" This would have to be a non-flying aircraft. Just purely as a vision, it should be possible to extend the EASA/FD course by 6 months or a year to include pure practical sessions on this aircraft including C-checks, role change, engine changes, etc.
Here's the problem - there is not a training facility in the world who could afford this level of realism......"
I beg to differ. The RAF does so on a daily basis last time I looked..which was Friday. True, the syllabus does not reflect the criteria for a licence, but that is not the objective here. The objective is to train the equivalent of mechs and then techs. The licence route for many comes, or came for many of us in the past, later therefore.
What is taught however, are the core basics applicable to all engineers. Hand skills, how to use tools, how to follow an AP..and thus an AMM later for procedures, flight safety etc, etc. Component removal and installation..followed by testing....all the frames have fully functioning systems in the main....3000 psi is the same anywhere with all the potential hazards involved is it not?....likewise drop / refit an engine...albeit one that will not be ground run.... as well as jacking ( fully) and dejacking....hence all the practical basic aspects are covered. Switch / power on checks....again, basic engineering for potential mechs.
Is the course "dumbed down" ? No, not in my opinion as it provides the basic training relevant to progress further in the maintenance disciplines.....if people choose to that is. The licence is a qualification that requires personal study and commitment to achieve, as does a Degree, ATPL, and so on irrespective of the vocation involved. I am far from being a dinosaur, but I do not feel that a course leading to a licence is really the best way foward given that every engineer has to spend as much time as possible gaining a very broad range of experience in the practical skills required to safely maintain an aircraft...be it Mil, GA, or in the airline world.