Some of you must really beleive you are reading something not there.
CHIRP Narrative: The following General Aviation report has been included as it has obvious ATC implications:
That was the introduction. No mention thee of a pilot exceeding his license privilges.
CANCELLED CLEARANCE
That was the title - no mention of Get-home-itis.
CHIRP Comment: The cancellation of the Special VFR clearance by ATC would have been appropriate if the reporter was awaiting departure. However, once airborne the instruction to return to land should not have been issued and in the particular circumstances could have led to a much more serious outcome. The pilot should have been advised of the weather deterioration at the airport and asked what his intentions were.
Many GA pilots would be reluctant to challenge an ATC instruction particularly within Controlled Airspace, but this report serves as a useful reminder to both pilots and ATCOs that the pilot is ultimately responsible for the safety of the aircraft and may elect to decline an ATC instruction, if the circumstances justify such a course of action.
That was the comment - not even a hint that the pilot was wrong to depart.
The ATCO sc**ed up, amd possibly so did the pilot by accepting his "instruction". Thats it.
The pilot departed within his license priviliges, thats it.
SD - it is not that I disagree with your post but the pilot ended up in IMC for two reasons - the instruction given to him, and his "willingness" to comply with the instruction. My point was he may well have had the experience to depart in VFR conditions that complied with a SVFR clearance - there is a hint he did, hence my alluding to a pilot with lots of experience being safe and comfortable flying in more marginal VMC than one with much less experience.
As JD says a far more interesting point of discussion is why the ATCO did not fess up!
I think I might well know why some of you would prefer to see the discussion take another course - but I am done.