Nigel,
I'm sorry you consider my opinion drivel, but I make no apologies for it. This should we/ shouldn't we IMC arguement has been going on for ages, and both sides never agree.
I accept showing a student or ppl the full IMC grey screen is light years better than trying to simulate it using foggles. I might even be persuaded that a very quick foray into a small lone cloud when there is very good ground clearance is a possible option. But...................
What experience level to you insist upon for the FI? Newly qualified with 15 simulated hours, 50, 100 simulated hours and by that do you mean foggles (accepted as unrealistic), an FNPT2 simulator or actual IMC time??????
What experience level for the student or ppl holder?
What parameters do you put on an acceptable cloud for this foray?? Size, base, horizontal visibility?????
And then how do you monitor the rules are being followed?
At what point do you introduce awareness of icing and minimum IFR control speeds? How do you get the minimum IMC speed approved and in the PoH when the aircraft is uncertificated for IMC flight by the manufacturer and the licensing authority? What about insurance?????
Your suggestion whilst having some merit has more than a few flaws before we consider a few other points.
If pilots are getting this wrong and CFIT incidents are unacceptably high, which is the greater issue requiring attention?
1) Insufficient simulated or actual IMC time so that the pilot is not comfortable executing a competent 180 turn solely on instruments OR
2) Pilots having insufficient ability to acurrately plan their proposed trip with regard to route and weather interpretation, and experience at deciding when to turn back, when to make a precautionary landing, and selecting a suitable landing site?
I've seen plenty of pilots who don't really flight plan. They're fairly sure of the route, give the met a cursory glance and then they're away, relying primarily on GPS and luck.
Looking to fly IMC/IFR requires more planning than a VFR flight. If 'we' cannot get certain pilots to plan VFR properly how do you suggest we get them to do the extra work that comes with planned IFR?
There is also a very big difference between flying into a small cloud, way away from the ground and knowing whatever happens you're guaranteed to be ok and steadily getting lower and slower (scud running), stress levels rising, and then going IMC too low, too slow and poorly prepared.
What about stability systems, TCAS, EGPWS, weather radar a dual comms and nav fit and all the other stuff that IR pilots routinely tune, ID and use even when flying VFR????
And when you've answers for those, maybe we can discuss IMC currency rules and how we intend to monitor those.
I've spent today flying predominately IMC, letting down to off airfield private sites and finally back at my base airfield (which has a 300' cloud base and about 3k viz at present), I take my flying very seriously and the trip was planned fully and limits were set that I won't deviate from. That's born from a very healthy respect for the extra demands of planned IMC/IFR flight. Maybe when 90% of pilots take VFR planning seriously your suggestions may have a chance, until then an additional false sense of security will have only one effect
FW