FAA letter on flight into known icing

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
I think post this is generally well understood. The question has
always been how to parse the phrase "Known icing conditions". Is it
"(Known icing) conditions" or "Known (icing conditions)". It makes a
huge difference whether its illegal to fly in any thing that is known
to maybe make ice (we understand very little about why ice forms) or
is it ok as long as you know the conditions aren't making ice (i.e.
PIREP).

BTW: Accoring to your FSDO, it is legal for a J-3 cub to fly in "Known
Icing Conditions" because no such limitation exists in its
certification.

And you used to be able to buy cigarretes without a warning label, it didn't
make smoking safe.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...

And you used to be able to buy cigarretes without a warning label, it didn't
make smoking safe.

I'm just waiting for the day when a new Chevy will have a placard
saying, "Warning, operation of this vehicle may cause death or bodily
injury".

The FAA reply starting this thread illustrates one of the many frustrations I
have with the FAA. Given a very specific question, they responded with some
generalities and then sidestepped the answer. They also completely ignored
other implied parts of the question.

If there is NO PROHIBITION ANYWHERE for a specific aircraft, say because it was
grandfathered, then is it prohibited from flying legally in known icing? What
is the FAA's take on using the "careless and reckless" rule in this case?

There are no noises in this letter from the FAA about that. Thus, Steven P.
McNicoll and I will continue to disagree on whether or not it's legal (in most
cases).

Nothing like possibly a definate maybe from the folks that make the rules.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)