You are the commander of the aircraft and responsable for the safety of your aircraft and its pax.
As such your decisions relating to the above overide any other laws.
Should you with an IMCR rating and with the skills and currency to boot inadvertantly get into an IMC condition where you deem your SAFEST option is to take an instrument approach then do it and argue the situation on the ground.
As long as you explain to ATC your predicament and intentions I cannot see how legally you could have the book thrown at you.
The situation can occur with N v G reg. Pilot X flies his Cirrus SR22 to a french location. He flies IFR and lands off an instrument approach with overcast 300 feet in his N reg Cirrus with aN FAA PPL IR.
Next day Pilot X with a Basic European licence flies the same trip but VFR in the same aircraft type but G reg.
A front moves in much faster than forecast (it does happen and Pilot X is trapped from behind and infront.
Now his destination 25 miles ahead is 300 overcast what does he do?
It is pretty obvious that anything less than flying an IFR approach is risking his aircraft and the lives of those on board.
Douglas Bader quote " Rules are for fools to obey and wisemen to question".
As Captain do whatever you consider is your safest option for the flight and argue it later. You cannot argue from a coffin just because you stuck to the rules.
To takeoff knowing your conditions at the other end are likely to be IMC and then take an instrument approach then you will be in trouble legally if anyone cottons on.
Addendum
Rules should be in place to protect us from ourselves and to make flying safer as such we should try to keep to them.
Sadly EASA a supposed safety body has shown this NOT to be the case.Their regulations are more and more politically motivated and less and less safety orientated GO FIGURE?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 1st June 2011 at 13:06.