What's the latest on "forecast icing = known icing"

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:jBIVf.877$t22.865@dukeread08...

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

The current AIM (7-1-23) explicitly states that "forecast
icing conditions" are *not* "known icing conditions":

Has there been a case yet where the FAA has agreed with
this definition in an enforcement action?

The AIM is NOT regulatory nor official legal doctrine. The
AIM seems to be logical and reasonable, but I think there
needs to be an official FAA legal opinion stated.

The AIM is not regulatory, but the FAA does tell pilots to use the AIM's
information to understand their regulatory responsibilities. I'm not aware
of any relevant case law since the adoption of the definitions I cited. But
it would constitute blatant entrapment for the FAA to instruct pilots to
interpret official terminology in a particular way, and then bust them for
complying with that instruction. (Appeals courts may defer to the FAA on the
interpretation of the rules, but *not* on questions of due process; and
entrapment is a serious violation of due process.)

This question has come up here before, and no one has been able to cite any
case, ever, in which the FAA has even *tried* (let alone successfully) to
bust someone for complying with the AIM. So I don't think the possibility is
worth worrying about, but of course everyone needs to evaluate that for
themselves.

--Gary