No. I never said preferred route, I said intended route.
In that case you choose, wrongly, to interpret an "intended route" as an invariable, unconditional determination to fly from A to B, come what may. A flight does not need to be planned with a single, irrevocable course of action; it is perfectly reasonable to have intentions and an intended route which include the
conditionality in the example below:
"
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"
Thus, my intention is to fly from A to B along my intended route
if the weather turns out to be better than forecast,
otherwise I will adopt a plan of action that, in accordance with forecast weather, allows me to maintain VMC and safe fuel reserves. (Note the use of underline to emphasise the conditionality in intentions)
Until pilots sit up and comply with the legal requirements for VFR flights to plan correctly and clearly show that the intended route does not intend to be in IMC we are going to regularly see people killed
The merit in the advice you are trying to give is somewhat diluted by your persistance in making false claims about the legal requirement for VFR flight.
You use "legal requirement" and "clearly show that the intended route does not intend to be in IMC" when the legal requirement does not say that. It has been posted several times before, but I will keep posting it in case it eventually sinks in.
The commander of an aircraft shall take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off:
(a) that the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned;
There is nothing complex or confusing about this clearly worded paragraph.
Can a flight from A to B with forecast IMC enroute or at B be "safely made" if VMC is forecast to allow VFR back to A or to land at C or D and sufficient fuel is carried? Clearly it can. Has the "latest information" been taken into account? It has. Is there "any alternative course of action"? There is.
Clarity in understanding the legal requirements is important to aviation safety. Confusing people with your own legal inventions does not help. Fortunately, in this case, the ANO is clearly worded enough that I would be surprised if any pilot found it confusing.
You, quite freely, advised other pilots to undertake training etc, earlier in this thread. If, in the same spirit, I may advise you: do consider your approach to interpreting regulations and requirements carefully. You seem prone to misunderstanding them and absolutely unswerving in your conviction, no matter what points are made to you, or what evidence is presented. This behaviour pattern can be an aviation safety risk factor, I refer you to the usual HPL sources.
rgds
421C