OP wanted individual opinion on what individual limits we apply, not whether we all agreed! This is a free country.
Which country do you talk about, we come from different ones 
Regarding my personal limits: Flying proper twins (the kind that are able to keep flying on one engine alone) and bizjets, the legal limit for our commercial operation is OK for me: 400m RVR and low visibility operations in progress, cloud base is no factor and can be zero, or 125m RVR if I have had training in the simulator within the last 12 months.
For singles and trainer twins, I want at least 1000ft of clear air between the lowest clouds and the ground all the way, even if the training manual of our school requires only 500ft.
I think, flying over most of Europe, and unless you are having a really bad day, a 400ft cloudbase will get you to a field.
I would only slightly beg to differ on this one point.
I have never tried it thank goodness but if you came out the cloud at 400 feet with zero power i think all you are likely to do is accept whatever is in front of you. I agree with luck there is a reasonable chance of it working out so far as life and limb are concerned but very little chance of any meaningful adjustment to straight and level and straight ahead not least with plenty of pumping adrenalin.
At 1,000 feet thinking of a typical circuit height time is on your side and opportunity to adjust quite significantly.
Between 400 and 1,000 its interesting to know how much you think you could / would adjust from essentially straight ahead established in a glide?
Also if it was just after take off and therefore entering and knowing the base to be 1,000 feet with the donkey quitting at say 1,000 feet do you descend with some added inertia to allow to extend the glide if on becoming visual that seems desirable?
Also what do you do over say the Alps? You are following your moving map which you use to descend into a valley. You dont know the height of the base. Do you preserve some extra energy to extend the glide when you become visual and risk a much harder impact if you meet the terrain sooner than expected or do you trim accordingly?
I guess all questions you have answered if you fly over very low bases or depart with low bases, or maybe you just make it up on the fly when it happens?
I agree and will depart in fog if legal and I can track the runway and have confidence no one else is on it. A controlled airport using LVP helps. But it is a subject that tends to be quite divisive.
What is the meaning of the acronym LVP you refer to?
Also what do you do over say the Alps? You are following your moving map which you use to descend into a valley. You dont know the height of the base. Do you preserve some extra energy to extend the glide when you become visual and risk a much harder impact if you meet the terrain sooner than expected or do you trim accordingly?
I think a CFIT at any speed above Vs (60kt) is going to be fatal, so there is little point in slowing right down. Arguable though… I would trim for Vbg. In most of the Alps, I’d say about 90% of the time if at FL180, you would make one of the very deep flat-bottomed valleys. Especially if you picked a suitable route e.g. the one running N-S of SRN. In the Pyrenees, no…
A while ago I had some correspondence with an ex military pilot whose view was that – in a failure above a cloud layer situation – you should glide as fast as possible, for the maximum options below the cloud. Arguable too 
At a sink rate of say 6-700fpm 400ft gives you around 40 seconds. With adrenaline pumping you have a surprisingly long time to adjust alignment +/-30° or so. I would say if you have visibility to flare your survival chances are pretty good. Hitting the ground at best glide in that attitude is, I agree, very likely to be fatal.
Uses for a radalt perhaps?
Uses for a radalt perhaps?
And synvis. From 1000ft I could turn back and land on the runway 0/0. Maybe not pretty but I won’t hit a house.
There have been several recent non-fatal CFITs over recent years, including at least two in the UK, one in South Wales, the other inbound to Blackpool.
Just out of interest, I observed a student in a DA42 do a SynVis Approach to 100’ today. It was a non event and I am quite sure that he could have landed in anything he could have taken off in.
There have been several recent non-fatal CFITs over recent years, including at least two in the UK, one in South Wales, the other inbound to Blackpool.
The one in (IIRC) Wales (a night navex with a student and an instructor and no GPS being used – not even by the instructor!!) hit the ground at a very shallow angle. They were incredibly lucky because there was hardly anything left of the aircraft, but they both had serious injuries. Both were lucky to be alive, never mind walking afterwards (after a long time of recovery). The instructor was also IMHO extraordinarily lucky to not get a personal injury claim by the student…
So, yes, if you hit smooth terrain at about a 0.5 to 1.0 degree angle, at maybe 90-100kt (C150 sort of speed), you may get away with it. But that is incredibly rare.
IMHO one needs a much more plausible Plan B than “somebody did this and survived”.
I observed a student in a DA42 do a SynVis Approach to 100’ today.
If aviation was invented today, we would not have the VFR v. IFR separation
But if aviation was invented today, it would be immediately banned by the H&S goons
