I wish it were true. Isn't it the case that the NTSB reversed an ALJ based
upon its interpretation of an FAR, and that decision was appealed to the
D.C. Court of Appeals, which held that the NTSB must defer to the
interpretation advanced by the agency?

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"LWG" wrote in message
. ..
It's easy to understand that the FAA's use of language is just like Alice
in Wonderland, "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to
mean, nothing more, and nothing less." They provide the language, in the
AIM or the FARs, and then get to tell the ALJ exactly what it means. The
ALJ and the NTSB are bound to accept that interpretation, no matter how
much they may disagree.

No, that's not true. They're only bound to accept any *reasonable*
interpretation. The AIM now explicitly defines "known icing conditions" as
conditions in which the formation of ice in flight is actually observed
rather than merely forecast. The FAA could not reasonably interpret *that*
definition to refer to conditions in which icing is unobserved but merely
forecast.

--Gary