Is there any way to avoid ice other than staying on the ground?

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:17:08 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

Others have offered practical information. I would add that it is illegal
to fly a airplane without known ice certification into forecast icing
conditions.

Mike
MU-2

Mike,

In the nit-picky tradition, would that not be true only if the a/c had a
placard or if the POH forbade it?


--ron

No, I believe that defense has been tried.

Mike
MU-2


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:17:08 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

Others have offered practical information. I would add that it is illegal
to fly a airplane without known ice certification into forecast icing
conditions.

Mike
MU-2

Mike,

In the nit-picky tradition, would that not be true only if the a/c had a
placard or if the POH forbade it?


--ron

Others have offered practical information. I would add that it is
illegal
to fly a airplane without known ice certification into forecast icing
conditions.

In the nit-picky tradition, would that not be true only if the a/c had a
placard or if the POH forbade it?

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
No, I believe that defense has been tried.

This one runs and runs...

AFAICS, the judgements are about violation of an aircraft limitation, or
careless and reckless operation, or both. In those cases where there was no
aircraft limitation (e.g. Boger EA-4525), the defendant had still attempted
a flight that was sufficiently dumb for it to be careless and reckless. It
doesn't necessarily follow that merely flying an aircraft without known ice
certification into forecast icing conditions is, on its own, careless and
reckless.

It seems a pity that the NTSB's working definition of "known icing
conditions" has been crafted in response to the far-fetched defenses of
defendants who, on the whole, seem to have exhibited airmanship that falls
far below the standard that we'd expect from most contributors here. If you
argue extremes hard enough (e.g. that it's fine to continue a flight with
significant ice accretion in a non-deiced aircraft on the basis that it's
not 100% certain that there's ice in the next cloud so it can't be "known")
you're bound to get some fairly robust responses.

Julian Scarfe

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 04:49:55 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

No, I believe that defense has been tried.

Mike
MU-2

Yes, but I thought those violations were for "careless and reckless" and
not for a violation of an (non-existent in the case) aircraft limitation.

I've never heard of, for example, someone being violated (in a non-deiced
small GA a/c under Part 91) for encountering ice, issuing a PIREP, and
asking ATC for a deviation in order to escape. Have you?


--ron

You are probably right. I don't recall the exact case, I just remember
reading somewhere that a pilot tried using this defense and it didn't work..
IMO the FAA should either really enforce every regulation or it should get
rid of the ones it isn't going to enforce.

Mike
MU-2


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 04:49:55 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

No, I believe that defense has been tried.

Mike
MU-2

Yes, but I thought those violations were for "careless and reckless" and
not for a violation of an (non-existent in the case) aircraft limitation.

I've never heard of, for example, someone being violated (in a non-deiced
small GA a/c under Part 91) for encountering ice, issuing a PIREP, and
asking ATC for a deviation in order to escape. Have you?


--ron