"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
The second basis for appeal is the entrapment argument.

Given that the FAA can always bust you for careless or reckless, would it
be entrapment if they simply pulled that one out any time a nondeiced
pilot flew into forecast icing?

No, that argument wouldn't apply in that case. But again there's a
reasonableness hurdle that the FAA has to meet. Suppose I pass through a
small cloud whose base is a few thousand feet above MEA when the forecast
says occasional moderate rime but the PIREPs are all negative for icing. The
FAA could not credibly argue that I was careless or reckless.

In every case I've seen cited over the years in which the FAA successfully
invoked the careless-or-reckless clause, the conduct in question did in fact
strike me as unsafe. I'm unaware of any successful, blatantly ridiculous
invocation of that clause by the FAA. But if you know of any, I'd certainly
be interested to see documentation of it.

My only concern here is that I see too many pilots tying themselves in knots
trying to comply with Usenet superstitions about things the FAA might bust
them for (like the one about logged flight time counting as "compensation"
when carrying passengers, even if the pilot pays for the time). My own
approach is just to apply common sense (for example, taking the FAA at face
value when they say in the AIM how to interpret a given regulatory term),
and I don't expect to get in any trouble for it. If I turn out to be wrong
about that, I'll be sure to let the group know.

--Gary