Rotorspeed,
Yes, thanks. I feel that simply suggesting lower and slower is not the solution to the problem. There are times when that course of action may be wise (and legal seeing as you raised that point) and others when it's not....
and it seems you at times agree
Ref the Gazelle accident, the real issue here is why did the pilot keep (pretty accurately) to a presumably straight line route that he had planned, rather than simply divert a few miles west, which would have enabled him to keep to much lower ground to the west of Gloucester where the cloud base was quite adequate at 1000ft. He was obviously aware of the lowering cloud base and rising ground, causing him to descend to an unsafe and probably illegal height.
He was clearly being too rigid in his navigation. Mention is made of him having a hand written note of his route, so he had flight planned to an extent. But was it because he was being too inflexible? Are pilots taught enough in training to be prepared to improvise in flight and modify their routing when weather requires?
Preflight planning will for me dictate limits beyond which I won't proceed. I'm paid to deliver people safely, not at any cost.
With regard to your cloudbase enquiry - at a height whereby:
a)the aircraft is under control in IMC/IIMC when it hits something solid, or
b)the loss of control IMC/IIMC still exists when the aircraft hits something solid, or
c)the return to vmc does not allow sufficient time for control to be regained before hitting something solid.
Not getting in to the situation is the wisest solution to this problem. How to achieve that solution in terms of training is the Golden Question