator using a relatively short wet runway, but not necessarily to fine-tune basic handling skills.
If crews aim to fly every approach and landing accurately (professionally) then there would be little need for special ‘short landing’ skills training, as every normal landing would provide the practice. There would be some exceptions for ‘difficult’ airports or situations where there is little opportunity for practice.
What current training appears to lack is the provision of background knowledge and thinking skill for assessing situations and subsequent decision making during the approach and landing.
Many overrun accidents identify poor awareness of runway conditions or weather. Crews should be taught about the limitations of the measurement and reporting of runway conditions and wind, the potential inaccuracies, and the assumptions about the operation. In many instances, critical information is unavailable or not communicated; crews must consider this.
Regulations have hidden assumptions about crew judgement, which is expected to maintain the required level of safety where ambiguity exists.
An example of this is wet runway performance. A factored landing distance is based on a particular (unpublished) level of friction, thus where conditions are worse it is assumed that crews will adjust their behavior to maintain the required level of safety, e.g. not accept such a wide margin of error – altitude, speed, touchdown position, etc. These assumptions depend on the existance and knowledge of the adverse conditions, and the recall and use previous knowledge or experience for good judgement in these conditions. In turn, this requires understanding and adaptation of human behavior, which is assumed to be taught via CRM.
The problem originates from the industry ‘norm’; what is expected vs what is done or condoned.
Data shows that ‘pilots’ are lazy; we routinely tend to land long, fast, not brake earlier enough etc, etc; mainly due to over adequate runway length / conditions.
Thus to reduce the probability of a landing overrun we should improve the quality of normal approach and landings – technical and non technical skills. In this way, we reduce the exposure to those conditions which might catch us out due to poor information or weak judgement.
Centaurus as you will probably acknowledge, ill conceived calls are potential opportunities for error. Many calls are just band aids for industry-wide deteriorations in levels of experience and behaviour; areas in which training can help.
Calls, if used, should state (describe) the unusual, out of limit, or hazardous contribution to the situation and not focus on a normal operation.
Refs:
Managing the threats during approach and landing.
Safety aspects of aircraft operations in crosswind.
Running out of runway.
Safety aspects of aircraft performance on wet and contaminated runways.
Pprune - Avoiding an overrun: what should be trained?
Runway Overrun Prevention (AC 121.195).