Originally Posted by IO540
I am also sure that a lot of U.S. VFR pilots do fly in IMC - they are just smart enough to not write about it. The FAA is much more proactive in going after violations than the CAA. If you depart "VFR" in the USA and zoom off straight into IMC and a few witnesses report you then
AFAIK you are likely to get done for it. Whereas in the UK this is normal practice, especially in 2000kg+ twins.
IO,
As someone who learned to fly in the US and then moved over to the UK, my view is the whole training and pilot culture is fundamentally different with regard to what I will call 'VFR in IMC'. From the very beginning you are taught
1 - you must be IFR rated and current to file and fly IFR
2 - if the weather is below VFR minimums you must be on an IFR flight plan
3 - if you can not see other aircraft (i.e. are IMC) then there is a significantly increased risk of collision.
In the UK the differences in the VFR and IFR rules is so small as to be negligible (other than the obvious one that if you are in IMC then you must be IFR) as compared to the US, where there are lots of instrument rules (i.e must be on a clearance, must have VOR check in 28 days, must have filed an alternate in certain weather, must carry increased fuel reserves, must be on an airway, above MORA or on a published approach, etc.)
Because getting an IR (and IFR clearance
) is so much more achievable (something like 40% of pilots have an IR) there is no excuse for operating IMC and not IFR. As such it is viewed by the regulator, the trade bodies and (I believe) by most US pilots as reckless.
It took my a long time to come to grips with the fact that most UK IMC flight relies on statistics and a flat country to be safe, rather than ATC and charted IFR routes.