FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

At the very least, the law that says "I will not do stupid things with
airplanes". The FARs word it thusly:

"91.13 (a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No
person
may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger
the
life or property of another."


Those are not equivalent statements. I am free to do something stupid with
airplanes as long as the only life or property endangered belongs to me.
That's the part of FAR 91.13 that is widely misunderstood.



You seem to be under the misconception that the laws are limited to
statute.
They are not. Further, the laws are subject to "interpretation", and you
don't
get to do the interpreting. The FAA does.


Actually, the FARs mean what they say. Unfortunately, there are many in the
FAA whose understanding of them is no better than yours and thus they are
commonly "misinterpreted".



Avweb has an article at
http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184265-1.html
that provides background and citiations of actual decisions that were made
that
cemented this policy in place.

It goes on to say how the FAA and NTSB are not always in agreement, and
the
NTSB can overrule the FAA in some cases. There's a lot of case law which
you
can review. It is there that the "regulations" will be found - as
precedent
that the FAA can choose from when they investigate an event.

If this doesn't satisfy you, ask the FAA directly by calling the FSDO.
Get it
in writing, post it here, and then take a guess as to how well that will
stand
up should there be an incident.


No need for any of that, my only purpose was to show that you didn't know
what you were talking about. That you claim a law exists that you cannot
cite accomplishes that.