"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
news

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
"RNR" wrote in message
...
As we all know, the AIM is not regulatory.

Right, but that just means that its contents do not *constitute*
regulations. It does not mean that its contents do not bear on the
reasonable interpretation of the regulations (or of the terms used
therein).

I think of the AIM as a layman's "interpretation" of the FAR's.

Comments?

Sure, that's one way to think of it. But it's something else too: it's also
official guidance from the FAA as to what the FARs mean. And that has to
figure into a court's appraisal of whether some proposed FAA interpretation
of the FARs meets the standard of reasonableness.

--Gary