![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gary Drescher wrote:
"George Patterson" wrote in message news:_Qpof.17301$Jz6.14963@trnddc06... Bob Gardner wrote: Gary, the most recent case was in 2005. That's what George was linking to. No, that's the date of the article. The most recent ruling on the forecast icing issue was about 12 years ago. There were earlier ones as well. If, however, the AIM is in conflict with case law (and it is), the AIM is wrong. The AIM presents the FAA's current official definition of "known icing conditions". So any case law decided on the basis of prior explicit or implicit definitions is no longer applicable. But isn't it the NTSB that usually makes the final determination on the appeal? Matt |
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 |