G.R. Patterson III wrote:

http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/ar...fm?article=772

It looks like the author is referring to others saying that 91.527 prohibits
flight into known icing. That is, I don't think he's making the claim
himself. Then again, he does write (at the end) "earning this
certification makes it legal for you to fly in icing conditions...".

Hmm. Any ideas how to contact an author (esp. from several years ago)?

But I'd love to read the legal opinion you've mentioned. Redefining
"forecast icing" as "known icing" is pretty...abusive of the English
language, all other factors aside. But I'm especially interested in
whether this explicitly mentions part 91 outside of the applicability of
subpart F (ie. turbine multis and fractionals).

I'm sure that, should they want to, the FAA could cite a pilot flying into
"known icing" (however they choose to define this {8^) for violating 91.13.
Still, I'm surprised that there's nothing more specific (esp. since there
*is* something this specific in subpart F).

Or am I just missing it?

- Andrew