Yes, instructors have been known to behave quite similarly to normal
people. ;-)

Yes, and they've also been known to behave quite differently. The
issue here is that an instrument-rated private pilot who isn't actually
proficient enough to handle hard IFR (and knows it) simply won't fly
it. I've actually met a Cessna 421 owner like that - won't fly solid
IMC, won't fly to anything close to mins, etc. He doesn't need to.

A commercial pilot with a job that involves flying IFR is at a
different level. Under Part 135, single pilot IFR with pax takes 1200
hours, 100 in make and model, and a checkride every six months to a
year. Corporate flight departments don't have to do it that way - but
insurance forces them to do it anyway.

ANd then there's the CFI. He is under pressure to fly IMC even if he's
not comfortable. Pressure from his student who wants to experience IMC
and doesn't see what the big deal is - after all, the instructor is
instrument rated. Pressure from his finances - he needs the money
(seems to have been a factor here) and the flight time - airlines want
to see actual IMC time.

If one makes bad decisions, one is likely to have consequences. But,
differs from a blanket notion that primary students should not be exposed
to any kind of IMC, which is where these lawyers are heading.

If we're dealing with that exposure being provided by the average CFI
working at the average flight school, I don't think the lawyers are
wrong. My experience has been that the average CFI is not up to the
task.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that there's IMC and there's below-VFR
minimums.

Let's not forget that in this case, it was 200 and 1/2.

Michael