Radio Procedure - Runway ID

Michael Houghton wrote:


Pragmaticly, the imperative statements in the AIM tend to be taken
as prescriptive. That gives it a degree of "force". To assert otherwise
is narrowly pedantic in an unproductive way.

The AIM has hung thousands of pilots over the years. It doesn't have
the force of the FAR's but go contrary to the AIM and cause a problem
and that is the very document they will use against you. They always have.

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

OK. Then what is the basis for your assertion that the November is
not necessary? Would you care to back it up with a documentary basis,
or are we simply supposed to take your word for it?


You'd rarely go wrong by taking my word for anything, but I don't expect you
to do that.

See Title 47 CFR Section 2.303 for forms of identification which may be used
in lieu of call signs by the specified classes of stations. The station
identification for aircraft of US registry is the registration number
preceded by the type of the aircraft, or the radiotelephony designator of
the aircraft operating agency followed by the flight identification number.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....213.3&idno=47



Pragmaticly, the imperative statements in the AIM tend to be taken
as prescriptive. That gives it a degree of "force". To assert otherwise
is narrowly pedantic in an unproductive way.


The AIM itself says it is not regulatory. Are you saying the AIM is wrong
on that issue?

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Prefac...ol.html#Policy

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..

The AIM has hung thousands of pilots over the years. It doesn't have the
force of the FAR's but go contrary to the AIM and cause a problem and that
is the very document they will use against you. They always have.


Please cite a case where someone was charged with acting contrary to the
AIM.

("Ash Wyllie" wrote)
Curved runway? ;-)

We all know you meant to type 1/19 or 3/21...

No, he is in an area where the isogonic lines are real close together.


Airport (1970) was on TV the other night.

Burt Lancaster's discussion in the office (with an SST model on the table)
was the closing of 29 and using 22 instead (Airport Commission members live
under the flight path - noise issues). Burt wants to keep the airport open!
Darn it!


Montblack
Movie filmed at Minneapolis/St Paul (MSP) when I was 9.

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...

Yes it does - some legal force, but the amount of force
varies. A regulation (FAR) or statute carries legal force
like the proverbial "irresistible force." The AIM carries
force more like a wind that varies from time to time or
place to place. Any court or tribunal will pay some
attention to the AIM as a set of written standards and
practices that are presumptively good. They're not
mandatory and pilots can deviate from those standards. Many
do, with good reason, but if you're accused of something
like "careless and reckless operation," it's nicer to be
doing what the AIM recommends than something else.


Please cite a case where someone was charged with acting contrary to the
AIM.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
The AIM hasn't any force, legal or otherwise.

I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV, but:

Federal Aviation Regulations do reference the Aeronautical Information
Manual (AIM), and I would presume that therefore the content so referenced
makes the knowledge "official" and legal for certain purposes.

For example, in section 61.65, Instrument rating requirements:

"(b) Aeronautical knowledge. A person who applies for an instrument rating
must have received and logged ground training from an authorized instructor
or accomplished a home-study course on the following aeronautical knowledge
areas that apply to the instrument rating sought:

(1) Federal Aviation Regulations of this chapter that apply to flight
operations under IFR;

(2) Appropriate information that applies to flight operations under IFR in
the "Aeronautical Information Manual;
.....
"

AIM is likewise mentioned under sections 61.97 and 61.105.

No, that's just what they'd be expecting....

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
No, headings are just rounded to a different level.

No, headings are rounded and the rounded number is fully stated. Runway
headings are rounded and then nicknamed. 9 is not the same as 90, even
if runway 9 points to heading 090.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Howdy!

In article k.net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

OK. Then what is the basis for your assertion that the November is
not necessary? Would you care to back it up with a documentary basis,
or are we simply supposed to take your word for it?


You'd rarely go wrong by taking my word for anything, but I don't expect you
to do that.

See Title 47 CFR Section 2.303 for forms of identification which may be used
in lieu of call signs by the specified classes of stations. The station
identification for aircraft of US registry is the registration number
preceded by the type of the aircraft, or the radiotelephony designator of
the aircraft operating agency followed by the flight identification number.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....213.3&idno=47

OK. You could have cited that in the first case and saved all the
extra swirl...


Pragmaticly, the imperative statements in the AIM tend to be taken
as prescriptive. That gives it a degree of "force". To assert otherwise
is narrowly pedantic in an unproductive way.


The AIM itself says it is not regulatory. Are you saying the AIM is wrong
on that issue?

I'm puzzled as to why you ask this question, as it does not follow from
anything I've said. It presumes words that I did not write.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

I'm puzzled as to why you ask this question, as it does not follow from
anything I've said. It presumes words that I did not write.


Well, then, somebody must be adding things to your messages.

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...

There aren't any.


I didn't think so.