Tinstaafl
I agree that your approach would be just as applicable at a theoretical level, in reality I'd argue that you'd be more likely to deal well with your local area more easily since your sensing capability would use unconscious observations to help you orient yourself - but no big deal, I don't see that there's much of a valuable discussion here, as it could develop into paring a hair! - I agree that the correct use of a chart would certainly remove some of the unkowns.
I am looking at the engine failure at night scenario from a POV of dealing with a future risk, whereas you are working on how to deal with an actual problem that has developed.
This means that my initial decision is to choose mitigation and fly close to an airfield on the basis that this LIKELY mitigates most of the risk of an engine failure as a forced landing has a reasonable probability of being successful.
From your postings, I infer (and please correct me if this is a false view) that you will make an acceptance decision based on what you view as a small probability of engine failure and your ability to manage the subsequent outcome.
So standing back from the discussion, we are both making highly rational decisions based on an assessment of our relative capability as pilots and tactics available to us. I am certainly not saying that you are wrong, only that your decision making process produces a different result to mine.
I do a lot of project oriented work, where risk evaluation is axiomatic to the results and am very used to this sort of debate - it's very interesting to watch similar project teams, on virtually identical endeavours, draw quite varying conclusions - and frankly, since these teams are dealing with a future event that has a varying probability of never happening, it's always difficult to take a firm view on "who's right" - it really is a subjective matter of opinion usually. That I can handle - what freaks me out is when something we never considered hits us between the eyes!
Safe flying
