What's the latest on "forecast icing = known icing"

I still think you are reading something into the AIM that isn't there, even
if the AIM could be used as a defense in a certificate action. Judges seem
to like precedents, however old, and IMHO would lean toward their fellow
judges rather than toward the anonymous writers of the AIM.

Bob

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
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.

I said something original, therefore it must be bogus?

Bob, the AIM definitions that my due-process argument depends on are very
recent (2005), so *of course* you haven't heard my argument in all your
prior years of lecturing. It wasn't applicable then.

Every precedent cited in the AOPA article you point to above also precedes
the new AIM definitions, so the due-process argument I raised is simply
not addressed in those cases. (And the article itself was obviously based
on older versions of the AIM, because the article says that "the FAA
offers very little guidance" as to the meaning of "known icing
conditions"--which was true of previous versions of the AIM, but no
longer.)

Even before the 2004 case

The 2004 case cited in the AOPA article is doubly irrelevant to my
argument, because 1) it precedes the new AIM definitions; and 2) in the
2004 case, the NTSB found that the flight instructor continued to fly
(despite an opportunity to land) even after observing ice on the aircraft;
that observation establishes "known icing" under *both* the new and old
definitions.

it was well established by the NTSB (Administrator vs Bowen) that
forecast conditions of moisture plus below-freezing temps constitute
known icing.

Again, you are citing cases that long precede the new AIM definitions, so
of course those cases do not address my due-process argument, which
depends on the FAA's publication of those definitions.

You are late to the party, Gary.

No, I'm just keeping abreast of recent developments, rather than assuming
incorrectly that nothing has changed.

Regards,
Gary

Bob Gardner

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Peter" wrote in message
...

I apologise in advance as this is a topic done to death in the past,
but I have heard various bits of info on this recently, some quoting
FAA or NTSB rulings etc, and others disputing that they are relevant
because there have been more recent events including a clarification
in the AIM.

I am in Europe but this is potentially relevant to me because I fly an
N-reg aircraft (not certified for any icing conditions).

What is the latest situation on this from the USA?

The current AIM (7-1-23) explicitly states that "forecast icing
conditions" are *not* "known icing conditions":

"Forecast Icing Conditions: Environmental conditions expected by a
National Weather Service or an FAA-approved weather provider to be
conducive to the formation of inflight icing on aircraft. "

"Known Icing Conditions: Atmospheric conditions in which the formation
of ice is observed or detected in flight."

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0701.html#7-1-23

--Gary