I have done several approaches down to being visual at the minima outside of training. Personally, I think that doing so when you have plenty of fuel and options is a good idea to know what that is like. I prefer a low ceiling to low vis (fog etc)
I am more concerned about unstabilised approaches than how close the ceiling is to the MDA/DH. At 200ft if stabilised you still have a lot of time to go missed. If you are wallowing around the localiser at 500ft, I would suggest going around and having another try at it.
I guess we all have our different ways of thinking about it.
I would agree with that approach. I have never understood the idea of a personal minimum DH. If the approach is stabilised, within half scale, the why would you go around before reaching min DH? The critical issue on approach is visibility, not cloudbase. Viz limits are the only true legal minimums.
Assume you are on an approach and established going down the glideslope. The DA(H) is e.g. at 200 ft. What is the benefit of going missed at e.g. 500 ft. due to higher personal minima? If e.g. you could see the runway environment at 240 ft. you then just missed a good opportunity to land. Now you are going into a go-around or diverting... which is not necessarily safer than landing the first time.
Assume you are on an approach and established going down the glideslope. The DA(H) is e.g. at 200 ft. What is the benefit of going missed at e.g. 500 ft. due to higher personal minima?
In my mind I agree with you, why waste a chance to land. I think for me, its just because I just have an IMCr, and the DH's are more around the 600ft mark, and therefore my mentality is to not go down all the way to the minimums, coupled perhaps with a lack of confidence in myself and/or the systems. I guess if I had been trained on the IR, and to go down to minimums like 200 ft, even on basic equipment, then that would be my mentality.
I just have an IMCr, and the DH's are more around the 600ft mark
As Peter alluded to, the 500ft for precision and 600ft for NPA are "recommendations"...you are legally able to go to the same ceiling limits as an IR holder EXCEPT that you must have at least 1,800m visibility...
I assume the thinking of the CAA in making those recommended higher limits must have been based on the assumption that the typical IMCr holder will likely not be very current and therefore may find it harder to stay on the glideslope or above an MDA...which may be true, but if you are current and competent there is nothing to stop you
which may be true, but if you are current and competent there is nothing to stop you
I would also add that much depends on the equipment you have, which has potentially improved a lot since the IMCR came in c. 1969
But the CAA can't say that, while at the same time repeatedly warning of pilots flying advanced hardware which they are allegedly unfamiliar with 
Flying an ILS down to 200ft - even by hand - is a piece of cake compared to flying some NDB approach down to 600ft, because there is a pretty good chance that when you get visual on the latter you will not be in a position to land without doing a massive dogleg, due to the NDB system being so inaccurate laterally.
I was faced with this situation yesterday, fairly changeable conditions, Oxford was closed in the morning due to some snow. TAF read as follows:
170720Z 1709/1809 VRB03KT 9999 FEW010 TEMPO 1709/1716 7000 -RASN SCT008 PROB30 TEMPO 1709/1715 1200 SN OVC003 BECMG 1721/1724 3000 BR PROB40 1800/1809 0400 FG VV/// PROB40 TEMPO 1803/1809 FZFG
Metar:170910Z 05002KT 1400 SN OVC002 01/00 Q0990 AMB NOSIG
I had plenty of fuel, was deiced and was visual outbound on the ILS, went into IMC and was visual back again at about 700ft.
I think the key is having options and also discipline on going missed.
Seperately, on the ILS approach to 19, wind was 040 at 5kts. Given the conditions and the length of runway, I chose not to circle and landed with a slight tailwind. I do not like circle to land and think they can be very dangerous in low IMC conditions. Interested in how others think about it. Obviously can't be avoided at times.
Assuming an absolute shed-load of runway, I would always take a tailwind landing from the ILS rather than a circle to land.
The idea of low-level maneuvering under a low cloud base just so that I can land using a quarter of the runway rather than a third of it holds little attraction for me.
the 500ft for precision and 600ft for NPA are "recommendations"...
Can anyone provide chapter on verse on these recommendations for me please? Over the last couple of days I have searched CAA paperwork without success for a reference to them. The instrument flying textbooks I have refer to them as though they were legal minima and make no mention of recommendations. My instructors taught me that they were legal minima (looking back, they probably genuinely though they were), although we trained down to 200ft to make 500ft in the flight test seem like a piece of cake.
No mention in LASORS or whichever CAP replaces it, as far as I can see.
Can anyone provide chapter on verse on these recommendations for me please?
These are all over the place but as you say finding a "legal" reference is hard. Not suprising because there never was one! Well, not in the ANO. It was apparently in some other stuff out of the CAA - see the link below. Otherwise, it ranks among aviation junk folklore, along with FAA licenses being junk, N-reg being cheaply run unmaintained planes, the CAA busts maintenance companies that do life-threatening work 
etc.
A google for
imc rating minima recommendations
digs out this wonderful piece from goode olde Usenet in which a number of people here will recognise themselves
Can anyone provide chapter on verse on these recommendations for me please?
Refer to CAP804 Section 5, Part E and Section 7, Part B for guidance. The definitive regulations are contained in the ANO (2009), Schedule 7, Parts A and B.....there is no reference to modified MDA or DA...only the 1,800m visibility requirement (as well as limitations on type of airspace which effectively prohibits flight in Class A)
