"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:GJhof.1362$Jr1.200@trnddc01...
"The NTSB precedents are clear. Relevant pireps *and forecasts*
constitute 'known icing conditions' into which a flight is prohibited
unless the aircraft is specifically certificated by the FAA for flight
into known icing conditions."

Right, but the NTSB precedents cited are not recent (some are more than
thirty years old), whereas the FAA's current definition of "known icing
conditions"--which I quoted from the latest AIM--explicitly contradicts
those precedents.

Gary, the most recent case was in 2005. That's what George was linking to.

No, the AOPA article he linked to says explicitly that the issue of known
vs. forecast icing conditions was *not* addressed in the most recent case
that the article discusses. The article goes on to say, "The board addressed
this issue most recently more than a dozen years ago, and in 1974 and 1976
before that. All are old cases."

Also, the article begins by saying that "the FAA offers very little guidance
to pilots operating 'non-commerically'" regarding what is meant by "known
icing conditions". In fact, though, the current AIM defines the term clearly
(and clearly distinguishes it from "forecast icing conditions"); the article
makes no mention of the AIM's definition.

Therefore, either the AIM definition first appeared after the article was
written, or else the article's author was unaware of the FAA's
already-published definition. Either way, the article does not provide sound
legal guidance in light of the FAA's current definition.

(George's link again:
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0508.html.)

--Gary