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

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Did the parachute figure into your decision making at all?
I never seriously considered deploying it if that's what you mean.

No, I meant did the presence of that additional out make it easier for
you to decide to continue on rather than turn back (did it influence
your decision to do so)?

Well, introspection only goes so far, but no, I don't think so. I think
the main factor was that the front had just moved in. An hour before it
had been clear blue skies. I was going over the central valley, so
there were no significant mountain ranges to lift the air. So I was
pretty sure that I would not be in the clouds for long (and I was right).

Also, the forecast freezing level was 6000-8000, so I figured if I did
pick up ice it would not start until I reached cruise altitude. As it
happened, I started icing up almost immediately upon entering the
clouds, at about 3500 feet. That freaked me out a little. (Actually, a
whole bunch of other stuff was also going wrong at the same time. But
that's another story.)

rg

In article ,
wrote:

On a nice laminar wing, really strange things can happen that robs
you of lift/power very fast.

You're the second person to have mentioned this, but I can't find any
information about it on the web. Do you have a reference?

rg

: You're the second person to have mentioned this, but I can't find any
: information about it on the web. Do you have a reference?

Sorry, nothing in particular at hand, but I've heard *many* times about
laminar wings getting substantially reduced performance from things like a bad wax job
and bugs on the leading edge. Just a bit of ice/frost on such wings could be much
worse by comparison.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Ron Garret wrote:

No, it's an option. And they (meaning OurPlane) decided not to get it
on this particular plane. After all, ice is NEVER a problem in
California, right?

As you may have seen elsewhere in these groups, I have a very high opinion
of the TKS system since owning and flying a Bonanza equipped with this
system.

Too bad OurPlane chose to keep costs down by electing to omit that option.
I suspect that it would not have added all that much to their members'
fees.

--
Peter

I think what OP is saying is that all this stuff doesn't really matter,
because an ALJ bought the FAA's argument that forecast icing, plus a smidgen
of knowlege (which could be a PIREP, could be freezing temps) is known
icing.

It's easy to understand that the FAA's use of language is just like Alice in
Wonderland, "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean,
nothing more, and nothing less." They provide the language, in the AIM or
the FARs, and then get to tell the ALJ exactly what it means. The ALJ and
the NTSB are bound to accept that interpretation, no matter how much they
may disagree.



Actually, I didn't use the word 'implicit'. But yes, I did point out that
the AIM now explicitly distinguishes forecast icing conditions from known
icing conditions. I'm baffled as to how you could disagree (given the
definitions I quoted), but if you do, I'd be grateful if you'd explain
why.

That's the difference between science and engineering, on the one hand, and
law on the other. In the former, you score points for innovation and
creativity, usually by coming up with things no one has thought of or done
before. With law, you score points by showing that lots of people came up
with the same ideas and thoughts before, and they'd be crazy not to do the
same thing this time.

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
Another whack at a dead horse. Let's go back a few messages to where you
castigated me for quoting "old" case law. Are you aware of the concept of
settled law? Miranda vs Arizona was a 1963 case, but you won't find a law
enforcement officer who is not painfully aware that it is in full effect
today. Administrator vs Bowen was a 1946 case; Administrator vs Irmisch
was a 1976 case *which referred to Bowen as a precedent.* Administrator
vs Groszer was a 1993 case *which referred to Bowen as a precedent.* The
2004 case that John Yodice wrote about in AOPA Pilot referred to Bowen. To
the judges in the latter case, Bowen was not an old case, it was the
precedent-setting case.

Ever go into a law office, or see one on TV? See those shelves lined with
law books? When someone brings a cause of action to a lawyer, that lawyer
goes to those bookshelves and reviews OLD CASES searching for applicable
precedents. Should he or she fail to discover a precedent that is on
point, the opposing attorney will rub their nose in it.

This discussion of the legal system comes only because you don't seem to
realize that once a point of law becomes "settled," it takes further legal
or legislative action to point out where its findings were in error and
overturn it. You may have read something in the papers about Roe vs Wade??

Where something is published in the AIM is a side issue; my main point is
that the AIM cannot overturn settled law.

You have a lot to offer these newsgroups, and I enjoy reading your posts.
You just have this issue wrong. Take the time to call your local FSDO or
the Regional Counsel and get their take on the subject.


