JL,
I do get the point! Its' just that we're getting hung up on definitions and semantics, rather than on reality!
Air is air! Makes no difference if its called 'controlled' or 'uncontrolled'
My understanding is that its LEGAL to fly in IMC without a flight plan, and without an instrument rating, in the UK, in 'uncontrolled' airspace. Fine.
I also think its dangerous, and I don't care about statistics.
As far as I know, in the US you cannot go into a cloud, no matter what kind of airspace it's in, without an instrument rating and ATC communication (Flight plan!). Non-IFR rated pilots must maintain VFR minimums everywhere.
Flying from Point 'A' to Point 'B',in IMC, on a filed flight plan, with ATC control (advisories!) is safe, if other aircraft are also part of the system! If part of the flight is through 'uncontrolled' airspace, there is a greater POSSIBILITY in the UK that someone with the minimal training of an IMC rating can also be there, unannounced.
The increased risk is obvious!
15 hours of training is only enough to a 180 and make a instrument approach in MARGINAL VFR conditions. The fact that it can be used to avoid possible routing delays makes it less expensive, more useful, etc. Thats fine if the priority is saving money.
IFR flight is demanding, and by its very nature should be controlled! The pilot is effectively blind!
Freedom is nice, but with it should come responsibility! Part of that responsibility should be getting enough training, and staying current and proficient. If finances don't allow this, then don't do it in the first place!
ATC should be funded by tax money. Its' primary purpose is safety, not profit. The IMC rating appears to me to be a neat way to make pilots think they are getting value for money!
As far as banning something without statistics to back it up, what's the alternative? Wait until you have the statistics? How many dead bodies are needed to qualify as 'statistics'?