Unless you develop your own course and run your own training center, you’ll just be teaching what the airline or customer has already created. Especially at a 121. You do not deviate from the script that is handed to you.
Hopefully that script has been developed by people with a firm concept of human factors and aviation safety, utilizing a robust dataset captured from live fleet events, identifying trends in deviation from SOP’s right?
121 training doesn’t get much leeway as a sim IP, 91/135 guys have a fair amount more latitude to work in scenarios. I used to kill people at KASE all the time. The PL21 FMS would give them “good” landing number for the runway, completely ignoring the MA climb gradient requirement. Somewhere below MDA I’d launch a G-IV opposite direction and have it abort the take off stopping in the middle of the runway. Crew would go missed and Blow up a motor. They would realize that the 2% climb gradient the plane gave them only matched the rate of elevation change. When they tried to make the 180 out of the canyon they would lose altitude in the turn and eventually impact the mountain.
Point wasn’t to show them that I could make them crash, but:
1) Pl-21 numbers only look at net performance, not required gradient,
2) it’s pretty easy to get complacent with the FMS
3) Turning really does hurt your climb performance, more than you would expect.
Most everybody that saw that scenario liked it as it shows multiple issues and how they can definitely bite you. Nobody complained that it was unrealistic to face opposite direction traffic at KASE, and lose a motor on missed. It was understood that that was the setup but the individual performance and safety issues could be a factor in many more places.
Of course, one has to understand the performance aspects otherwise they won’t be able to teach the scenario and then it becomes “sim IP just being a Dick”