X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 2 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:39:30 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms044pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.44] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 1993819 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:43:52 -0400 Received: from [192.168.111.2] ([70.19.44.28]) by vms044.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JGR00NIE28I4K50@vms044.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:43:32 -0500 (CDT) X-Original-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:43:28 -0400 From: Kevin Kossi Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_[LML]_Re:_FAA's_draft_letter_of_interpretatio?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?n_=91=91known_icing_condition=92=92?= In-reply-to: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Original-Message-id: <977DEDBA-E2FC-4378-8E66-8F44C339B02D@airforcemechanical.com> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-83--1029370372 References: --Apple-Mail-83--1029370372 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed I guess that goes back to the FAA rule about the pilot becoming familiar with ALL available information. I think the term: reasonable and prudent, pertains to what in general a reasonable and prudent pilot would do based upon the current and forecasted weather, given his his equipment and possible his abilities. That leaves a wide margin for the definition of what reasonable and prudent is. Still very confusing and not clear, but then again the weather is hard to put your finger on. Kevin Kossi On Apr 19, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Douglas Brunner wrote: > It seems to me that the key phrase in the letter is this: > > "If the composite information indicates to a reasonable and prudent > pilot that he or she will encounter visible moisture at freezing or > near freezing temperatures and that ice will adhere to the aircraft > along the proposed route and altitude of flight, then known icing > conditions likely exist." > > In other words, in addition to there being the potential for icing > (moisture and freezing temperatures) the pilot needs to determine > that ice will adhere to the aircraft. > > How should a reasonable and prudent pilot determine "that ice will > adhere to the aircraft"? Pilot reports? Forecasts of icing? > > It seems to me that this allows for a lot of retrospective second > guessing on the part of the FAA. > > D. Brunner > --Apple-Mail-83--1029370372 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

I guess that goes = back to the FAA rule about the pilot becoming=A0familiar with = ALL=A0available information.=A0

I think the term: = reasonable and prudent,=A0pertains to what in general a=A0reasonable and = prudent=A0pilot would do based upon the current and=A0forecasted = weather, given his=A0his=A0equipment and=A0possible = his=A0abilities.

That leaves a wide = margin for the definition of what=A0reasonable and prudent = is.

Still very = confusing and not clear, but then again the weather is hard to put your = finger on.

Kevin = Kossi

On Apr 19, 2007, at 7:41 AM, = Douglas Brunner wrote:

It seems to me that the = key phrase in the letter is this:
=A0
or she will = encounter visible moisture at and that ice = will adhere to the aircraft flight, then known icing = conditionslikely = exist."
=A0
=A0
=A0Pilot reports?=A0 Forecasts of = icing?
=A0
=A0

<= /DIV>
= --Apple-Mail-83--1029370372--