So, if a rule (to take an example) is demonstrably detrimental to flight safety in a particular circumstance (say, total radio failure, and you need to contact ATC on your phone...), you're saying that because it would be breaking a rule, you should plow on regardless into a hillside? Or maybe an pilot with a lapsed IR should scud-run when he hits bad weather, and then a cliff, instead of climbing to a safe height and using his instrument skills, because it's against the rules?
Adhering blindly to any rule, no matter how inappropriate it may be in the situation, is the mark of a mindless drone. Do you honestly think the kind of people who get into the position to make these rules are capable of thinking through every possible situation? Even people with *more* than two braincells couldn't do that.
I hope I never find my safety relying on a singleminded rule-lover; I'd far rather rely on someone who has enough brainpower to take the rules with a pinch of salt, and make an intelligent decision about what the best course of action is given possibly unforseen circumstances. Isn't coping with situations not covered by the rules, or where applying them might be dangerous, what being a good pilot is all about?
Captain Stable; do you by any chance work as an accountant, or for the government?