I'm sure that I'm not the first bloke to have scared himself sh!tless while using a brand new Class 1 (as it used to be called) instrument rating. I survived it, obviously, and gained a valuable new perspective on my (in)abilities. I feel sure that most of us, who started SPIFR ops will have a similar experience or two and this is how we got a real handle on the job.
I'd learned morse code, I reached the standard required for flying IFR and it was instilled in me to abide by the rules. My situation arose from my failure to completely abide by
all the rules so, clearly, I hadn't absorbed the full ramifications of the rules. It was just as well that my standard of flying kept me and my pax safe, but it could have ended differently if anything had gone wrong with the aeroplane!
It was one helluva way to start building real IFR experience while I was a lot younger than I am now. I believe that the school and the particular instructor gave me a solid basis on which to build experience. I think that most schools and instructors take their IFR training tasks quite seriously and impart the same level of knowledge and skill that I acquired during my training.
When you come right down to it, the rules are based on a concept of risk management. Especially those related to weather and diversion options. As I've built my experience level over the years, I've also developed a sense of "rat-cunning" that has allowed me to see most of the usual problems in time to be able to avoid them. Liken it to being a rat and avoiding a carefully laid trap, if you like.
So, while I agree that risk management is important, it is most usually catered for in abiding by the rules. IMO, the "rat cunning" is what takes care of most of the unforeseen eventualities that manage to eventuate sooner or later. And, of course, if one should ever find the need to ignore a rule (for whatever reason
), then one had better have a very highly developed sense of rat-cunning to help keep the operation safe.