![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
oups.com... If you wait just a little, the legal definition will change again and the hapless pilot will still be shafted That seems unlikely for the foreseeable future. But if the definition does change, someone here is likely to call attention to it. ![]() While I am pleased to see some really good input from the practical standpoints, I'd hate to see it change into a legal discussion and forget the original intent was ice and how to cope with it. Yup, legality and safety are not synonymous. Still, I think it would be safe to fly IFR through a thin cloud layer (with plenty of room above and below) even if there's a forecast for occasional moderate icing in clouds. And according to the AIM's current definition of "known icing conditions", that would be legal (for Part 91), as long as there are no PIREPs that confirm the forecast. Best Regards and Merry Christmas/Happy New Year A cheerful solstice to you too! ![]() --Gary |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Issues around de-ice on a 182 | Andrew Gideon | Piloting | 87 | September 27th 05 11:46 PM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Have you ever... | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 229 | May 6th 05 08:26 PM |
Known Icing requirements | Jeffrey Ross | Owning | 1 | November 20th 04 03:01 AM |
Wife agrees to go flying | Corky Scott | Piloting | 29 | October 2nd 03 06:55 PM |