Radio Procedure - Runway ID

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.

The word "force" in this context implies "regulatory".

And the AIM does have regulatory force. It just doesn't have
irresistable regulatory force. Neither of course do the FARs, but they
are a bit less resistable.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...

And the AIM does have regulatory force. It just doesn't have irresistable
regulatory force. Neither of course do the FARs, but they are a bit less
resistable.


The AIM itself says it is not regulatory. Is the AIM wrong?

The AIM itself says it is not regulatory. Is the AIM wrong?

It is not regulatory. However it does have (some) regulatory force. If
the AIM's statement is supposed to mean "has no regulatory force" then
it is wrong. Just like the SS number is not supposed to be used for ID.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
.. .

It is not regulatory. However it does have (some) regulatory force. If
the AIM's statement is supposed to mean "has no regulatory force" then it
is wrong. Just like the SS number is not supposed to be used for ID.


What regulatory force does the AIM have?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
It is not regulatory. However it does have (some) regulatory
force.


What regulatory force does the AIM have?


Clearly the AIM (or any Advisory Circular) is not a Regulation.
However, FAA can use the AIM or such to support say a reckless
operation FAR violation. The pilot was operating unsafely, because
we clearly explain how to do things safely in an advisory document.
All fed agencies do this, not just FAA. The AIM can thus been
quoted even in a federal court decision, typically in a footnote,
to either support or set aside FAA's argument that an FAR was
violated.

Fred F.

What regulatory force does the AIM have?

I believe it has all the regulatory force given to it by the FAA in its
enforcement actions. This is compounded by the "careless or reckless"
clause, where the FAA can say that not following the AIM is careless and
reckless.

I would also be interested in seeing actual cases where the AIM was
cited in an enforcement action (or sufficient evidence that it has never
been cited), so that my belief one way or the other is backed by actual
fact rather than heresay. But my point is not that it has "the force of
law" but that it has "force in the law", which is sufficient.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...

Clearly the AIM (or any Advisory Circular) is not a Regulation.
However, FAA can use the AIM or such to support say a reckless
operation FAR violation. The pilot was operating unsafely, because
we clearly explain how to do things safely in an advisory document.
All fed agencies do this, not just FAA.


Can you give me an example of a practice, technique, procedure, etc., from
the AIM that if not adhered to would demonstrate operation of an aircraft in
a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of
another?



The AIM can thus been
quoted even in a federal court decision, typically in a footnote,
to either support or set aside FAA's argument that an FAR was
violated.


I think there's a typo or two in that sentence. Are you saying AIM has been
quoted in a federal court decision to support an FAA argument that an FAR
was violated? Can you cite such a case?

"Jose" wrote in message
.. .

I believe it has all the regulatory force given to it by the FAA in its
enforcement actions. This is compounded by the "careless or reckless"
clause, where the FAA can say that not following the AIM is careless and
reckless.


What regulatory force does the FAA give the AIM in it's enforcement actions?
Can you give me an example of a practice, technique, procedure, etc., from
the AIM that if not adhered to would demonstrate operation of an aircraft in
a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of
another?