The problem is that any reasonable argument for retaining the IMC rating has to take into account the position of the people who make up that majority. Unfortunately, like it or not, the UK is a minority part of EASA and consequently for any proposal to suceed it needs support from other members.
Most of the posts here do not reflect the actual situation and so we have the argument revolving about the ability of a chocolate tea pot to hold ice cold tea.
"Saving" the IMC Rating is a very bad point to pitch. The idea that it is essential to private GA operations in the UK and even if EASA does not agree, the UK should be able to keep it just for UK pilots gets countered by the fact that pilots of SSEA aircraft holding a UK NPPL can not add an IMC rating to that licence. Is it an essential safety requirement or not? Make up your mind. Don't ask people to accept something that you won't do yourself.
The UK data shows that the majority of GA operators fly from VFR aerodromes. How many diversions to aerodromes where an Instrument Approach procedure was required were made by IMCrating holders from say.....Popham or Blackbushe or Rochester or White Waltham etc
Someone said that the IMC rating was essentail because it made it safer for the pilot who accidently enters IMC. They claimed that the enroute proposal would kill them. How? Can't they both complete a 180 degree turn and fly back to VMC? Why would the holder of an enroute rating be less likely to retain control in IMC compared to an IMC rating holder?
More and more, people arguing in favour of the IMC rating are assisting those that do not like the idea. They are doing this through lack of knowledge of how other countries approach safe VFR flying.
In many other countries Marginal VFR is cloud between 1000 and 3000ft and visibility between 5K and 8K. For most people in the UK they will say that in that case they fly in marginal VFR for most of the year. However, when looking at the proposal look at what other countries call good VFR conditions - 3000ft and 8K+.
Under ICAO and most other country's requirements one can not commence a VFR flight unless it is VMC all the way to destination. Would all those that jump up at this point and say "that would ground us on most days and what is wrong with a look see" think for a moment what that attitude says to other countries - countries you are relying on to get this qualification.
The whole argument about the French requirement for a Mountain Rating disdplays what is wrong with those putting forward arguments to "save the rating". Everyone needs to understand the vast difference between a country having a requirement for pilots to hold a rating to do something compared to a national rating. The requirment to hold a mountain rating is a national issue - France may require it while Italy may not. However, the ability to add a mountain rating to any EASA licence is not a national issue and there should be nothing stopping an appropriately qualified German instructor teaching a Spanish pilot for the rating and having it included on a licence issued in the UK so that the pilot can use it in France (where it is required).
As for the proposed conpromise. Most commentators here do not seem to understand the principles involved.
Most non-UK countries permit VFR flight out of sight of the surface without any extra requirements. Some palces have VFR over the top ratings.
However, the proposed rating is not designed to enable VFR on top or replace that ability. Pilots without the rating will still be able to operate VFR on top. The rating entitles the pilot to fly continuously in IMC while enroute. There is no requirement for a "hole in the cloud" at the start or at the end. The cloud can be solid from 3000ft to 30,000ft. The overriding principle is that VFR conditions must exist at departure and destination. Everyone here talking of the problems with a TAF showing cloud at the MSA and the pilot arriving at MSA only to find that they are still IMC, have not taken into account the fact that according to many countries cloud below 3000ft is marginal VMC and cloud below 1000ft is IMC.
In the UK one is never far from an aerdrome included on the Volmet. Using that element of the FIS on it's own provides the pilots the ability to ensure that weather conditions are not vastly different from what they expected. The Shoreham example again plays into the hands of those opposed to the IMC rating. An aerodrome close to the sea and someone is surprised that the cliund could be low and visibility poor? Even the Frenach post warnings for Le Touquet etc about such happenings and pilots select alternate aerodromes well inland.
The discipline in the instrument pilot revolves to a large expent around the ability to set minima and adhere to them. If they are 300ft or 3000ft, it makes no difference. If they are 1800m or 8000m makes no difference. One adheres to the minima or stays on the ground. The cround that jumps up at this point and says that would ground us for most of the year have to be asked would it? Is the method of deriving the safe minima based on being able to get airborne or to ensure a safe operation - for all?
As I see it the proposals are very simnple;
PPL - VFR - limited to VFR conditions at all times. Can fly VFR on top.
PPL with Enroute IMC - Limited to VFR arrival and departure. Can file and fly IFR (IMC) enroute regardless of airspace.
IR - Can fly IFR departure to arrival.
The argument that having to operate with minima of 3000ft and 8K would do nothing for most pilots who fly at 2000 to 2500ft ignores the fact that the UK system where VFR pilots rarely climb above 3000ft is at odds with many other country's desired method of operation.
The UK airspace limits VFR operations in the FL60 to FL115 band. However, everyone needs to be aware of what the future holds for European Airspace before being able to put up a convincing argument.
Should the UK retain the IMC rating - as an addition to an NPPL - what happens a few years later when European airspace proposals sound the end for non-IR qualified pilots in controlled airspace?
Serious proposals for an "IMC"-like rating have to take into account who the holders of such ratings are going to be and just as importantly (but forgotten by many) what type of equipment will they be using.
Let's have EASA grant an IMC rating to all. Then require a flight plan for all IFR flights and all IFR flights to have mode S and BRNAV. So suddenly the rating issue has gone - the equipment issue is nothing new - but the ability of the Club pilot from Popham to pop up through a layer and do some aeros on top before descending back down again is gone.
Is that what you really want?
Bren.