So Green Goblin complying with the regs is 'dopey'?
So how many days would you sit waiting for 'acceptable' weather, whatever you define subjectively as 'acceptable', to mitigate against the utterly tiny chance that an engine might fail just airborne?
As opposed to 10nm down the track...or 20?
Do you hide in your house when its raining outside or do you assess the risk of a fatal car accident/strike by lightning, tree falling on you, run over by car, electrocuted by fallen power lines differently?
I am struggling to remember the last EFATO into low weather fatality in Australia yet you have judged it to be 'dopey'.
Guptar et al there is NO such guidance. There is guidance on minimum obstacle clearance required on the proposed flight path and there is guidance defining that flight path but the rest is up to you. You can do ABSOLUTELY anything you like as long as you comply with minimum obstacle clearance criteria.
It just takes some thought.
If someone, including an ATO, is unhappy with your plan listen to his...might even be better...but if they are just trying to impose their subjective choice over yours, or worse insist that their subjective choice is the ONLY legal option, challenge them to prove it..."that is interesting can show me where it says that?"
My personal preference at
unfamiliar aerodromes was to follow the missed approach path for the runway approach on the runway I was using. Equally I might just blast straight on track at a familiar aerodrome on flat terrain.