AIM is pseudo-regulatory

"Gary Drescher" wrote:
http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/ar...m?article=4421

Better treat it as regulatory.

Hm, that's a peculiar article.

Not peculiar, but basic adminsistrative law. The article is
referring to the recent Merrill csae, where a Court of Appeals
concluded that an agency (such as FAA) may interpret its own rules
as it wishes, under a principle called "due deference." This is
found throughout federal litigation. Agency publications (like the
AIM) may thus be cited in support of a FAR violation. "Regulatory"
is thus misleading in this regard. In all enforcement cases, you
have to violate a Reg. Much of the AIM does not involve FAR
mattters at all, except portions of it fall under the general
context of 91.13 (reckless operation) for failing to heed. Similar
also as to operating under IFR. Courts at times cite Black's Law
Dictionary or Webster's Dictionary in support of a finding. Nobody
would call those regulatory.

Fred F.