"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
. ..
I still think you are reading something into the AIM that isn't there,

Eh? As I quoted earlier, the AIM now makes the following crystal-clear
distinction (7-1-23):

"Forecast Icing Conditions: Environmental conditions expected by a National
Weather Service or an FAA-approved weather provider to be conducive to the
formation of inflight icing on aircraft. "

"Known Icing Conditions: Atmospheric conditions in which the formation of
ice is observed or detected in flight."

How am I reading anything into those definitions that isn't explicitly
stated?

even if the AIM could be used as a defense in a certificate action.
Judges seem to like precedents, however old, and IMHO would lean
toward their fellow judges rather than toward the anonymous writers
of the AIM.

Bob, that's not how precedents work. A precedent only applies when the
material facts of the new case sufficiently resemble the facts of the old
case. The new content of the AIM is a material fact that is crucially
different from the previous cases. So it's not a contest between what the
precedent says and what the AIM says. Rather, the AIM bears on whether the
precedent is even applicable.

But ok, let's imagine you're right that the FAA could argue in court, with a
straight face, that the true definition of "known icing conditions" is
completely different from the definition that the FAA now publishes in the
AIM (which is the *only* definition of that term that the FAA publishes
*anywhere*). And let's even imagine (though this is *very* far-fetched) that
an appeals court would just accept the FAA's assertion about the true
definition.

Even *given* those (rather wild) assumptions, the FAA *still* couldn't win
on appeal, for the reason I explained earlier: according to the FAA's own
argument, they have persuaded the pilot in question to commit an infraction
by advising the pilot (via the AIM) to interpret the regs using a false
definition. And it is a bedrock principle of Constitutional law the
government cannot hold someone liable for an infraction that the government
itself persuaded that person to commit (and that the person was not already
inclined to commit).

In any event, I don't understand why any pilot should worry about the
possibility of becoming the first person in the history of aviation to be
prosecuted by the FAA for complying with the AIM! It's like worrying about
being hit by a meteor. Chill; it's just not going to happen to you.

--Gary