Others have offered practical information. I would add that it is
illegal
to fly a airplane without known ice certification into forecast icing
conditions.

In the nit-picky tradition, would that not be true only if the a/c had a
placard or if the POH forbade it?

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
No, I believe that defense has been tried.

This one runs and runs...

AFAICS, the judgements are about violation of an aircraft limitation, or
careless and reckless operation, or both. In those cases where there was no
aircraft limitation (e.g. Boger EA-4525), the defendant had still attempted
a flight that was sufficiently dumb for it to be careless and reckless. It
doesn't necessarily follow that merely flying an aircraft without known ice
certification into forecast icing conditions is, on its own, careless and
reckless.

It seems a pity that the NTSB's working definition of "known icing
conditions" has been crafted in response to the far-fetched defenses of
defendants who, on the whole, seem to have exhibited airmanship that falls
far below the standard that we'd expect from most contributors here. If you
argue extremes hard enough (e.g. that it's fine to continue a flight with
significant ice accretion in a non-deiced aircraft on the basis that it's
not 100% certain that there's ice in the next cloud so it can't be "known")
you're bound to get some fairly robust responses.

Julian Scarfe