Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

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.



I agree with Roy here, I would like everybody to be permitted to evaluate
and take risks as they see fit but there is the issue of people on the
ground.

Icing is typically pretty low on the list of reasons that airplanes come
to earth in unplanned locations. Fuel mismanagement, engine failure,
etc. all rank higher. Do you and Roy think we should require every
flight to have an independent inspection of the fuel onboard before
departure? That would lower the risk to folks on the ground much more
than worrying about icing.


Matt