F900EX
Thanks for a reasoned post. You say you are not a rich boy but fly jets. Presumably you fly for someone else. Presumably you decided you needed a professional rating at some point and that is why you funded an IR - rightly, and necessarily so. Most PPLs are not in that position nor do they want to be. They dont have any commercial aspirations. Therefore they fund an IR or IMCr themselves and most arent "rich". Moreover they cant afford weeks off work to attend residential courses 100 miles away. That doesnt mean they want an easier rating because it doesnt need to be that way. What they want, indeed need, is rating stripped of unnecessary theory, with a practical point of supply and a means of delivery that fits in with having to work. The FAA IR has always done that very well which is why the uptake is so high - every version of European IR has failed on every one of those counts.
In some ways the IMCr makes life harder and the need for a standard higher. As Pace explains there isnt much harder operating OCAS in IMC single pilot single engine - take note all you multi engine multi crew pilots. Worse still you might well not have an A/P and pretty basic instruments. Its tough. It makes the safety record even more compelling.
Yes, many IMCr holders dont use the rating in earnest. Good. They have learned to operate within their abilities, just like any pilot. There is plenty of evidence to suggest some IR holders could have learned an important lesson when they are less than current but think because they have an IR they can blast off into any conditions.
Yes, the content of the IMCr is outdated, that is hardly a surprise having regard to the last time it was properly overhauled - that isnt the fault of the rating and it could have been overhauled had their been a will to do so.