That's great Tee Emm,
And I am certain there are other manufacturers "recommending" mixture cuts, exactly like Lycoming still does, their recommendation is exactly that, a recommendation and this piece of literature is written by a Lawyer after someone killed themselves.
If it was such a big issue, as opposed to the response to an accident, they would have used the word "MUST" and changed all flight manuals to reflect this change.
Slowly retarding the throttle does not give the desired yaw rate or engine indications.
The recommendation by the NTSB means that all simulated engine-out operation at the lower altitudes should be accomplished by retarding the throttle, and this should be done slowly and carefully to avoid engine damage or failure.
The next step would be to prohibit EFATO training......
As a result, we published in our Engine Operator’s Manual and in Service Bulletin No. 245, the recommendation that if the power was abruptly terminated, it must be accomplished with the mixture control. Of course, this was intended for the higher altitudes where a complete engine shut-down could be conducted safely.
So its not about the engines, mixture cuts are better for the engines, its just poor instructors level of training perhaps ?.
By putting the mixture control in idle cutoff position with the throttle in a normal open or operating position, the pilot merely cut off the fuel, but allowed the air to continue to fill the cylinders with resulting normal compression forces that are sufficient to cushion the deceleration of the engine and prevent the detuning of the crankshaft counterweights.
Mixture cuts safer yet again.
However, any practice of simulated engine-out condition at low altitudes should be best accomplished by a slow retardation of the throttle in accordance with the NTSB recommendation. This careful technique will protect the engine, and at the same time, provide for instant power if it is needed.
Slow retardation of the throttle is IMO not a realistic training environment.
This mixture versus throttle is a personal preference, until CASA mandates one or the other, it will remain a personal preference.
Those that enjoy getting on their soap boxes and proclaiming that throttle cuts are safer, legal, better for the aircraft engine etc etc need to understand that it is not a black and white issue. Throttle cut are: not a legal requirement, it's not better for the engine and many, myself included do not feel mixture cuts are a safety issue ( its managed risk ).
I have had ATO's turn fuel taps off during instrument renewals, and I'm still here to talk about it, it was again, managed risk.
Every aircraft flying involves a very complex managed risk profile, pilot experience, pilot training, pilot SOPs, well designed aircraft, well trained engineers maintaining with quality controlled spares, airspace to suit risk, appropriately designed airports with fire services etc etc.
The complete flyer is here:
http://www.lycoming.com/support/tips...Operations.pdf
If you're worried about pilots killing themselves during EFATO training, petition to have it banned, but be aware there will be other consequences, possibly far worse than the one you are trying to protect against.
Safe aviation is an industry where aircraft are concreted to the ground, anything else is an aviation industry with managed risk.
This is a part of the reason pilots are so under valued, the general public has been programmed to believe that aviation is safe and we are just bus drivers.
Driving our buses which take the form of a pressurised aluminium tube, several miles above the ground, secured to two wings with very strong titanium bolts, with several thousand litres of flammable liquid in the wings, being pulled/pushed along by two or more very very hot fires in an environment so harsh that both the outside temperature and air density would not sustain human life...............doesn't sound so "safe" now.