vanHorck
I am just a private pilot and have no involvement in GA in any organisation at organisational/executive level. I write some magazine articles for one of the more specialised groups, that's all.
Feel free to PM me if you want details but the above sums it up fairly well.
Have nothing against AOPA and have never had any dealing with them. I vaguely recall that I might have been a member some years ago. I don't think UK AOPA can fund a £1M+ legal action. US AOPA just might (but obviously won't).
I have met bose-x a few times but have never had any professional or business dealings with him, aviation related or otherwise.
Pace
The IMCR was initially created as a get out of trouble rating. For a pure VFR pilot any level of instrument training has to increase his chances of surving in cloud.
This statement is being repeated over and over. But, since it is a matter of opinion and has absolutely no legal basis, I won't argue with it. The legal privileges of the IMCR are perfectly clearly defined in the ANO and have been tested over some decades, and if the CAA was unhappy with them, or felt they were improperly drafted, they have had all those years in which to change them, but they haven't.
I think the real issue is the legacy of regulations which themselves date back many decades. These define the ICAO Instrument Rating and everybody has hung their IFR coat on that hook. That hook is pretty inflexible.
However, times have moved on, flying has changed, equipment has got a lot better (for IFR) and we now have a situation where the IFR pilot has absolutely zero need to fly a perfect CAA-IR NDB holding pattern for example. I would argue that the way forward is
demonstrated competence. How you achieve that, and what you call the training package, is a separate matter.