I would suggest that re-reading the thread (ignoring the sniping) gives some indication on how the IMCr is emotionally perceived (Frog's first post) and how after explaining to someone who actually wants to listen (with a surprising amount of patience and tolerance on Frog's part) they can see the merit at least to the extent of saying the syllabus is a pretty good basis for a more rational IR.
A couple of views I have formed from the debate
1 - It will be impossible to have an IR that does not have some minimum amount of training - every other rating has a minimum number. However, 15-20 hours minimum training for a PPL seeking to add instrument capability seems reasonable (they have no real chance of requiring less)
2 - A big part of the UK IR problem is that there are very few places to be taught and I suspect they have to pay big fees to the CAA. If the same organisations that can do PPL, night, IMCr, multi, etc. could do IR this would be a big step in accessibility and cost containment.
3 - The exam process (once every couple of months, at Gatwick, with mandatory classroom training) is a problem. Along with the size of the pile of information required to be stuffed into your head.
4 - The IMCr as it stands (note I have never done the course just got mine off my FAA/IR) don't cover the full scope of flying needed for international and TMA flying - so there probably would need to be a transition training module (but pretty limited in mandatory time as the bits that are missing are not rocket science)
5 - If there is going to be a modular approach we need some real clear thinking (that I have not yet seen articulated) on what specific privileges the IR module 1 holder (i.e. current UK IMCr type of rating).
A structure like
Module 1 -
Privileges - IMCr landing viz and the recommended minima being obligatory, no access to air carrier airports under IFR, limited to 5000 AGL.
Requirements - basically the IMCr syllabus, 15 hours minimum training, maybe an IFR MET, basic nav, IFR human factors, IFR airlaw knowledge requirement with an FAA style computerised test system (i.e. cheap, reliable and convenient)
The objective of this is to allow basic capabilities of a stepping stone for popping through a layer and hacking about low level (ie. like many people use the IMCr for)
Module 2 -
Privileges - non-commercial IFR, world wide, all airspace, all airports (i.e. and IR).
Requirements - Module 1 + 5 hours minimum adding in SIDS/STARS, more emergency procedures, filing and planning international and RNAV routes, a long distance airways flight, maybe an expanded IFR MET, IFR systems, expanded IFR airlaw knowledge requirement with an FAA style computerised test system (i.e. cheap, reliable and convenient)
The objective of this is to allow people who have achieved module 1 to easily move on to a full IR. Logically there would be an integrated version where you did it all at once as well.
This could give a basis to convince our European colleagues that the IMCr (IR module 1) is safe and a solid knowledge base, provide a grandfathering position (which some of us will not like because it is a step back from the IMCr, but a step forward in its international scope) and a sensible and cost effective migration to a full and appropriate IR.