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