I know a VFR airfield where you see a plane depart into low cloud base, below MSA at specific times >every week, flown by ATPs.
What suprises me is that Germans do this at all, especially the high profile bizjet flights, given that >(reportedly) the only countries where pilots have been done for departing into IMC conditions were >the USA and Germany.
Interesting discussion. Departing IFR from an uncontrolled VFR airport is OK, at least in Sweden as I have learned from this thread.
For an airport with no aids (grass field without lighting) the lowest visibility needed is 500m. If you add a centerline marking or runway lights it's 250m.
You can of course question the safety of doing this.
Most (all?) of the UK is now 6000ft TA.
So the semi or quad levels appear to be irrelevant for most IMC flight.
I have also heard some people say "xxxxx on an IMC flight from x to x....." but AFAIK this isn't a truly valid class of flight - its just VFR or IFR.
Yes; confusion everywhere 
Sometimes I might tell ATC I am in IMC if they are passing me traffic reports, but that doesn't seem to stop them passing me the reports.
FWIW, I have always flown at "funny" levels like 4300ft and have never had that queried in the UK. Only once in N France did ATC query it, in a manner which was deliberately ambiguous so they would not tell me what the rules were. They just wanted me to climb or descend to some semicircular level. I was VFR.
Back to my original question, it would be useful to know attitudes to "VFR" in IMC around Europe...
The quadrantal rule applies on IFR flights OCAS above transition level or 3000ft, whatever is higher. I guess takeoff or landing will always be below transition altitude in UK.
Some countries like Italy and Portugal have a deviation to the semicircular rule. Their split is not East/West but North/South, fair considering the main routes are North/South. Will that change with SERA? Do you have to change levels like a yo-yo?
Does the quad or semi rule apply when taking off or landing, or anyway below 3000ft?
During enroute flight in IMC one should be 1000ft above the obstacles, or 2000ft above if there is terrain above 5000ft.
climbing to an altitude of say 2000ft, which may only be 800 ft above the nearest obstacle, and not flying the semi-circular or quadrantal rule, is that illegal?
Yes, it is illegal, if you in IMC you must fly IFR, so you must follow minimum rule. This is not valid for departures and arrivals. The famous 2000ft altitude made me chuckle.
I must admit this topic is a grey area for me. If I depart in the UK, with an IMCr, from an uncontrolled airfield in class G, into a cloud base of 1000 agl, climbing to an altitude of say 2000ft, which may only be 800 ft above the nearest obstacle, and not flying the semi-circular or quadrantal rule, is that illegal? At this point I will likely be talking to a radar controller OCAS but I have just said I am on a VFR flight because I haven't actually met the IFR rules at this point, and actually the clouds are only scattered and I think the rest of the flight at 2000 ft and I don't plan to actually fly according to the IFR rules.
This might be a typical departure. In reality I plan most flights using routes OCAS and altitudes that will make me compliant with IFR rules anyhow, but sometimes you cant always meet the rules, especially the quadrantal rule when there is lots of CAS above the class G. I have also heard some people say "xxxxx on an IMC flight from x to x....." but AFAIK this isn't a truly valid class of flight - its just VFR or IFR.
I know a VFR airfield where you see a plane depart into low cloud base, below MSA at specific times every week, flown by ATPs.
What suprises me is that Germans do this at all, especially the high profile bizjet flights, given that (reportedly) the only countries where pilots have been done for departing into IMC conditions were the USA and Germany.
In the USA, from memory, they got done for flying in IMC in Class G without an IFR flight plan. They could not do them for IMC in Class G alone because no ATC unit is capable of issuing any clearance for Class G, so it's hard to say somebody is illegal flying IMC in Class G on a "VFR" flight because he could just claim he changed to IFR by himself (which is formally legal in the UK). I guess the US cases were allegedly entering IMC below the 1200ft Class E base.
I suppose, in most cases, you would first fly below the cloud until out of sight of the airport i.e. a few miles. But you can't do that if departing into something like OVC002.
see the crane that got erected yesterday
You would have to be doing a CAT3 DIY IAP for a crane to matter, unless it is something massive... There will also be a high chance of hitting it under legal VFR, which nowadays is 1500m, which is basically "fishbowl" conditions. I have gone into Shoreham in 1500m conditions and one can only just see the start of the runway at the MAP.
Normal DIY approaches are done to something like 500-700ft AGL. Obviously if you set the MDA at 1000ft then it isn't an IAP really. It is just a descent to the MSA, followed by a VFR landing
Very few people seem to kill themselves in the UK doing this. The IMC Rating has proved to be highly safe. The ones that have crashes tended to do stupid things like not design a missed approach procedure and then go missed... but many more people kill themselves just doing enroute CFITs etc.
applies to the UK's unique approach to IFR operations I don't find it that special, except for the semicircular rule. Outside controlled airspace it is the pilot who decides to fly VFR or IFR and you can change that as often as you like. It is a different game in lets say Germany. There is no IFR in class G and hence no flight in IMC in class G. ;-) I know a VFR airfield where you see a plane depart into low cloud base, below MSA at specific times every week, flown by ATPs.
I find the DIY approaches rather odd, but this is done in Germany as well (Illegal). I don't have the capability to do a proper obstacle assessment and see the crane that got erected yesterday. There is no guarantee that my approach is clear.
Separately, Peter's 91.175 point is reasonably logical, but to my knowledge untested. I think it is somewhat complex in determining how 91.175 applies to the UK's unique approach to IFR operations.
I tend to agree with that too.
One could same the same about the whole business of "flight into known icing", which more or less implicitly maps the US icing regs onto US weather services, but US weather services don't cover Europe (except tafs and metars, but those for Europe are generated in Europe anyway).
The chance of criminal enforcement of any of these FAA regs, in Europe, is practically zero. So (and this is probably true for the anti-N-reg EASA FCL provisions 
too) it comes down to how lucky you feel about your insurance.
IMHO, if you do a "Graham Hill" with a bunch of passengers, the insurer may well look into it.
How on Earth can you fly VFR in IMC? Apart from being illegal...
I didn't say it is legal
How on Earth can you fly VFR in IMC? Apart fro being illegal, if you can't see you can't do anything visually! Rule 20
The sarky answer is - aerodynamics has nothing to do with flight rules or visibility.
More practically, the only difference in 'flight rules' the UK impose for being I rather than V is the minimum height, and then only if you can't see the ground. So there is no rule that makes an IFR flight navigate better or separate from traffic better than a VFR flight in IMC (in class G airspace). Effectively the rules are the same once you are 1000 feet above terrain. It is of course totally illegal to operate VFR (which in the UK, with the MSA exception, is indistinguishable from IFR) in IMC, but it is completely legal to operate IFR in IMC - despite the non-existent difference in rules.
Separately, Peter's 91.175 point is reasonably logical, but to my knowledge untested. I think it is somewhat complex in determining how 91.175 applies to the UK's unique approach to IFR operations. A literal reading of 91.175 can not be correct as it mandates the approach is prescribed in part 97 (which is of course not going to be true for any non-US airport as its scope is limited to the US and it is based on TERPS). So the question really is, how much of the UK's very different approach to IFR would the FAA agree is reasonable use. As DIY approaches are on the edge of allowable in the UK, it MAY be reasonable to assume the FAA would view them as not in compliance with 91.175 as applied in the context of 91.703, and UK law. On the otherhand, the FAA has accepted some pretty big variances from the FARs that were still in compliance with local law (I seem to recall a lack of seatbelts required by the FAA but not by the Italians was viewed by the FAA chief counsel as reasonable compliance with local Italian law).
