I don't really see how it would be possible. If, for example, you have to have "x" number of encouters or hours in icing to stay "current," does that mean guys and gals will go out looking for icing to stay "current?"
I think the first thing you're going to see is the FAA taking a different approach to icing, frost, etc. Just this week the EASA (Euro-FAA) wrote the FAA recommending a change in the use of the phrase "polished frost" in the FARs.
I agree that icing must be thoroughly covered in training. In the simulator, we train, usually one session or two, in "cold weather ops" during a recurrent. More emphasis must be put on deicing on the ground, a better knowledge of the affects of ice on the airframe. However, the young folks who do their training and early career flying in south Florida may go 1,000 hours without ever seeing ice or frost. Even a busy student turned instructor, thats nearly two years of flying.
I live in an area of the country where we might see snow once or twice a year. Usually, due to lack of snow removal equipment, what little snow we might get shuts everything (airports, school, business) down for at least a day if not more. Therefore, I have far fewer encounters with snow on an exposed aircraft before departure than say my brethren in Chicago or New York. That is why each year during our safety meetings within the department, we discuss issues that may be encountered for a given season. Icing in the winter, thunderstorms in the summer. We have a nice library of information and video tapes that are reviewed as a reminder of weather we may encounter.
I've seen the FAA do some, what I consider, odd things before. I just don't think creating yet another endorsement is the way to correct the problems we're seeing these days.
Regards,
2000Flyer