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 21:43:23 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m20.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.1] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 1994857 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:30:00 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.1; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-m20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r8.1.) id q.d22.3bc9715 (52649) for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:28:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from webmail-me07 (webmail-me07.webmail.aol.com [64.12.88.199]) by cia-d16.mx.aol.com (v114_r3.6) with ESMTP id MAILCIAD163-cda9462817522b3; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:28:50 -0400 References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:__[LML]_Re:_FAA's_draft_letter_of_interpretation_=C2=91=C2?= =?utf-8?Q?=91known_icing_condition=C2=92=C2=92?= X-Original-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:28:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8C9510262AF6546_EE4_1790A_webmail-me07.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 25045 Received: from 12.174.209.180 by webmail-me07.sysops.aol.com (64.12.88.199) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:28:50 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8C9510262AF6546-EE4-C754@webmail-me07.sysops.aol.com> X-AOL-IP: 64.12.88.199 X-Spam-Flag: NO ----------MB_8C9510262AF6546_EE4_1790A_webmail-me07.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Kevin, =20 You are exactly correct -- and the best part is the FAA will hang the pilot=20= that has an accident in icing conditions (well, most of the time). There is=20= often a wide gulf between legal and safe or prudent but a short hop from leg= al to an accident. =20 =20 Jeff Edwards=20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: kevin@airforcemechanical.com To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:39 AM Subject: [LML] Re: FAA's draft letter of interpretation =C2=91=C2=91known ic= ing condition=C2=92=C2=92 I guess that goes back to the FAA rule about the pilot becoming familiar wit= h ALL available information.=20 I think the term: reasonable and prudent, pertains to what in general a reas= onable and prudent pilot would do based upon the current and forecasted weat= her, given his his equipment and possible his abilities. That leaves a wide margin for the definition of what reasonable and prudent=20= is. Still very confusing and not clear, but then again the weather is hard to pu= t 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: =20 "If the composite information indicates to a reasonable and prudent pilot th= at he or she will encounter visible moisture at freezing or near freezing te= mperatures and that ice will adhere to the aircraft along the proposed route= and altitude of flight, then known icing conditions likely exist." =20 In other words, in addition to there being the potential for icing (moisture= and freezing temperatures) the pilot needs to determine that ice will adher= e to the aircraft.=20 =20 How should a reasonable and prudent pilot determine "that ice will adhere to= the aircraft"? Pilot reports? Forecasts of icing? =20 It seems to me that this allows for a lot of retrospective second guessing o= n the part of the FAA. =20 D. Brunner =3D=20 ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from= AOL at AOL.com. ----------MB_8C9510262AF6546_EE4_1790A_webmail-me07.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Kevin,
 
You are exactly correct -- and the best part is the FAA will hang the p= ilot that has an accident in icing conditions (well, most of the time). Ther= e is often a wide gulf between legal and safe or prudent but a short ho= p from legal to an accident.
 
 
Jeff Edwards
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: kevin@airforcemechanical.com
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:39 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: FAA's draft letter of interpretation =C2=91=C2=91known ic= ing condition=C2=92=C2=92

I guess that goes back=20= to the FAA rule about the pilot becoming familiar with ALL availab= le information. 
I think the term: reaso= nable and prudent, pertains to what in general a reasonable and pr= udent pilot would do based upon the current and forecasted weather= , given his his equipment and possible his abilities.
That leaves a wide marg= in for the definition of what reasonable and prudent is.<= /FONT>
Still very confusing an= d 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=20= 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 w= ill adhere to the aircraft along the prop= osed route and altitude of flight, then known icing c= onditions likely exist."
 
In other words, in addition to there being the potentia= l for icing (moisture and freezing temperatures) the pilot needs to determin= e that ice will adhere to the aircraft. 
 
How should a reasonable and prudent pilot determin= e "that ice will adhere to the aircraft"?   Pilot reports?  Forecasts of icing?
 
It seems to me that this allows for a lot of retrospect= ive second guessing on the part of the FAA.
 
D. Brunner


=3D
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from= AOL at AOL.com.
----------MB_8C9510262AF6546_EE4_1790A_webmail-me07.sysops.aol.com--