Thanks Shy
Yes the 'abused loophole' terminology is just my take on lax legislation/regulation but it takes a certain (high-risk) mentality to deliberately descend IMC below something that is a guaranteed safe altitude when you have little idea what is beneath or ahead of you. Some people seem determined to worship the God of GPS (as they are with satnav in their cars) without really thinking through what they are trying to achieve and what they are risking if it goes wrong.
An emergency letdown due to malfunction, icing etc is a completely different thing but then the risk of not going down is outweighed by the risk of staying up.
With fare-paying pax on board, what excuse was there for not going straight to their planned alternate when it was clear that they could not replicate the first arrival as they were solid IMC at MSA?
As for the 1000' - it takes into account inaccurate flying by allowing a safety margin, all manner of altimeter errors, any likely obstructions and has the advantage of being a nice round figure to work to. Can't really see any reason to change it.