Roy Smith wrote:
We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
going to occur.

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
We don't know enough to know where it is likely to occur as you say.

That's not quite what I said. You dropped the word "sure" and added the
word "likely", which changes the meaning significantly. We do know
enough to forecast where it's *likely*, we just don't know enough to
forecast where it is *certain* to happen.

but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast
anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing.

Actually, I believe it's the National Weather Service, not the FAA, who
issues icing forecasts.

This greatly
reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.

Well, you would say that it's the law that limits the operational
flexibility. I would say it's not so much the law as the threat of
icing itself. It's the old physics vs. legislation issue. You can pass
any law you want, but you can't repeal gravity.

The libertarian in me wants to agree with you to a certain extent; as
long as you're not for hire, and not carrying pax, and can assure you
won't hurt anybody on the ground when you crash down on them, I don't
see any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take a chance and see
what happens.

Other than that, it's all a matter of degree. Where do you draw the
line? You say the FAA is very conservative, and I'll agree with you
there. But, given what I said above about our inability to repeal
gravity, I think that's the right way to be.