Forgot to say that every argument against my position has been based on planning to do something other that fly from A to B
The ANO requires that a pilot must establish that the flight can be safely completed as planned.
Everyone with me so far or does anyone disagree with the above?
As Islander2 helpfully pointed out, the ANO requires that you plan for "
any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned"
So you plan to fly from A to B that is what you plan to do........no more and no less. There is no other plan.
You are introducing a false determinism to the meaning of a "planned flight from A to B". It means an intent to land at B if all the conditions for safe flight can be met and may include contingencies and alternatives for other outcomes. It does not require a certainty of landing at B. You'd be a fool to depart VFR from A to B thinking
"there is no other plan".
IMC conditions on a VFR route mean that the route can not be legally completed as planned
No, if your planning has included alternative VMC routes and contingencies "
which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned"
If you still depart on that route as planned despite having decided that IMC conditions exist then you have not ensured the safety of the flight.
No, you can ensure the safety of the flight by planning for contingencies "
which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned"
You may have to read the VMC criteria, the requirement to establish if IMC exists, the requirement to determine that the flight can be completed safely and the requirement to not recklessly endanger the flight or others to gather together the legal requirements.
It is those very criteria which permit a VFR departure from A to B despite IMC enroute or at the destination as long as the contingency planning permits the flight to be completed safely. There is no requirement that
the flight must be completed at a specific, nominated destination determined before the start of the flight. Only that it can be completed safely, and such safe completion may allow for landing at C,D etc or returning to A.
The rest of your post is not relevant to your claim that it is illegal to depart on a VFR flight from A to B if IMC is forecast enroute or at the destination, even if you have contingency plans that allow you to maintain VMC and safe fuel reserves. Being legal is a necessary
but not sufficient condition for a flight test to be executed or passed. Hence, the circumstances in which a flight test can be failed or terminated do not prove that something is illegal.
What is the point of your comment to Bookworm on the IR test and how is this relevant to your VFR legality claim? It's not even meaningful for IFR since an IFR flight may depart to a destination with forecasts below minima if it has two legal alternates. Bookworm has already pointed this out to you.
You may also fail an IR test if your flight planning takes longer than 45 minutes. Are you going to tell us it is illegal do undertake an IFR flight if the planning takes you more than 45 minutes?
Your post and the stuff about apples, oranges, motorway and A road speed limits proves 4 things
1. You can type
2. You can use bold emphasis
3. You can write with an authoritative prose style
4. You are willing to continue typing posts in this fashion ignoring the points made in reply to you
What it doesn't do is support your claim. Since you seem to struggle to absorb points made to you, I will repeat an earlier part of a post, in case this is helpful
Pilot "I am departing VFR from A to B. The current forecast for B indicates that a VFR arrival will not be possible, but C and D nearby are forecasting VMC. There is also an enroute forecast that suggests I may have to turn back to A. I have enough fuel to maintain VMC and land safely in any of these outcomes, and I am willing to depart to see whether conditions turn out to be better than forecast."
DFC:"Stop, do not depart, that is illegal"
Pilot: "Where do you make this stuff up DFC? Of course it is legal"