WWW continually attempts to distract, confuse and befuddle the reader by changing story on a regualr (but irrational) basis.
At one point an FNPT2 is a barely disguised carboard mock up. Then it becomes something which handles "a bit like the aeroplane" - and then it "might or might not".
Finally when challenged he admits that the FNPT2 he used to use at Jerez DID in fact handle like the aeroplane.
Of course, admitting that an FNPT2 DOES handle like the aeroplane (and therefore offer a valid training environment) is not as much fun as rubbishing the whole system, it's equipment, it's instructors and it's course structure.
However, if you read carefully throughout his posts on this matter you find that he:
A ) has no experience of stand alone MCC either as instructor or customer (prefering to rely upon the "my mate down the pub said...." method of gaining knowledge) - unlike some other correspondants on this thread.
B ) has no experience of an FNPT2 MCC (as opposed to his Seneca FNPT2) either as instructor or customer- unlike some other correspondants on this thread.
C ) has no experience as a TRI/TRE training pilots pre- and post - MCC era - unlike some other correspondants on this thread.
D ) has no experience as an airline pilot pre-MCC era - unlike some other correspondants on this thread.
E ) has on knowledge or experience of the approvals process for FNPT2 or FNPT2 MCC devices - unlike some other correspondants on this thread.
Still, apart from that he is well qualified to tell us what he thinks and also what his "mate down the pub" thinks.
PS- There's on one "C" in Seneca!