What's wrong with this idea?

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
Sydney Hoeltzli wrote
And maybe your judgement is not always superior to the
regulations, but once you remove "it's illegal" as a restraining factor,
how will you second-guess or sanity check your judgement?

I have a real problem with the idea that legality is a valid sanity
check on your judgment.

1) Yes, of course you do. You've made that clear. You think the
FAA is "evil" and the personal flying should be unregulated. I figured
that statement would elicit pretty much this response from you.

2) I try to use words very carefully. Where did I say anything
to the effect that legality is a valid sanity check on an
individual's judgement?

FTR, I look at it this way. Legal is often a least common denominator.
There are a number of things which are legal, which aren't particularly
safe. Including, for example, instrument-rated pilots who aren't
particularly proficient flying IFR in IMC. But asking "is it legal?"
gives one a first-pass approximation, that someone somewhere thought
that under some circumstances, the operation one proposes wasn't
horrendously unsafe.

There are arguably a number of things which aren't legal, but
probably are relatively safe. Such as, for example, a non-IR pilot
who is proficient and familiar with the system flying IFR in IMC.
But if such a pilot contemplates doing so, who *is* sanity-checking
their judgement? Who *is* judging whether they are as proficient
and familiar as they think they are? And if they are proficient
and familiar enough to fly in the system safely, why not get the
"sanity check" from the system? Why not bone up, hone up, take the
tests and do so legally?

Cheers,
Sydney