We can choose to disagree on this one, but not teaching the knowledge on how to fly legally and safe on top seems a bit counter productive to produce competent aviators.
There are very few situations where I believe it is safe and prudent to be flying above a solid overcast layer without a hole in sight (without an IR). Very very few. Also keep in mind that you're doing such flying in pretty capable aircraft with lots of range. Not everyone has those abilities. I'm also willing to bet that you've gotten yourself backed into a corner at least once by doing such flights. Often times people get out of those corners purely on luck. I'd rather not encourage people to explore those corners when they are very easy to avoid.
I teach people not to continue flight over solid cloud layers if they do not always see at least two ways down. If they only see one way down it's time to come down or turn around. If they see no ways down they've already screwed up.
I also teach these pilots how they can stay alive if they do screw up and get into instrument weather. I teach them to use all the resources they can and admit they screwed up. I do not teach them how to do it without ATC knowing (which sadly many people do).
You're seriously confusing what a student should be taught.
There are plenty of NTSB reports that start with a non-instrument rated pilot choosing to fly over a solid overcast layer. By making that decision you've already completed a link in the accident chain. Weather isn't yet a perfect science and even those with the strongest understandings of weather are often surprised.
There are some pretty terrifying reports where people have been forced to climb until they can't climb anymore. Or people that never were able to find a way down. Etc. Etc.
Why would I encourage someone to operate with such risks when I can instead encourage them to get an instrument rating and greatly increase their ability to do such things safely?
If a pilot justifies the fact that they've scared themselves skud running or flying on top of layers by saying that is how you learn - that's just sad.
Lots of stories about pilots getting into trouble scud running too. If proper conditions exist it is certainly much safer to be on top than scud running 500' off the deck. Not saying I have done that,
but things happen real fast!
If your only option is to skud run or go over the top of a solid overcast layer - it's not a flight one should be doing without an instrument rating - where you'll have the ability to shoot an approach somewhere if need be.
I fly in insturment weather all the time and I've shown students how quickly VFR can become not VFR. I then teach them how to avoid those situations with wide margins. Fortunately my students appreciate that advice.
Everyone has their risks that I'm willing to take. However, I'm with Jesse. If you want to fly VFR above a cloud layer, you should have an instrument rating. Even then, you can have potential issues.
There's a reason why it's illegal in a number of countries.
Neither Ted or I are safety paranoid freaks - but you'll notice we both agree on this one. We agree because we've seen how weather can change in a hurry.
Sometimes I run into high time private pilots without instrument ratings that for some reason have convinced themselves that an instrument rating in the midwest is without value. That's just ridiculous. I use mine all the time to make flights I couldn't have without it.
