Then he diverts somewhere else, just like any other instrument-qualified pilot who finds that, despite his intended destination meeting planning minima, the actual weather does not.
Bookie
I am not sure if you follow my point (which is perhaps badly made).
An overcast of between 2,000 and 3,000 feet is not exactly demanding instrument conditions but is quite common.
As we understand matters the pilot cannot accept vesctors for the ILS because more than likely the vectors would capture the GS in IMC and in any event part of the approach would be in IMC.
I dont see it is a question of whether or not the forecast meets planning minima. If the pilot is above a base (any base) unless the base is higher than 3,000 feet it is inconceivable the pilot could accept vectors or fly ANY approach for the reasons I have explained.
He therefore can only descend outside CAS on a get down and hope basis.
Now if we are saying the weather minima for an EIR holder at destination must at worst be scattered so far as cloud is concerned at anything between 0 and 3,000 feet I would agree with you, but if that really is the case the rating will be even more worthless than I previously thought. Of course to be pedantic the EIR holder would not even be entitled to go through a bit of scattered at 1,800 feet.
I know the details have not been published but either there is to be an aprroach ban in IMC or there isnt. If there is I just cant see how it can be made to work other than in the circumstances I have outlined in the previous paragraph.
I dont see this can in any way be compared with an IR pilot flying an approach to minima, not becoming visual and diverting. The diversion is because it would be unsafe to continue, whereas to not fly an approach through 1,000 feet of stratus between 3,000 feet and 2,000 feet but in the alternative to legally descend through the same cloud outside CAS on a get down and hope basis would seem just silly.
Fuji, you damage your cause with bogus statistics
The claim is frequently made that the IMC rating is unsafe. Ultimately what do we base our asessment of safety on? Accidents and incidents? The accident record speaks for itself so is worth repeating. The incident record is not known so we cant report on the record. How else would you prefer to confront the accusation that the rating is unsafe?
For those that claim it is unsafe - in what way is it unsafe? Clearly IMC pilots are not crashing all over the country side. They may be busting clearances, they may be losing control but recovering, they may be failing to accurately follow controllers instructions and each of these events would be potentially serious. However, it would be reasonable to believe if these were regular occurences the CAA would be well aware, unless you are suggesting the CAA has been negligent in dealing with the reports made to them by ATCOs.
Moreover the average IMCr holder is flying single pilot ops. Whilst I hate making a comparison with CAT and commercial IR holders you need only read the incident reports or fly (at all) to realise that their are plenty of incidents amoung this fraternity. I was at Southampton only last week and we had two CA one of which asked for vectors that would take him outside CAS and clearly had no idea that was the effect of his request and another than descended below his cleared altitude.
I accept that IMCr holders avoid the worst of the weather; infact I think they do a pretty good job of self regulation and that is why as a population they do a damn good job of managing the risk. To constantly argue as some do that they are unsafe and they shouldnt be in the same airspace as CAT or even GA holders of an IR should be addressed because if it were such an issue I would have expected there to be some evidence that it was.