"LWG" wrote in message
. ..
It's easy to understand that the FAA's use of language is just like Alice
in Wonderland, "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to
mean, nothing more, and nothing less." They provide the language, in the
AIM or the FARs, and then get to tell the ALJ exactly what it means. The
ALJ and the NTSB are bound to accept that interpretation, no matter how
much they may disagree.

No, that's not true. They're only bound to accept any *reasonable*
interpretation. The AIM now explicitly defines "known icing conditions" as
conditions in which the formation of ice in flight is actually observed
rather than merely forecast. The FAA could not reasonably interpret *that*
definition to refer to conditions in which icing is unobserved but merely
forecast.

--Gary