1) No Single-Pilot, single engine IFR in IMC at night
I agree that single-pilot IFR is hard, and doing it at night is harder, but
I don't see the single-engine connection. If the fear is not being able to
find an emergency landing spot, then the rule should be "No single-engine
at night". If the fear is pilot task overload, then the rule should be "no
single-pilot IMC at night".

What Roy said (though I'm not sure single-pilot IFR is appreciably
harder at night in a properly lit cockpit - but if you're doing it by
flashlight, no argument from me). As stated, the rule really doesn't
make sense.

2) No S-P Multi-engine IFR with MEA's higher than the aircraft's SE
performance
Again, I don't see the connection here. Presumably this means it's OK to
fly single-pilot, single-engine IFR at those same altitudes?

Which, of course, is silly. In the twin, you actully have a lot more
options and a lot more time to think. A twin above the SE ceiling
won't climb, but it won't descend very quickly. The difference is
striking - a single with an engine failure at 8000 will be descending
about 800 fpm; a light twin will be more like 100 fpm. Way better
chance of making it to someplace landable.

3) No S-P IFR in IMC without dual vacuum sources, and strong
preference for dual alrternators.
This is a good rule. I'll admit I break it.

A dual vacuum source won't back up a dying gyro (and I've seen as many
gyro failures as I've seen vacuum source failures). So now we need
dual AI's and dual vacuum. Well, it so happens I do have such a setup
in my airplane. Also dual generators with solid state regulators.

Is it necessary? I think it depends on the pilot and the airplane.
For someone who flies a lot of IFR and trains seriously, probably not -
but that's exactly the person most likely to have such a setup. For a
solid and stable airplane like a Cherokee, I think it's overkill. For
a Bonanza, a really good idea. But is it more important than flying
instruments regularly? I don't think so. Given that resources are
finite, I think recurrent training is a better investment than
installing this stuff. In other words - it sounds like a good rule in
theory, but it probably isn't in practice.

4) Keep VFR weather within range of the aircraft at all times, and
know where it is.
An excellent rule.

I think it's another one of those rules that sounds great in theory.
If you can plan your flight to do that, it's great. Certainly if there
is VFR weather in range, you ought to know where it is to keep your
options open in case anything really bad happens. But what if that
rule substantially reduces the amount of IFR flying you do? Is the
loss of proficiency going to offset the reduced exposure?

5) Avoid S-P circling approaches in IMC, and definitely not at
night or close to minimums
No argument there.

And no way will you be based at my home field and fly enough IFR to
remain proficient. We don't have ANY straight-in approaches. Both the
NDB and the GPS have a FAC of 025, and the only runway is 9-27.

So the answer is to move to a different field, right? One further from
home. And inevitably, fly less. And once again - will the reduction
in exposure be offset by the loss of proficiency?

For all these rules, I would substitute this one: Decide what you're
going to do, and then make sure you have the training you need to do
it.

Michael