![]() |
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 |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I am saying that, despite Gary's use of the words implicit and explicit, a
section of the AIM dealing with pilot reports is not the place to be looking for validation of what constitutes known icing. I'm going to let this just fade away, because it is a tempest in a teacup. Bob "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Bob Gardner wrote: The latest on known icing is a 2004 case... http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0508.html In all my years of lecturing on icing and attending FAA icing conferences I have never heard anyone, FAA or NWS, put forward the argument that you espouse. It is bogus. Even before the 2004 case it was well established by the NTSB (Administrator vs Bowen) that forecast conditions of moisture plus below-freezing temps constitut known icing. You are late to the party, Gary. So are you saying that he misquoted the AIM or are you saying that the AIM is wrong? 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 |
Known Icing requirements | Jeffrey Ross | Owning | 1 | November 20th 04 03:01 AM |
Icing Airmets | Andrew Sarangan | Instrument Flight Rules | 51 | March 3rd 04 01:20 AM |
FAA letter on flight into known icing | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 78 | December 22nd 03 07:44 PM |
FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 98 | December 11th 03 06:58 AM |