On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 02:43:06 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

Bob Gardner wrote:

Gary, the most recent case was in 2005. That's what George was linking to.

No, that's the date of the article. The most recent ruling on the forecast icing
issue was about 12 years ago. There were earlier ones as well. If, however, the
AIM is in conflict with case law (and it is), the AIM is wrong.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.


As we all know, the AIM is not regulatory. How much clout it carries
depends upon whether the FAA is using it against a pilot or a pilot is
using it as a defence against the FAA. Not to discount all of the
interesting comments regarding the meaning of the regs, but I pity the
poor pilot who finds himself in the position of going up against the
precedent set by these "old" cases.
Rich Russell