Bearcat
I don't quite get the point of your rather stinging reply to Tan.
The airline that has employed me for the past 29 years has regularly trained and tested us in various 'engine-out' scenarios. Last sim check three weeks ago, given over 2 days, was typical in that among the various exercises, it included engine seizure exiiting a hold, in icing conditions, and subsequent non-percision approach to landing. (We are trained a lot in icing scenarios!)
Also covered, besides the usual engine fire/failure just past V1, were engine flameout in cruise, engine fire + shutdown on vectors, engine flameout with full flap just inside the OM (in icing condiitions) as well as the usual engine failure during missed approach from low level.
These are not 'one-of' sim exercises. They have all been a regular part of every sim syllabus that I have ever taken.
I,too, was under the impression that every airline trained to the same standard. If, as you claim, that the JAR Ops directives do not include scenarios other than the standard 'engine failure after V1', then perhaps those Ops should be re-written and regularily trained for. But I'm willing to bet that, either they do include those exercises, or perhaps that your recurrent training syllabus has become an exercise in checking off the squares on a list of minimum exercises to satisfy some regulatory paperwork. But I hardly think so.