Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
Terms like “unacceptable risk” and “too dangerous” are simply subjective value judgments. There are ways of putting objective numbers and costs on aviation risks, but those days are long gone in many places including, sadly, Australia.
i absolutely agree with the above, however, my question is different. I suppose the question I’m asking is that if (for the sake of argument) one does hold the view that NVFR recurrence training or including it as part of BFR is a risk they would not be prepared to take (and a number of people in the posts above do seem to hold this view), isn’t that person also saying that any single engine NVFR flight is too dangerous? Otherwise, it would seem odd to say that conducting SE NVFR ops generally is ok, but there is some added element of risk when undertaking circuits at night with an instructor on board.