"LWG" wrote in message
news
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?

No, I think that's an Usenet legend. The appeals court may have done that in
a particular case, and may have held more generally that the FAA gets wide
latitude in its interpretations of the regs, but the court wouldn't
categorically waive a basic reasonableness test; that would be tantamount to
abandoning any meaningful judicial review, and abandoning the Constitutional
guarantee of due process.

As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So
if someone can actually document an appeals court decision requiring
absolute, unconditional deference to the FAA's interpretations, then I'll
believe it; otherwise not.

--Gary

"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