That's the difference between science and engineering, on the one hand, and
law on the other. In the former, you score points for innovation and
creativity, usually by coming up with things no one has thought of or done
before. With law, you score points by showing that lots of people came up
with the same ideas and thoughts before, and they'd be crazy not to do the
same thing this time.

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
Another whack at a dead horse. Let's go back a few messages to where you
castigated me for quoting "old" case law. Are you aware of the concept of
settled law? Miranda vs Arizona was a 1963 case, but you won't find a law
enforcement officer who is not painfully aware that it is in full effect
today. Administrator vs Bowen was a 1946 case; Administrator vs Irmisch
was a 1976 case *which referred to Bowen as a precedent.* Administrator
vs Groszer was a 1993 case *which referred to Bowen as a precedent.* The
2004 case that John Yodice wrote about in AOPA Pilot referred to Bowen. To
the judges in the latter case, Bowen was not an old case, it was the
precedent-setting case.

Ever go into a law office, or see one on TV? See those shelves lined with
law books? When someone brings a cause of action to a lawyer, that lawyer
goes to those bookshelves and reviews OLD CASES searching for applicable
precedents. Should he or she fail to discover a precedent that is on
point, the opposing attorney will rub their nose in it.

This discussion of the legal system comes only because you don't seem to
realize that once a point of law becomes "settled," it takes further legal
or legislative action to point out where its findings were in error and
overturn it. You may have read something in the papers about Roe vs Wade??

Where something is published in the AIM is a side issue; my main point is
that the AIM cannot overturn settled law.

You have a lot to offer these newsgroups, and I enjoy reading your posts.
You just have this issue wrong. Take the time to call your local FSDO or
the Regional Counsel and get their take on the subject.


Bob Gardner

Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
I am saying that, despite Gary's use of the words implicit and explicit,

Actually, I didn't use the word 'implicit'. But yes, I did point out that
the AIM now explicitly distinguishes forecast icing conditions from known
icing conditions. I'm baffled as to how you could disagree (given the
definitions I quoted), but if you do, I'd be grateful if you'd explain
why.

a section of the AIM dealing with pilot reports is not the place to be
looking for validation of what constitutes known icing.

Huh? The icing defintions I quoted are from the Meteorology section of
the AIM's Safety of Flight chapter. That's not the place to look for the
meaning of known icing? Even though you would in fact find the definition
if you looked there? (And even though that's the *only* place the FAA has
published a definition of known or forecast icing conditions?)

Yes, elsewhere in the same section (but not in the same subsection), the
AIM talks about PIREPs. If that proximity somehow impugns the FAA's icing
definitions, I am at a loss to imagine how, and would again be grateful
for any semblance of an explanation.

Thanks,
Gary