Patronising? Fair enough, if you see it like that, but I think the two disciplines of visual flying and instrument flying should be completely and irrevocably separated, bar the the inclusion of a set of basic skills that are re-tested to allow a basically visual flyer to escape unforseen incursion into instrument conditions. I don't think it's patronising to have such an opinion otherwise I wouldn't have posted. I don't do patronising.
I feel that the allowing of planning into what are marginal conditions is way too much of a grey area, one that we in the UK have become accustomed to by the offering of such a rating, and perhaps it is time to realise that two completely different disciplines exist; that of Visual Flying in the associated Met conditions, and that of Instrument Flying in full IMC/Controlled Airspace in suitably equipped aircraft. As I implied above, would that all of the authorities around the World saw likewise, many do not at the moment.
As I also implied above, the opinion I give here is based upon a negative experience, and that in no way implies that everyone who holds such a rating will be going flying willy-nilly in marginal weather. But to someone who flies professionally, it seems an anachronism to have a middle-ground between the basic recreational licence and the full IFR licence and, importantly, to allow planning within the remit of that middle-ground rating.
It is indeed possible to climb on top through cloud avoiding the icing layer. Not always. Neither, in my experience, has the forecast top of the cloud layer regularly appeared as predicted, indeed yesterday it was 5000' out, which we had a laugh about as we were being bumped around waiting for clearance to climb from what should have been a clear level.
Sorry again if you feel it's patronising, it's just a heart-felt opinion based on my years and experience, one that as a Moderator (albeit not named on this part of the site) I thought several times before posting.
Squid