I searched a few ATO's courses and they seem similar, some including use of a B747, which I find overwhelming. On EASA's website I could find only the MCCI syllabus, and indeed it included some extreme manoeuvres. I suspect the MCC student syllabus has been taken from this.
However, I found this 'course objective' paragraph, and this is where my questioning started.
"The objective of the MCC course is to develop optimum decision making, delegation of tasks and effective communication; use of checklists in normal & non-normal scenarios; development of teamwork and supervision of crew colleagues; development of support techniques using solid CRM principles.
Training is arranged to allow students to participate as PF & PNF/PM. Scenarios & manoeuvres are planned in which each student can practice these roles and develop leadership skills and support skills. It is important to develop multi-crew teamwork philosophies rather than competent individual skills."
I question if Emergency Descents, Engine failures, SE approaches & GA, NPA & circling to land or visual approaches, emergency QRH items in an unfamiliar a/c are best suited to achieve those objectives for some one coming from a low experience simple a/c single crew background.
I just gave an SFI/TRI core course. In that it was emphasised the basic concepts of teaching: establishing an Objective for that teaching and an Aim how it would be achieved. Proceed at the pace of the student and don't overload. Be aware of the entry level and knowledge of the student and match that to the entry level of the course.
IMHO the common MCC course I've found is questionable as to fulfilling those philosophies. Yet they both come from the same institution. EASA FCL. To me it's like they have been written on different planets.
I'm aware many guys use those ATO'S as sim check preparations for airlines using the same a/c. That is 'playing the system', but is it the true reason of the MCC course? They are not cheap.