DFC
A number of contributors on this forum, including at least one solicitor interpret the legislation as advisory, a number, including yourself as mandatory.
However strongly you may hold to your view it is quite apparent that the legislation is ambiguous at best and a worst appallingly drafted. I suspect if you had asked the plain English society to look at the drafting they would have come up with a number of better ways of saying the minima were either mandatory or advisory depending what was in the mind of the legislator. Ultimately if push came to shove the courts would be guided by the CAAs "official" line which, as much as you might wish otherwise, would clearly seem to be the minima are advisory BUT the judge would have to be satisfied in his mind that the intention of the legislation was clear. It seems to me that would be a difficult count on which to be satisfied. I doubt the judge would have the slightest interest in consulting the plain English society!
This issue had been rumbling on for years now (I seem to remember that it was certainly discussed as many as five years ago on this forum). One would suspect that if the CAA's view was not as many have expressed the CAA might have found ample opportunity to carnify their interpretation of the legislation.
Your argument that IMCR pilots are not trained to the same minima standard as an IR pilot really does not wash as justification that they should not be permited to operate to the same minima as a pilot with an IR, however much that might seem common sense. The fact of the matter is I do not honestly believe anyone could successfully argue an IMCR pilot is trained to fly a hard IFR sector, with a departure and arrival to minima. Yet subject to the debate about whether or not the IMCR minima is "higher" there is no doubt the qualification legally entitles you to do just this.
"If one wants to operate as if one holds an IR regardless of airspace then there is only one answer - get an IR"
Of course as you know full well this is nonsense. The IMCR is an instrument rating - or if it is not then all that time spent flying on instruments is pretty pointless. It does not cover instrument skills in the same depth as the IR, but other than this debate about the minima, it legally enables the pilot to operate in UK airspace in exactly the same way as an IR holder with the exclusion of class A. In my view excluding the pilot from class A is a complete nonsense. If the pilot is judged safe to operate in class D with other commercial traffic one suspects there is less risk with their operating in class A given the aircraft is up to the job. One suspects the class A exclusion has far more to do with commercial considerations that safety. Even more bizarre is the fact that an FAA IR holder has no rights in UK airspace unless operating on the N reg or unless he has been granted an IMCR but in which event the IMCR restrictions remain.
Practically you should see the standard of some newly qualified IR holders particularly when the approach does not go to plan. Ask commercial training captains on how many occasions they have had to “save the day”. Both ratings, are a license to learn, the IMCR a license to learn more, perhaps!
What one can say is this issue is just the tip of an iceberg of poorly thought out legalisation which was creditable in its intention when enacted but has become hopelessly corrupted by the vested interests and commercial pressures of the regulators who have long forgotten that the principle concern should be the safety of pilots and of the public.
Many regards
Fuji abound!