Perhaps we should be less quick to jump to the conspiracy theory....re my prior answer
Why? Select committee hearings are held in public. Why should EASA hold these meetings in private and gag the participants?
It isnt - EASA havent yet "adopted" any national ratings.
My "none of them" meant EASA countries, not FCL008 members. I understood that in FCL001 the IMCr was rejected by all the participants except the UK ones.
Either they all did, or they didnt. If the UK didnt (and still doesnt) then they didnt all reject the IMCr.
I've turned back on many trips when the enroute murk was such I couldn't continue, where my destination was forecast VFR.
The thing is if you set off IFR you are entitled to fly with IFR reserves. Turning back may not be an option. In another thread in another place I gave an example of a flight of less than an hour. The departure TAF indicated scattered at 1,500 all morning, by the afternoon it changed to broken at 1,100. The METAR about 40 minutes before departure indicated broken at 1,000 feet. By the time I arrived it was overcast at 700 feet, and IMC from ten minutes after departure at 1,500 feet. The weather at the departure airport was below minima by the time I arrived at the destination and the destination also had a strong wind warning and strong winds of which there had been no mention at all in the earlier TAF or METAR. The destination was at minima but there was the alternative of a number of close ILS IAPs. If I had an IMC rating I would have gone with the forecast. If I had an EIR I would have gone with the forecast. If I had been coming up through Europe I would have gone with the forecast.
Another aircraft was returning to my destination after a local VFR flight. He remained below the base and the flight was legal if, perhaps, not prudent for some.
The EIR as proposed by you is not based on a sound safety case (if it is please set out the case for us all) but on political expediency. If EASA legislates for reasons of political expediency and not safety we are all doomed and the process is broken.
I reiterate if you want to engage in debate then please set out the safety case for the EIR. Time has already set out the case for the IMCr - I know of no better judge.
Would you also like to set out your credentials. You appear to be soliciting opinion and formulating a defence of the EIR - what is your interest?
My interest is already on record.