Surely, or am I being too simple as I've never experienced it, but does 'seat of the pants' come into this analysis somewhere? Hugely difficult if you've spent all your life relying on your eyes; I know. Do we always need a comparator to tell us something is fishy?
I've never been given a frozen attitude or incorrect attitude instrument in recurrency training. I'm sure it would be hugely positive and rewarding, but sadly most outfits lack imagination. The UA box ticking is no big deal, and the new airspeed unreliable procedure frustrating and time consuming before you arrive at the correct input which you should have known all along. The first scenario is recall and piloting, the second is QRH driven.
In this scenario they guys would have had to be very smart & very disciplined without panic. If it goes inverted while you are trying to figure it out, doesn't help.
Why don't we experience some 'limited panel' flying in todays jets? It will teach you a great deal about your a/c and your own strengths & weaknesses. Is it because of "it ain't supposed to happen" thinking?
IMHO training in pre-planned scenarios with pre-planned responses has limited values. In-depth training to understand the a/c & yourself gives a broad solid foundation to apply in a multitude of unforeseen scenarios. The STN B747 was a simple frozen ADI, which caused a crash. It is not the only crash from such an apparently simple isolated failure. I say simple because the PM has correct data confirmed by all the basic performance instruments. It then becomes a CRM and handling exercise; to arrest the situation before a crash.
Never seen it. What a waste of simulator time; an ideal opportunity missed to gain real positive training, and avoid that confusion.