I'm in the group that cut the mixture control to simulate engine failure shortly after take off.
My reasoning is not that it gives the student a harder job of identification (as suggested by Cenaurus) but rather I believe it gives a more REALISTIC simulation of what will happen.
It seems to me that many of the arguements against this practice fail to allow for the fact that the check pilot/instructor is also in the aircraft monitering what the pilot under check is doing.
IMO the first action after an EFATO, and what I always briefed, was to maintain control of the aircraft and and seek to achieve nominated S/E climb sped. With the aircraft in control the old "pitch up, pwr up, gear up, flap up, dead leg, dead engine, confirm with throttle, feather". The feather being a touch drill only and once correctly indicated by Bloggs, zero thrust was set with the mx and throttle being set appropriately.
During all of this I did not sit there fat dumb and happy but actually listended to and closely monitered Bloggs calls and actions to make sure he did not do the wrong thing.
To those who worry about mis identification and the wrong throttle being retarded, well isn't that why you are on board and if the worst did happen, well at least it will be on the safe side of the most dangerous situation of VMCA.
Never once in the many initals and endosements I carried out did the mx cable break and I put that in the same category as if the throttle cable broke. IE: there is not much you can do about it and the reality is that the throttle cable has an equal chance to that of the mx cable breaking.
Never once did the engine ever fail to start instantly once the mx was slid forward
To those who have mention concerns about the climb performance in this configeration, bear in mind that there is generally only two POB so in all probability the aircraft would be many kgs well below MTOW.
I can't see what the fuss is about, not one post on this subject has convinced me of any danger and in fact Centaurus post re the C402 crash which killed 7 persons convices me that realistic training has more merit than not.
As for lawers having your guts for garters if it all goes wrong, tell me what justification there is for that occur, or does that classify as a emotive throwaway comment made in order to add weight to the arguement for the against.
Regards