Flying through known or forecast icing

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:K0rof.16285$Ea6.4779@trnddc08...
Gary Drescher wrote:

The AIM doesn't set forth regulations, but its subtitle is "Official
Guide to Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures"; and it states in
the preface that it presents information that the FAA wants pilots use to
understand and interpret the regulations. There's no way the FAA could
get away with officially telling pilots to use a given explicit
definition, and then prosecuting them for complying.

There's every way. In the first place, case law trumps everything.

No it doesn't. But even if it did, case law is grounded in existing
regulations and official documents that elaborate those regulations. And if
those change, then the prior case law is simply no longer addressing the
current situation.

In the second place, the Federal administrative court system has an
explicit policy that any government agency has the last word in
interpreting its own regulations. The only time the court will rule
against the FAA is when the FAA attempts to interpret a regulation in a
fashion that is different from an earlier interpretation. In other words,
the FAA can't violate a pilot for doing something one way and then violate
another pilot for doing just the opposite. Other than that, the FAA can
interpret the regulations any way they see fit.

George, what evidence do you have that that's the sole basis on which an
administrative court will overrule the FAA? In particular, what evidence is
there that other forms of blatant violation of due process are not also
grounds for overturning an FAA verdict? (Officially instructing pilots to do
something, and then busting them for complying, is as flagrant a violation
of due process as one can imagine.)

--Gary