After Sully a few airlines got in on the act and gave their guys double flameouts to glide landings during recurrency training. This was a non-fatal accident. After Air Peru B757 had its static ports blocked up and crashed I don't remember hearing too much about this scenario being introduced into recurrency training. It was a survivable accident, albeit very difficult and requiring much skill and airmanship; but isn't that the point of recurrence training, to learn from other's mistakes? Which event is the more likely to occur: loss of static or double engine failure? So which recurrency training would be more productive in preventing fateful accidents?
I wonder how many airlines will now introduce a proper rejected landing in their recurrency training, or even type rating? Will it replace the 50' ground round LST mandatory item via XAA stipulation? IMHO it should, or even be an addition.