Flying through known or forecast icing

The AIM presents the FAA's current official definition of "known icing
conditions". So any case law decided on the basis of prior explicit or
implicit definitions is no longer applicable.

Well, that might be true if the AIM were regulatory. It's not. (unless
the feds want it to be).

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
.. .
The AIM presents the FAA's current official definition of "known icing
conditions". So any case law decided on the basis of prior explicit or
implicit definitions is no longer applicable.

Well, that might be true if the AIM were regulatory. It's not.

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.

But of course I'm willing to entertain evidence that I'm wrong about that.
Is there any documented example of a successful enforcement action taken
against a pilot for using a definition in the then-current AIM rather than
using some other, unpublished definition that the FAA proposes instead?

--Gary

AIM is non-regulatory advisory and does not constitute law.
FAA says that in the preamble to the AIM



"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "George Patterson" wrote in message
| news:_Qpof.17301$Jz6.14963@trnddc06...
| Bob Gardner wrote:
|
| Gary, the most recent case was in 2005. That's what
George was linking
| to.
|
| No, that's the date of the article. The most recent
ruling on the forecast
| icing issue was about 12 years ago. There were earlier
ones as well. If,
| however, the AIM is in conflict with case law (and it
is), the AIM is
| wrong.
|
| The AIM presents the FAA's current official definition of
"known icing
| conditions". So any case law decided on the basis of prior
explicit or
| implicit definitions is no longer applicable.
|
| --Gary
|
|

Jim
But, it IS used for the basis of interpretation of what the FAA intends
or means when it comes to operations
As an aside.......
I've had a nasty experience with the FAA and NTSB when one of my pilots
was killed on a night IFR into SLC hauling freight. I believe he iced
up and went in before he knew what had happened on his initial descent.
Was solo in a C210T and a very experienced guy with thousands of hours.
At the NTYSB hearing a federale said he had seen me falsifying records
in my office during the initial investigation after the crash. I was
out on a freight run during that day of hearings and missed his
phucking lying performance. I told him later that I hoped to see him
one evening on the streets and I'd thrash him. Doesn't have anything to
do with the AIM but I feel better having said this.

Gary Drescher wrote:
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:_Qpof.17301$Jz6.14963@trnddc06...

Bob Gardner wrote:


Gary, the most recent case was in 2005. That's what George was linking
to.

No, that's the date of the article. The most recent ruling on the forecast
icing issue was about 12 years ago. There were earlier ones as well. If,
however, the AIM is in conflict with case law (and it is), the AIM is
wrong.


The AIM presents the FAA's current official definition of "known icing
conditions". So any case law decided on the basis of prior explicit or
implicit definitions is no longer applicable.

But isn't it the NTSB that usually makes the final determination on the
appeal?

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:
The AIM presents the FAA's current official definition of "known icing
conditions". So any case law decided on the basis of prior explicit or
implicit definitions is no longer applicable.

But isn't it the NTSB that usually makes the final determination on the
appeal?

No, the courts do. Our system of government has independent executive,
legislative and judicial branches that provide checks and balances on one
another. No executive or legislative agency is invulnerable to judicial
review.

Here's what the NTSB itself says about it: "If either the FAA or
the airman is dissatisfied with the [administrative law] judge's decision,
a further appeal may be taken to the NTSB's full five-member Board.
If the airman or FAA is dissatisfied with the full Board's order, either
may obtain judicial review in a federal appeals court. However, the
FAA can only appeal the Board's order in cases that it determines
may have a significant adverse impact on the implementation of the
Federal Aviation Act."
(http://www.ntsb.gov/abt_ntsb/olj.htm)
--Gary

Matt Whiting wrote:

But isn't it the NTSB that usually makes the final determination on the
appeal?

Used to be that way. Congress added the possibility of an appeal to the U.S.
Appeals court some years ago.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 02:43:06 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

Bob Gardner wrote:

Gary, the most recent case was in 2005. That's what George was linking to.

No, that's the date of the article. The most recent ruling on the forecast icing
issue was about 12 years ago. There were earlier ones as well. If, however, the
AIM is in conflict with case law (and it is), the AIM is wrong.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.


As we all know, the AIM is not regulatory. How much clout it carries
depends upon whether the FAA is using it against a pilot or a pilot is
using it as a defence against the FAA. Not to discount all of the
interesting comments regarding the meaning of the regs, but I pity the
poor pilot who finds himself in the position of going up against the
precedent set by these "old" cases.
Rich Russell

"RNR" wrote in message
...
As we all know, the AIM is not regulatory.

Right, but that just means that its contents do not *constitute*
regulations. It does not mean that its contents do not bear on the
reasonable interpretation of the regulations (or of the terms used therein).
On the contrary, the FAA says explicitly (in the AIM's preface) that the
purpose of the AIM is to offer pilots guidance in understanding the
regulations and associated practices.

How much clout it carries
depends upon whether the FAA is using it against a pilot or a pilot is
using it as a defence against the FAA.

Several pilots have put forth the claim that the AIM only works in one
direction (namely, when it's on the FAA's side in legal proceedings), but no
one here has offered any documentation in support of that claim. No one has
shown even a single case in which the FAA successfully (or even
unsuccessfully!) took action against a pilot for abiding by a provision of
the AIM.

Not to discount all of the
interesting comments regarding the meaning of the regs, but I pity the
poor pilot who finds himself in the position of going up against the
precedent set by these "old" cases.

The cases aren't just "old". What matters is not their age, but rather that
they address a situation that no longer obtains (namely, a situation in
which the FAA had no official explicit published definition of the term
"known icing conditions").

It strikes me as misplaced for pilots to worry so much about a specific kind
of flagrant injustice that (as far as anyone here knows) has never actually
taken place. It's not that I just trust the authorities to behave
reasonably. On the contrary, one reason the misplaced worry concerns me is
that it could serve as an invitation for those in authority to move in the
direction of inflicting such an injustice, for they can see that many pilots
have already resigned themselves to accepting (apart from some newsgroup
grumbling) an intolerable violation of fairness that isn't even occurring
yet. That anticipatory resignation, it seems to me, undermines one of the
important forces that helps keep the authorities in check.

--Gary

PS: I keep restoring r.a.p. to this thread because icing conditions can
occur outside of clouds, so the discussion is pertinent to VFR as well as
IFR flight.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
"RNR" wrote in message
...
As we all know, the AIM is not regulatory.

Right, but that just means that its contents do not *constitute*
regulations. It does not mean that its contents do not bear on the
reasonable interpretation of the regulations (or of the terms used
therein).

I think of the AIM as a layman's "interpretation" of the FAR's.

Comments?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO