I will sign that – for any pilot who flies alone.
For all others, who carry passengers, we need rules and limitations. At least for the next 250.000 years, I fear.
The whole thing is purely psychological. In Spain the police insists on chains on tires for 4×4 vehicles in conditions that are seen as laughable elsewhere.
We can talk about over-water flight, single engine, etc. It’s all about perception of risk and the willingness of third parties to protect others from their own decision making. Freedom does include making – deadly – mistakes. As well as being involuntary exposed to a risk not understood. Ask the people in that tower which burned down in London this week …
Edit: I understand that these topics get very emotional – for good reason. However, I believe that knowing more so that choice is possible is of more help that other measures.
I probably would do a low visibility take off given the gear I have. But then I do remember my thoughts about going down to 200’ on an ILS not long ago. It’s that fear of the unknown. It does change as well.
I continue to wish for guidelines and education and let people make their own decisions – as wrong as they may turn out. Some things get valued after they have been lost …
I understand your argument, but the “innocent” have to be protected.
Otherwise we could let people drive “under influence”, many other things come to my mind.
It is not “purely psychological” when passengers or unrelated bystanders get killed, IMHO.
PS: I actually did a low vis take off in the Cirrus when I knew that the fog layer was max 1000 ft thick and there was blue skies and no fog five miles from the airport, and CAVOK at my near destination. I knew that I had to make it to 500 ft, above that CAPS could save me in case of engine failure. But I would not have done it with one of my kids on board. I think that’s a matter of general fairness. Also visibilty was probably +400 meters.
To me it is sad that people are unable to distinguish between five very different things.
Zero-zero, which means no external reference whatsoever.
The 75m which is being quoted as an LVP minimum requiring a lot of equipment and training.
The 175m-250m that was the limit for all until about a year ago.
The current 400m limit.
A 200’ cloudbase.
Arguments are being sprayed around taking “evidence” from any mix of these circumstances.
Those of us crying Freedom are only really talking about the arbitrary jump taken from the 175m-250m regime (which seemed reasonable, at least acceptable) to a 400m regime (which is neither) with no evidence to support the change.
Timothy wrote:
Those of us crying Freedom are only really talking about the arbitrary jump taken from the 175m-250m regime (which seemed reasonable, at least acceptable) to a 400m regime (which is neither) with no evidence to support the change.
OK, write a safety case for 175-250 and then compare against a similar one for 400. I think you would find that both would come-up with some rather unsavoury results for SEP. And there lies the problem – as soon as you want to look at or change something, you realise that the old, extant rule/regulation has no supporting safety case (the x decades argument holds little weight). So, you then end-up in a pickle.
I don’t know the regulatory discussion behind the change but I’m pretty sure that a 175m case would look very bad. We need to remember that the Risk Assessment has to look at start-up, taxying etc, not just take-off. Clearly there’s the issue of differences between unlicensed grass strips vs. full blown IFR airports but this would probably just slew various common risks in opposite directions.
It would be an interesting little project but my instinct is that Pandora’s Box would be opened. Unfortunately, the whole requirement for safety cases is embedded in EASA Regulations; we can’t pay lip service.
250m is just about the length of the take of roll for many SEPs.
And, Dave, You have it the wrong way round. I don’t need to put a safety case for doing something. Somebody – anybody – who wants to take away freedoms better have a good one that justifies taking a freedom away from me.
Otherwise, kindly provide the safety case for driving to work every day.
I wonder how one would do a safety case when there is almost no data. Obviously it must involve many assumptions. Some will be good, some won’t, but when people are paid to do this work, all assumptions will be good 
Especially if the risk assessment is done by an ISO9000 company. Witness the debates about how “perfect” a product with an EASA-1 form is, by definition. I just can’t post the details of some of what goes on there…
In GA you get many factors in play e.g. risk compensation which greatly affects what actually happens in the real world.
In the AOC sphere there is no risk compensation (you get fired if the wx is above minima but you refuse to fly) but there are different factors in play e.g. a desire to create a level playing field for operators who compete with each other unfairly if one of them busts minima. Hence stricter minima are generally welcomed by the pilots.
Risk compensation is great. It makes it possible for me to do more while maintaining a constant level of risk I am willing to accept.
Timothy – so you commented earlier that you were party, or at least involved, with the process. Surely you have asked why the increase from 175/250m to 400m, and why 400m?
Also, being based at Biggin, you must have asked why they have further restrictions for non AOC holders?
Stephan – I also understand your arguments. I did say earlier go climb any rock face you wish without ropes with my blessing.
As pilots, we have essentially no legislation which distinguishes between a lone pilot and pilot and passengers. I follow the discussion about passengers being deemed to be party to the decision making process, but it is not an argument I accept for the reasons I indicated before. How can you possibly expect friends and family to make an informed decision when the person giving their opinion is hardly independent. It is like asking your mortgage broker who to borrow money from when they are tied to Joe Wilsons Bank – and look where that got us.
I cant imagine how the “briefing” would go between pilot and passengers with their journey about to depart in a SEP in zero zero viz or, as you will, 175m? How would you brief Timothy and how would you frame their decision making?
As to zero zero and anything else, I have stuck with that becasue that was the question.
I follow the discussion about passengers being deemed to be party to the decision making process, but it is not an argument I accept for the reasons I indicated before
This needs a new thread to kick this one around, but I am not starting one just because nobody else wants to do it
