You have totally missed the simple fact that in order to determine that a flight can be made safely in terms of weather, fuel and everything else, at the planning stage there must be a point at which based on the information available you know you will safely terminate the flight (the destination)..............otherwise, the flight has no defined end and thus actual fuel requirements and weather requirements can not be determined.
No DFC, I said that one can determine that a flight can be made safely without determining an invariant single course of action. In the example I have been using...
"
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"
...the defined end of the flight is contingent upon the weather encountered. Sufficient fuel is carried for these contingencies. The weather forecasts and fuel permit the flight to be "safely made" even if (as may be likely) the IMC at B is as forecast. QED.
Thus, my intention is to fly from A to B along my intended route if the weather turns out to be better than forecast
This ignores two very important aspects;
1. You must make your decision based on actual and forecast weather; and
The decision I describe in the example above
is based on the actual and forecast weather - the decision is to adopt a contingent plan which safely permits a flight to attempt to land at B if the weather is better than forecast. A forecast of IMC at an airport or enroute segment does not preclude you from flying towards that airport or enroute segment in VMC, to see if the weather is better than forecast, as long as you have adequate fuel to maintain VMC and land safely at an airport where VMC is forecast.
2. You as pilot in command have to not simply use the met forecaster as the person who decides if it is safe but you alone must interpret the information provided and decide that based on the information available that it is safe to proceed on the intended route..........which you clearly can't do VFR if the intended route is IMC.[/
The underlined sentence illustrates the rather fundamental misunderstanding you are struggling with. If IMC is
forecast along a route you must be aware that this doesn't mean it
is in IMC or
will, with certainty, be in IMC. If you plan safely and accordingly, you may depart to evaluate
whether the intended route actually is in IMC as you approach it. If it is, then you have to fly one of the VMC contingencies, if not, you proceed to B.
Everthing in your posts says to me that you are unwilling or unable to make a go/no-go decision - the very go/no-go decision that the law requires. You are simply surviving because ther are a multitude of fields in the country and your luck so far has not left you stranded.
It seems this friendly debate is provoking mutual concerns. Mine is more prosaic: you express various points with a sufficiently odd and unreal undertone that you come across like someone who's entire knowledge of the subject is more based on pouring over written regulations, misinterpreting them, and then lecturing people on internet forums rather than actually flying general aviation aircraft. This limitation manifests itself in your inability to grasp the basic relationship between weather forecasts and contingencies in flight planning.
Happyfran - you are right, I am just being weak in replying endlessly. I will try to stop.
Wrongstuff - of course you are right, and innumerable real world examples could expose the absurdity of DFC's claim and illustrate why aviation law isn't written in our universe the way it is in his parallel one. But that won't stop him!