Why not more IMC training ?
Mainly because they thought that if they trained pilots to handle IMC, that would incitate them to enter IMC. So, they applied the rule : "I do not teach you what I do not want you to do".
That's completely stupid, but that's it.
Frog,
When I got my UK PPL many years ago, there was 4 hours 'sole reference to instruments' training, after which I thought I'd got quite good at it. Then I took some friends for a ride and entered IMC unexpectedly and thought 'this is BAD'. I contacted ATC (Heathrow radar actually!) and they were very helpful in ensuring that my 180 turn back into VMC was conducted without harm to other aircraft. Lesson learned. I then did the IMC course, which principally taught me how to plan better and have a better understanding of the weather forecast to avoid flight in IMC, but if I did enter IMC, not to panic and how to get safely home or divert. Thus, all my long trips in the UK have been planned for VMC, but convert to IMC without having to change anything (except upgrade the Radar service to Radar Advisory Service). This is better and safer than running along at 500' under the cloud and meeting the ground ahead rising up to meet you. The 4-hour requirement was removed from the syllabus because too many pilots were like me and thought that they could do IMC. There is now only 1 hour, all about making a safe 180 turn back to VMC. Now I'm just starting as an instructor in the UK and I'm teaching this to other people.
In 20 years of flying since getting the rating, I can count on one hand the times I've really had to make use of the skills, though I do practice 'under the hood' with a safety pilot. i'm fully aware that the rating stops being valid at the FIR boundary. In any case, when I go for a day out, I want the weather to be nice. Just becasue I CAN fly in clouds, doesn't mean to say that I WANT to - I might as well fly a sim if that's what I want.
Now, the peculiar law about IFR in the UK. IFR here means flight 1,000' above any obstruction within 5 NM of track except when landing and taking off and a recommendation to follow the quadrantal rule above 3,000'. That's it. NOTHING about 'sole reference to instruments' or flying inside the soup (lovely expression, thank you!) I took a student on a cross-country flight today which was planned and flown entirely by this UK IFR rule, but it was a beautiful sunny day and the whole flight was flown completely by external references, except for the watch, compass and altimeter (and of course the engine guages etc). There's a LOT of confusion around that equates UK IFR with some sort of indication that you can't see out. If EASA could only do one thing, they could get a re-definition of VFR, IFR, VMC and IMC.
By the way, I'm sure we're all understanding your meaning perfectly from your excellent English. The style is very distinctive and refreshingly different from our usual 'stiff upper lip' prose. Thank you once again for your views, we much needed some opinion from outside our own group. I'm sure something from you in our magazines would go down a storm!
Cheers,
TheOddOne