Greetings AirRabitt: All well said. We are in violent agreement. I was only having a joke; almost. No, really; I think more thought and understanding of your comments should be given to this manoeuvre. The airlines who use it assume all will be hunky dory on the day, and the perceived increase in safety is sufficient. Sim training, in the general sense, should be an opportunity to experience events that are not ideal/simple/normal but might well happen and take you by surprise. Events where you might have to work it out for yourself. Having experienced these in the sim you will be better prepared for that ugly day. Sadly, IMHO, simulators are under used in this way. Back to 'extra training = extra cost' argument. If the checking confirms a satisfactory standard for all the hoops that have been jumped through then the crews are to XAA's level of competence and job done.
After Sully we practiced a total flame out and ditching: both pilots, no briefing; What we didn't practice was the single engine failure at 200', climb away followed by the 2nd one going AWOL at 1500'. It was a simple double bang at 2000' over the sea. Fun value high, training value low. Box ticked for various items of the 3 year systems cycle all in one exercise.