I think recent contributors to this thread are spending far too much time and effort criticising or trying to second-guess the actions and decisions of the pilot.
As I have said earlier, I believe the principal cause of the incident was the inappropriate action of the ATCO in i) cancelling the SVFR clearance and then ii) requiring the pilot to return to the airfield. Neither action was within his remit.
It was only secondary to this that the pilot, by choosing to accept the unauthorised instructions, found himself (albeit partly of his own doing) in conditions outside his licence qualifications. However, to his credit, he has reported the incident to CHIRP and I respect him for that. I have much more concern that the ATCO does not appear to have reported the incident - even more concerning, he may not even realise that he acted beyond his legal duty and thereby contributed to a potential incident by his inappropriate actions.
I'm becoming weary of hearing all this criticism of the pilot, who at least had the courage and integrity to report the events to CHIRP. It was the ATCO's inappropriate actions that were the trigger point for this series of events and that is where I believe the main responsibility must lie in this case - with ATC.
JD
