Don't you think it would be safer if the method of simulation was decided on the basis of an understanding of the particular systems on the aircraft in which the simulation is occurring, and a consequent understanding of which method is - on balance - least unsafe?
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The object of training for an engine failure in a twin engine type as above, is a handling issue pure and simple in that the pilot applies flight controls to keep the aircraft right side up.
It would be unrealistic to conduct engineering flight tests for a Tiger Moth to a Cirrus or for a DC3 or to a Seminole and all types in between, to determine whether a throttle closure or fuel/mixture cut is most desirable from engine handling point of view.
In a single engine types such as typical Cessna or Warrior, it is normal to close the throttle to simulate engine failure for a practice forced landing. Why not cut the mixture to simulate the engine failure in a single? Answer: It may not start again and you are left with a real forced landing with its associated obvious drawbacks.
Yet some are happy to cut the mixture to simulate engine failure on a twin. Fine above circuit altitude with time and altitude to spare. But what if that engine doesn't start again? For one you are stuck with a windmilling prop until the penny drops you have a serious handling problem and you are forced to feather the prop for real. Not much fun at low altitude after take off and steadily degrading airspeed.
A pedant would claim the mixture cut at low altitude is good from the engine handling point of view and that this overrides safety considerations. Someone else may have the view that safety considerations override engine handling considerations and for that reason prefer to close the throttle to idle
and thus have instant power available if needed
This is the point made succinctly in the warnings via various State safety authorities and the NTSB that all things considered, mixture cuts in twins at low level to simulate engine failure, are simply not worth the risk of mishandling by a student/instructor. Perhaps the time has come to realise the subject in Pprune has run its course with people agreeing to disagree.
