The rules are clear........you can not depart on a VFR flight unless the weather (reported and forecast) indicate that the flight can be made safely VFR.
IFR flights are required to carry suficent fuel for destination and alternate (or 2 alternates if limited met reporting etc etc for first alternate) and having reached the furthest alternate be able to hold for 45 minutes in the case of propeller aircraft.
IO540 - the comander is legally required to check pre-flight that they have the required fuel, oil and coolant.
Unfortunately, many IMC rating holders fly IFR without ever having considdered the fuel requirements, the alternates and so on and thus they have not acted legally if pre-flight they planned to fly IFR for any part of the flight. Of course if they are forced to abandon IFR enroute due to unforecasted IMC then they do not have the oportunity to plan in advance but they should report the circumstances so that the incident can be investigated.
Many IMCr holders will depart VFR knowing that they are going to have to fly IFR at some stage enroute. Thus there is a requirement to plann for an alternate should the weather not be as planned (VFR at destination).
We have had the debates here on PPRuNE. Many IMC rating holders fly as if they had an IR and use minima not appropriate to their rating.
Specifically, bookworm, there is no requirement for an IMC rating holder to apply higher minima at the alternate aerodrome when planning the flight (if they have even bothered to plan one) than at the destination i.e. the IMC rating holder can plan to a destination with an NDB approach and have an alternate with an ILS and use the 500ft DH and 1800m as minima where an IR holder will be obliged to apply non-precision minima at the alternate which could be higher than the IMC rating 500ft limit for a precision approach.
Overall if you were a citizen of another European country would you be happy with your government through the NAA permitting the IMC rating in that country with all the confusion that still surounds it so many years after it was started?
Don't forget that any NAA agreeing to an IMC rating will have their government minister thinking more about what the voters think that PPLs not being able to fly VFR into IFR IMC without submitting a safety report.
This is very much a political issue and one must wonder if so many foreign pilots wished their NAA had a similar rating, they never asked for on in their home country........and as far as I am aware, no UK IMC rating holder has ever applied to a foreign NAA for permission to exercise the ratying in their airspace.
Finally, one confusing issue in the UK is the fact that when you get your PPL, you are not permitted to fly to the limits of VFR.........you have to get an IMC rating to be able to do that. Getting rid of the IMC and getting rid of that very confusing licensing restriction unique to the UK will go hand in hand.
The altiport issue is a non-starter..........many airports have requirements that pilots must meet before flying in to them. For example, to fly into London City requires approval, simulator tests and so-on. They are justified on safety grounds in the UK just as elsewhere.
Regards,
DFC