Re: FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions

>> What you stated about it was not correct.

What I stated about it was abbreviated, and was not incorrect.  Well, maybe I
should have added "that endanger others..." but I didn't.  The FAR I actually
quoted did.  You could read that.

>> Then all flight violates FAR 91.13

Another consequence of abbreviation.  All flight endangers people on the
ground.  Not all flight is careless or reckless.  I contend that the FAA
contends that flight into known or forecast icing in an improperly equipped
airplane is careless or reckless and therefore violates 91.13(a)  The FAA and
NTSB have contended this successfully in the courts, creating case law.  Case
law =IS= law.

>>
If the regulations don't mean what they say
they don't mean anything.
<<

This has been argued for many years.  It has some merit, but not enough.  I'd
like them to be better written too, but I know enough to be careful what I wish
for.

>> Take the FARs with you.

That's not where the law lives, though it might be its address.  As a
consequence, the law can change without any statute changing.  That's just the
way it works.  It may make engineer types (which include me) uncomfortable, but
so does Quantum Mechanics.

Jose
dammit, the electron went SOMEPLACE, and it had to go there to get there!

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