Is this just an example of dumbing down training? If you can't do an EOL/full down auto to a grass surface because you can't keep it straight for the touchdown, you shouldn't be allowed out in a helicopter on your own.
That may not be the best way to look at this issue. If you can demonstrate the ability to land at a reasonable forward speed with the skids pointed in the right direction, why not practice and demonstrate that skill on the safest, most forgiving surface possible? There is nothing gained by demonstrating it to grass. I suppose one could argue that it adds the pressure to get it right! But perhaps simply demonstrating the skill to the FAA (or EASA or whatever) practical test standard ought to be sufficient.
That said, in the US there is a lot of risk/reward management going on within the civil (not military) training system when it comes to auto's. With most training being done in Robinsons, full-downs are not required to be taught or demonstrated on a private or commercial check-ride. The training accident to real accident ratio was, so I'm told, becoming quite poor, and since most machines being bent or balled in a "real" auto were not resulting in a lot of fatalities, the juice just didn't seem worth the squeeze. Perhaps more interestingly, recently the full-down became optional on the CFI check-ride because too many FAA DPEs were not current enough in Robinsons to save a CFI check-ride candidate's bacon, and their own. One has to show up with a full-down endorsement from their instructor though. As usual, some of this gets fixed by the insurance underwriters who require pilots to go to Bell school, or Airbus school, or some sort of additional training.
P.S. scary noises and the smell of burning carbide are not good reasons to not practice to hard surfaces.