DFC,
A couple of quotes from your last post which I think need some further comments:
That makes the idea of an IMC rating holder who flies the average number of PPL hours per year doing an ILS in IMC down to 200ft and expecting to be in a position to safely land as remote
That is probably true. But exactly the same is true of an IR holder doing an average number of PPL hours per year.
On the other hand, there are plenty of IMC-rating holders who do far more than the average number of hours. They might even have had training in flying an ILS down to 200'. (I am certainly happy to give this kind of training to my IMC students, although it is not on the syllabus and will not be tested, and when I do so I of course point out the relevant recommendations and the requirement for currency.)
The rating (IMC or IR) a pilot holds does not necessarily reflect on the currency or ability of the pilot.
On an unrelated note:
if one wants confirmation that 500ftDH and 600ft MDH are the absolute minima for an IMC holder - mandatory and that is what we teach and test please ask the chief examminer at the CAA
In a recent thread, I was asking about the possibility of using the localiser for guidance on the outbound leg of an ILS procedure with a procedure turn. My colleague had already asked Steve Oddy for his opinion, and his opinion was that it was allowable. I then asked PPRuNe for further opinions - and someone posted a very detailed reply describing why Steve Oddy was wrong, because the localiser coverage does not extend to the height required to fly the leg. I just went back to that thread and checked who it was that posted this information, which I'm sure is correct but which was in direct conflict with advice from a CAA staff examiner. It was you.....
FFF
--------------