AIM is pseudo-regulatory

rps,

I understand you were citing federal court cases (appeals from the NTSB
go to the federal appellate courts, not district [trial] courts and it
is extremely rare for someone to appeal a matter from the full NTSB to
the federal courts because the FAA almost invariably has won). I was
referring to administrative actions by the FAA against pilots for
violations of the FARs. Those actions are heard by law judges employed
by the NTSB. The NTSB's responsibility, by statute, is to interpret
the FARs. However, if the FAA has published its own interpretation of
an FAR the NTSB is to give great weight to that interpretation unless
it is clearly unreasonable. In administrative actions against pilots,
the NTSB has used the AIM to determine what is careless and reckless,
which matches the title of this thread, making the AIM very close to
regulatory.

You cited civil actions, which vary a bit from the title of this
thread. None of them were actions by the FAA against a pilot accusing
him or her of violation of a regulation; they were actions involving
civil suits and the question of negligence of a pilot or air traffic
controller. There the issue is whether an action taken or not taken
constituted negligence. Whether the action or inaction was a violation
of an FAR is only evidence of negligence (not conclusive) and operating
contrary to the AIM has been used as evidence of negligence. In those
actions whether the AIM is regulatory is not an issue, a pilot's
certificate was not at stake. A pilot who choses to operate in a
manner contrary to the recommendations of the AIM faces two separate
issues: First, can the FAA use the operation as the grounds for a
certificate action? and second, if there is an accident and the pilot
is sued for negligent operation of the aircraft, is the operation
contrary to the AIM recommendations and therefore evidence of
negligence? One issue is an issue of compliance with the regulations
when it comes to a violation of the FARs and a certificate suspension
or revocation and the other is an issue of potential civil liability
should there be an accident.

Sorry for the long answer, but there are two distinct considerations.

All the best,
Rick