CAP804 (LASORS' replacement) is not a legal document.
True, but regulatory authorities will almost never prosecute where the prosecution is contrary to their own interpretation. Not much point publish legislative guidance if it is worth less. If I were the CAA barrister I wouldn't want to defend that position with the crusty judge.
The ANO, which is law and overrides anything CAP804 says, doesn't mention about being able to fly in another in country with the permission of the national authority.
and it doesn't say you cant. You will struggle to prosecute someone if you cant point to legislation which makes their action illegal.
The ANO specifies the privileges of a PPL - including minimum flight vis of 3km, non-IMC etc. These apply worldwide (unless there are more restrictive regulations in the country you're flying). If an IMCr privileges are only "within the UK" then the PPL privileges apply elsewhere.
I dont understand your point. The PPL is not limited because it was always constructed to be ICAO. The IMCr couldn't be ICAO. An ICAO member state is obliged to accept ICAO privileges, but because an IMCr is not ICAO you cant oblige another ICAO signatory to accept it, but you can leave them to make their own decision.
The CAA's skills test guidance for the IMCr states "It is only valid for flight in UK territorial airspace, the Channel Islands and Isle of Man airspace.". This document has as much legal standing as CAP804.
but the same document says more information regarding the rating can be found in LASORS.
I suspect that "The IMC Rating may not be used in the airspace of any other Country unless permission to do so has been given by the appropriate authority of that Country" is for the benefit of the IoM and Channel Islands.
Well if you accept that is the position then its going to be really tough to argue the regulator excepted the IoM and the CI without identifying them and yet, without saying so, excluded anyone else who might want to consent.
You see I think if you read the legislation carefully the ANO doesnt say the rating can only be used in the UK, it specifies how it amends your privileges in the UK - this is the key point. I don't think any barrister could successfully argue the law says the rating cannot be used outside the UK - it doesn't say that, and if it doesn't say that it cant be illegal unless there is case law to the contrary, which there isn't. However, because it is not ICAO no other ICAO authority is obliged to accept the rating any more or less than they are obliged to accept anything that is sub ICAO.
It is no different than sub cat. A aircraft (permit etc) where the CAA grant privileges in our airspace, but neither grant nor deny privileges else where, because they cant. That doesn't mean you cant exercise those privileges else where, but it does mean you need the consent of the relevant authority.
If you think about it, the only reason any privilege can be used any where else in the world is because it is ICAO, sub ICAO and the privilege is discretionary outside the remit of the granting authority.
If the CAA didn't think this was the correct interpretation then why did they say the rating may be used with the permission of another country and if they intended to refer only to the CIs and IofM then why did they refer to country when in fact I suspect they are well aware it is debatable they are countries.
I hope that is a reasoned argument and response.
I agree it could be argued the position is not crystal clear but I do think it is clear that the ANO does not say the rating cannot be used outside the UK and there is at least enough evidence elsewhere that the regulatory authority does not believe the ANO intended to place any such restriction on the rating.