In article , tony wrote:

If you're current, if the forecast at your destination is well above your
personal minimums, if you have a solid gold alternate, no imbedded
thunderstorms, no icing, no unusual turbulence reported, why whouldn't you go?

Strawman. It's an easy go decision in this case. It's harder when
things are pushing your minima, where the weather might become worse
than forecast, where you might be flying over rough terrain, where your
routing is over land but ATC might vector you over water.


IFR in those conditions is a lot easier IMO than VFR.

Okay. IFR can simplify flight planning and navigation, but we're
talking about the go/nogo decision making process. More things
to consider. Go/nogo is less obvious as go point and nogo point
converge. Clearly, even for IFR, there're obvious gos and obvious
nogos. Furthermore, what might be an obvious IFR go might be an
obvious VFR nogo.

Point is, with more things to consider and the added utility of
the instrument rating, the go/nogo decision isn't as simple in the
general case.


Morris