On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 04:49:55 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

No, I believe that defense has been tried.

Mike
MU-2

Yes, but I thought those violations were for "careless and reckless" and
not for a violation of an (non-existent in the case) aircraft limitation.

I've never heard of, for example, someone being violated (in a non-deiced
small GA a/c under Part 91) for encountering ice, issuing a PIREP, and
asking ATC for a deviation in order to escape. Have you?


--ron