The first part of the quoted comment was sarcastic. A reference to
instructors telling students the wrong thing, actually.
From not counting the four hours they have off when rostering in excess of eleven hour duties to this thread about test flying NVFR to see if have the required visibility, this all relates to instructors not knowing their stuff. The
standard in this industry needs to improve.
Yes, the standard needs to improve (including everyone from CASA down) but don't go shooting from the hip at junior instructors. To guys like you and I, who are well into our careers, it is very easy to apply and understand the rules. Most try to do the right thing, but remember what it was like many years ago trying to comprehend the thousands of pages of requirements we are supposed to know? No wonder things slip through the cracks initially. The problem with fresh CPLers, either instructors or charter pilots, not knowing their 'stuff' is related to the lack of guidance from those above them.
Sure, a lot of it depends on the individual who has to be motivated to keep themselves knowledgeable about rules and procedures. However, I bet your ability to be so well rounded was due to some good mentoring early in your career. Not everyone has this, evident from the above comments about certain aero club instructors.
Back to topic, the more I think about it, the more I feel completely comfortable about legally flying NVFR even if smoke is forecast on the area forecast. Cloud is easy - if it is below the requirements then I wouldn't go. It is a very difficult beast to see at night unless you are flying over a city, but even then you can be subject to some confusion because of the illusions it can cause. But smoke, I'd apply some logic and thought to it rather than just saying 'no' because it is forecast.
Ok, it's on the forecast, but what does it look like outside in the direction I'm heading? Clear, good. Ok, how about the TAFs along the route. Good as well. Ok, so now when I get airborne I will be in VMC and be able to stay about my LSALT. I will be able to see any approaching fires. Sure, I might not be able to see all of the smoke, but I can see the fires, and if they are widespread I will avoid the area.
In day VMC you wouldn't abandon the flight if smoke was forecast, despite it being below the visibility you need. You apply some common sense and divert if you came across it. Same at night for me.
Now, leaving aside other Met issues such as the obvious, like cloud, when you consider the implications of AIP ENR 1.10, para 1,2,4 for example, which states"CHTR, AWK and PVT operations under the VFR at night must not be conducted unless the forecast indicates that the flight can be conducted in VMC at not less than 1000ft above the highest obstacles within 10nm either side of track", is this bloody smoke a limiting issue or not?
Today's area 40:
AREAS OF SMOKE BELOW 9000FT, LOCALLY THICK NEAR FIRES.
VISIBILITY:2000M THICK SMOKE
Based on my above reasoning I will be able to comply with the AIP requirement and therefore I will go flying. I will be able to go flying because the forecast indicates I can conduct the flight as the smoke 'areas' are 'local' and I will therefore plan to avoid the smoke 'areas'. Anyone who has been flying in night VMC will confirm fires, particularly those that would cause thick smoke, are very easy to see from the air. If the forecast indicated widespread smoke, I'd think twice (but I could probably tell it was going to be a problem by looking out the office window anyway).
But everyone has their own opinion about certain things in the AIPs. If the opening poster is an ATO or CP, and is concerned, perhaps a call to their FOI (or even better, an email to document it) might clear the way. You report to this FOI, so I doesn't matter if another FOI on the other side of the country has a different opinion.