Bob Gardner

Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
I am saying that, despite Gary's use of the words implicit and explicit,

Actually, I didn't use the word 'implicit'. But yes, I did point out that
the AIM now explicitly distinguishes forecast icing conditions from known
icing conditions. I'm baffled as to how you could disagree (given the
definitions I quoted), but if you do, I'd be grateful if you'd explain
why.

a section of the AIM dealing with pilot reports is not the place to be
looking for validation of what constitutes known icing.

Huh? The icing defintions I quoted are from the Meteorology section of
the AIM's Safety of Flight chapter. That's not the place to look for the
meaning of known icing? Even though you would in fact find the definition
if you looked there? (And even though that's the *only* place the FAA has
published a definition of known or forecast icing conditions?)

Yes, elsewhere in the same section (but not in the same subsection), the
AIM talks about PIREPs. If that proximity somehow impugns the FAA's icing
definitions, I am at a loss to imagine how, and would again be grateful
for any semblance of an explanation.

Thanks,
Gary

"LWG" wrote in message
. ..
It's easy to understand that the FAA's use of language is just like Alice
in Wonderland, "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to
mean, nothing more, and nothing less." They provide the language, in the
AIM or the FARs, and then get to tell the ALJ exactly what it means. The
ALJ and the NTSB are bound to accept that interpretation, no matter how
much they may disagree.

No, that's not true. They're only bound to accept any *reasonable*
interpretation. The AIM now explicitly defines "known icing conditions" as
conditions in which the formation of ice in flight is actually observed
rather than merely forecast. The FAA could not reasonably interpret *that*
definition to refer to conditions in which icing is unobserved but merely
forecast.

--Gary

I wish it were true. Isn't it the case that the NTSB reversed an ALJ based
upon its interpretation of an FAR, and that decision was appealed to the
D.C. Court of Appeals, which held that the NTSB must defer to the
interpretation advanced by the agency?

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"LWG" wrote in message
. ..
It's easy to understand that the FAA's use of language is just like Alice
in Wonderland, "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to
mean, nothing more, and nothing less." They provide the language, in the
AIM or the FARs, and then get to tell the ALJ exactly what it means. The
ALJ and the NTSB are bound to accept that interpretation, no matter how
much they may disagree.

No, that's not true. They're only bound to accept any *reasonable*
interpretation. The AIM now explicitly defines "known icing conditions" as
conditions in which the formation of ice in flight is actually observed
rather than merely forecast. The FAA could not reasonably interpret *that*
definition to refer to conditions in which icing is unobserved but merely
forecast.

--Gary

"LWG" wrote in message
news
I wish it were true. Isn't it the case that the NTSB reversed an ALJ
based upon its interpretation of an FAR, and that decision was appealed to
the D.C. Court of Appeals, which held that the NTSB must defer to the
interpretation advanced by the agency?

No, I think that's an Usenet legend. The appeals court may have done that in
a particular case, and may have held more generally that the FAA gets wide
latitude in its interpretations of the regs, but the court wouldn't
categorically waive a basic reasonableness test; that would be tantamount to
abandoning any meaningful judicial review, and abandoning the Constitutional
guarantee of due process.

As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So
if someone can actually document an appeals court decision requiring
absolute, unconditional deference to the FAA's interpretations, then I'll
believe it; otherwise not.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"LWG" wrote in message
. ..
It's easy to understand that the FAA's use of language is just like
Alice in Wonderland, "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it
to mean, nothing more, and nothing less." They provide the language, in
the AIM or the FARs, and then get to tell the ALJ exactly what it means.
The ALJ and the NTSB are bound to accept that interpretation, no matter
how much they may disagree.

No, that's not true. They're only bound to accept any *reasonable*
interpretation. The AIM now explicitly defines "known icing conditions"
as conditions in which the formation of ice in flight is actually
observed rather than merely forecast. The FAA could not reasonably
interpret *that* definition to refer to conditions in which icing is
unobserved but merely forecast.

--Gary

requiring
absolute, unconditional deference to the FAA's interpretations

You'll never find that. However, it would certainly be sufficient to
find a case where an unreasonable definition was upheld.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.