Flying through known or forecast icing

AIM is non-regulatory advisory and does not constitute law.
FAA says that in the preamble to the AIM



"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "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| implicit definitions is no longer applicable.
|
| --Gary
|
|

Jim
But, it IS used for the basis of interpretation of what the FAA intends
or means when it comes to operations
As an aside.......
I've had a nasty experience with the FAA and NTSB when one of my pilots
was killed on a night IFR into SLC hauling freight. I believe he iced
up and went in before he knew what had happened on his initial descent.
Was solo in a C210T and a very experienced guy with thousands of hours.
At the NTYSB hearing a federale said he had seen me falsifying records
in my office during the initial investigation after the crash. I was
out on a freight run during that day of hearings and missed his
phucking lying performance. I told him later that I hoped to see him
one evening on the streets and I'd thrash him. Doesn't have anything to
do with the AIM but I feel better having said this.