On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:10:40 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
wrote in
::


Larry Dighera wrote:

I don't believe the AIM, by itself, imposes an enforceable
legal duty.

The Airman's Information Manual is largely a distillation of
information integrating Federal Aviation Regulation Parts 65, 91, Etc.

Much of it is, and I don't think we really disagree, but
there's also lots of helpful advice type stuff. I just
grabbed some from the emergency procedures:

"After establishing radio contact, comply with advice and
instructions received."

"After a crash landing, unless you have good reason to
believe that you will not be located by search aircraft or
ground teams, it is best to remain with your aircraft and
prepare means for signaling search aircraft."

None of this is really regulatory based. If I'm about to
ditch and the ATC guy gives "advice or instructions" about
whether to retract the gear, I'm going to ignore him. I
know more about the ditching procedures in my aircraft than
he does.

Similarly, while "stay with the plane" is usually good
advice, if you crash in NJ, no one is going to violate you
if you decide it's best to walk a mile down the road to the
house you saw instead of making a big SOS with rocks in the
field.

Thanks for the "lots of helpful advice type stuff" quotes. Perhaps
that's the source of the confusion about the Aeronautical Information
Manual's regulatory nature. Surely the "lots of helpful advice type
stuff" isn't regulatory. Is there any evidence of the "lots of
helpful advice type stuff" having been used in by the FAA to bolster
their Enforcement Action arguments?

So while the AIM does not itself specifically carry the weight of law
or authoritative regulation*, its content is based on such
requirements.

Some is, some isn't. Its purpose is not to set mandatory
rules - just to give good practices.

As you said, we seem to agree on the purpose of the AIM, but I would
expect the great majority of the information contained in the AIM
paraphrases FARs, FAAO, and ACs.