wrote:
: GA is not unique in this, and "hapless passengers" (or the equivalent in
: =any= activity) are =always= "just rolling the dice" to some degree. I
: just believe that the amount of dice-rolling permitted in part 91 is
: approprite.
:
: A few share your view that it is just right. There are a lot more who
: think not-for-hire is overregulated and others who say it is underregulated.

Not necessarily that everything is "just right," just that safety cannot be generated by excessive laws. If you
take your example in the twin hitting the tank.... take away the fog and he could just as well have done the same thing
in clear-and-a-million VFR. The Part-91 IFR minimum departure ops rule you desire wouldn't have stopped this joker from
killing his "innocent passengers" in that case. So do we need a law that says, "Don't take off overloaded?" I'm pretty
sure there already is one... A.R.(R.)O.W.

Perhaps you missed it in my previous post but it was determined at the
time that he would have likely hit the tank had he been right at max
gross. He just hit it further down being overgross.

Had it been good weather the tank would have stood out like a sore
thumb. No one, except someone trying to commit suicide, would have
flown into that tank with its lighting when it was visible.