FFF,
The criteria are not set by how much practice was done during the training. They are set on the basis of the standards to which in general the pilots should be able to operate on a regular basis.
IMC pilots are not as qualified as IR pilots. 15 hours of training can not equate to 50 hours.
Both IR and IMC pilots are reminded to increase their minima if they are not current and the AIP tells us what being current means. Since few IMC pilots will make regular weekly IFR approaches in IMC to minima, to disregard the recomended 200ft increment seems questionable.
---
Chilli,
Are you saying that you do not add the recomended 200ft to the published OCH?
If that is true then you can use the absolute minima of 600ft provided that the IR OCH isn't more than that.
If however, you follow the CAA's advice and add 200ft to the published IR minima for the particular approach then why do you not follow your own criteria for another particular approach?
This would be similar to a pilot adding 200ft to say an NDB approach but not bothering for a VOR approach.
Perhaps your response highlights wht I believe to be one of the dangers of the current IMC minima. Too many pilots simply use 600ft non precision and 500ft precision without really taking into account all the requirments.
As for a circling manoeuvre being visual flying. It is true to say that navigation is by visual means but I can assure you that control of the aircraft is more than 50% by instruments until turning onto final approach.
Regards,
DFC