So IMHO the way flight training teaches the PFL is an example where a disproportionate amount of time is spent on a scenario that almost never happens and not enough on ones that actually do. I was doing some training for a CPL student (not mine) the other day. The exercise was a PFL. Instead of pulling the throttle to idle I reduced the power by 300 RPM when the student wasn't looking. No response by the student so I reduced the power by another 300 RPM. The students response was "what happening" to which I said " you tell me" . All I got was a deer in the headlights look. So I said "have we had an engine failure? " Umm maybe ????
BPF, I agree with the point you are making about partial failures but this shows to me that this pilot was never
trained to deal with partial engine failures.
Quite simple for me the number one objective of a forced landing without power is to save your life and that of any passengers, not to mention people on the ground. If this can be done without damaging the aircraft that's a bonus.
Also better to hit the far hedge at taxi speed rather than the near hedge at flying speed.
Make sure you are landing more or less into wind and definitely not downwind - energy is proportional to (ground)speed squared.
Also not enough emphasis on attempting a restart assuming it's not an obvious mechanical failure or fire.
Statistics say you are three times more likely to have a partial engine failure than a total failure so best to teach and practice the partial failure.
Excellent report from Australia here:-
Managing partial power loss after takeoff in single-engine aircraft