There is no legal language which will protect you from a course of action, which after the event cannot be justified. Thus you should justify the action beforehand - to yourself, with thoughts as indicated in many posts above.
It unlikely that the manufacturer will have done touch and go tests (aborted landing with ice shapes); at best, takeoff, and approach and landing with ice shapes would have determined the need for changed procedures, increased speeds, restricted configurations, trim, etc.
IIRC Saab, like many other aircraft adjust the stall warning boundaries when anti-ice systems are used, other manufacturers might increase the icing air bleed or boot cycle for landing in severe icing conditions, where neither might be acceptable for takeoff and climb out.
Manufacturers would probably have considered a GA, if so operators would be advised whether any speed increase for the approach should be applied to the GA/climb out – including V2 (e.g. hold the existing climb speed if above the non-ice V2).
Don’t search for legal outlets – there are none in the real world, only justifiable actions.
If you don’t know, don’t go. Consider, ‘should we be doing this’, not how to do it (don’t seek ways to circumvent common sense – airmanship).
Last edited by safetypee; 30th October 2013 at 19:25.
Reason: typo