No. One of the FAA letters Dr. Bruce linked to reminds us that 14 CFR 91.103 specifies that "each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. This information must include...for a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of the airport, weather reports and forecasts...."
Two questions then:
Several pieces of equipment and a whole lot of flight testing.
A friend of mine must have been flying with the most paranoid pilots who ever took to the skies. One was even an aviation attorney. She tells the story that she was flying with these guys as a passenger, in IMC (somewhat turbulent IMC at that), when they started picking up ice. She asked the PF why he didn't just call up ATC and tell the controller they were picking up ice and needed a change of altitude. Both pilots quickly answered, no no no, we can't do that, if we do that it's an admission that we were flying in "known icing conditions" and we'll get busted. So they kept flying along, not a peep, all the while accreting ice all over the airframe. I forget whether they eventually got out of the clouds and lost the ice, or whether they landed with it.
Idiots.
Read again -- it was the pilots, not the aviation attorney, who were being stupid. The attorney was the one who asked them why they didn't get out of the ice. And for the record, ATC will not report you to the FSDO just for reporting ice or even asking to get out of it ASAP.
Not really. Just the one piece of equipment - the hot plate. Yes, there was testing for the certification, but the airframe and equipment (minus that one item) are the same.
The correct version makes sense, but is written in legalese. A LOT better would have been to turn the two parts of the sentence around, in this way:
"Known icing conditions exist if the composite information indicates to a reasonable and prudent pilot that he or she will be operating the aircraft under conditions that will cause ice to adhere to the aircraft along the proposed route and altitude of flight."
We're not German, after all, and getting the subject and verb a bit earlier on is more logical and natural to speakers of English.
[If the Chief Counsel's writing style were used, that would have read, "More logical and natural to speakers of English, and since we're not German, after all, is getting the subject and verb a bit earlier."]
Correct. The non-flying pilot i.e. right seater.
Some do.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I live along the Gulf coast. It's not unusual to go all winter without a freeze. Also not uncommon to have days in January where the sky is clear and the high temp is in the 60s. So a lot of times, even in the middle of winter, icing is exactly as likely as in the middle of July. Since those mild, clear days are more likely to find me flying, that's what I had in mind when I said icing is only rarely a concern.
I really like that guy!
Most of the time, I restrain myself from correcting people's spelling, punctuation, etc. on line, but what gets me is the apparent lack of proofreading in print publications. It didn't used to be this way. And of course, it's always the type of error that spelling-checking software can't catch!