Radio Procedure - Runway ID

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

Mr. McNicoll could have cited the AIM, 4-2-4.a.3 where it says:

Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft type, model or
manufacturer's name, followed by the digits/letters of the
registration number. When the aircraft manufacturer's name or model
is stated, the prefix "N" is dropped; e.g., Aztec Two Four Six Four
Alpha.

Naturally, that only applies specifically to operations where the AIM
has any force, moral or legal. Your mileage will likely vary.


The AIM hasn't any force, legal or otherwise.

Howdy!

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...

Mr. McNicoll could have cited the AIM, 4-2-4.a.3 where it says:

Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft type, model or
manufacturer's name, followed by the digits/letters of the
registration number. When the aircraft manufacturer's name or model
is stated, the prefix "N" is dropped; e.g., Aztec Two Four Six Four
Alpha.

Naturally, that only applies specifically to operations where the AIM
has any force, moral or legal. Your mileage will likely vary.


The AIM hasn't any force, legal or otherwise.

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?

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.

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:


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.

"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.

"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

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.

Howdy!

In article .net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"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.

I spoke of the AIM having "force" (quotes included), and that it is
generally taken a prescriptive. Nowhere did I use or imply the word
"regulatory" - a word you introduced into the discourse. Your
question was nonsensical unless you were implying that I was claiming
that the AIM had any regulatory force.

Of course, by removing all the context, you make your snappy comeback
look like content-lite picking at made-up-things.

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 spoke of the AIM having "force" (quotes included), and that it is
generally taken a prescriptive. Nowhere did I use or imply the word
"regulatory" - a word you introduced into the discourse. Your
question was nonsensical unless you were implying that I was claiming
that the AIM had any regulatory force.


The word "force" in this context implies "regulatory". I suggest you avoid
using words you do not understand.

"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.