I said that it is illegal (and stupid) to depart on a VFR flight from A to B when you have determined by reference to a combination of actual and forecast weather information available to you that IMC conditions will or are likely to exist along the planned route.
The Rules of the Air are your reference for that.
I'll keeping asking for it until you either stop claiming the "illegal" bit or until you actually provide the reference.
"immediately before an aircraft flies the commander of the aircraft shall examine the current reports and forecasts of the weather conditions on the proposed flight path, in order to determine whether Instrument Meteorological Conditions prevail, or are likely to prevail, during any part of the flight."
is the law, and is eminently sensible. However, it is not the law you clearly want it to be or believe it is, because it does
not say that it is
illegal to "depart on a VFR flight from A to B when you have determined by reference to a combination of actual and forecast weather information available to you that IMC conditions will or are likely to exist along the planned route."
The important issue is that you have to determine (you are pilot in command after all) what to do based on both actual and forecast conditions.
Of course, we are not arguing over this. We are only debating whether it is
illegal, having determined as PIC that some IMC is likely enroute, to depart on a VFR flight on a "stay VMC, maintain adequate fuel reserves, see how it turns out" basis.
Thus your argument about forecasts being not accurate enough falls down because you have tyo check actual conditions also.
No DFC, your point is that you may not
depart on such a flight. At the time of departure, the
actual reports may be hours before you reach the enroute or destination point in question, hence the uncertainty of forecasts is relevant.
The Rules of the air are quite specific in that they do permit you to depart (to have a look see) if you can not obtain the weather information pre-flight.
Agreed. But please show me where they say you may not depart if you can obtain the weather information preflight and it indicates IMC enroute or at destination. It only says you have to determine whether IMC is/is likely to prevail - not that you may not depart if this is the case.
Are you guys saying that you can't make that decision?
No. We are saying that if you make the decsion, based on the forecast/actual weather, that IMC is likely to be encountered enroute it does not make it illegal to depart VFR. I've repeated what we are saying often enough that you don't need to conjecture other things we might be saying.
....or are you saying that you are go minded despite the information showing that this is not a good plan and you sometimes get lucky and other times have to turn back but you will always go anyway and only turn back when you have to?
I am saying it is not illegal and that you are wrong to claim it is illegal. There may be circumstances in which it is stupid and dangerous, and circumstances in which a VFR "give it a try" flight, despite forecasts that suggest it won't be successful, may be safe as long as the contingencies are planned properly. But we are no debating that. We are debating your made-up claim about the legality.
What did they teach you during PPL training?
They taught me aviation law. Where did they teach you to make up your own aviation law?
Would an instructor ever let a student off on a crosscountry if they determined that IMC existed on the route? Would the instructor say - ah just take an extra hour's fuel and have a look and see?
How is that relevant to your claim on what conditions make a VFR departure illegal? We are not debating what an instructor would or should do, because that isn't what you claimed. We are debating the aviation law that governs VFR departures. Telling me things that would be wrong, even though permitted by aviation law, doesn't support your claims about aviation law.
The problem I have with this is that you see nothing wrong with what was done on the flight from Exeter to Blackpool right up until the point where the flight went IMC. You say that it is OK to depart Exeter on a flight planned in accordance with the requirements for a VFR flight but to a destination that is IMC and is forecast to remain so.
I didn't say anything about what I thought was or wasn't "wrong" on this flight, or what I thought was or wasn't "ok". If you had expressed your views in terms of what was "wrong" or "ok", we wouldn't be having this debate. However, you have said it is
illegal to depart on a VFR flight to a destination that has forecast IMC, and I have said there is no such legal prohibition on a VFR departure as long as you stay VMC and have fuel reserves to stay VMC and land safely.
DFC, you can make up as many examples of good or bad things as you like. We are not debating what is good or bad or wrong or ok. We are debating your claim about the legal prohibition on a VFR departure.
IFR pilots kept killing themselves or nearly so by having a "look see" on approaches when the weather was well below limits. Then we had the approach ban - that will stop them from pushing the limits..........but it didn't so we have the approach ban and the absolute minima system to catch those that ignore the approach ban.
True. But the existence of the approach ban in aviaiton law does not support the existence of the VFR departure ban you claim. Quite the opposite - we are all familiar with this explicit prohibition of when a pilot may not legally attempt a "look and see" and we are not familiar with an analogous legal prohibition of VFR departure on a "look and see" basis, because it doesn't exist.
The reason we don't have (except in DFC's legal imagination) a prohibition on "look and see" VFR flight is that it would be impractical and impossible or excessively restrictive. The approach ban is based on the very determinsitic circumstances of an actual visibility report. A similar level of determinism can not practically apply to determining whether a VFR flight departure is legal in DFC's sense, which is why (I guess) it doesn't exist.
By the way, what is "the absolute minima system to catch those that ignore the approach ban"?