Radio Procedure - Runway ID

What regulatory force does the FAA give the AIM in it's enforcement actions?

After the fact, after not following the AIM when you could have done so,
and an accident or other FAA-worthy event occurs, the FAA can cite this
as careless or reckless. The general paranoia about it leads me to
believe that this has occured (though I don't have cites and it is
possible I'm just following the other monkeys)

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?

It's not me that gives the examples, it's the FAA. After the fact.
There are certainly ways to be careless or reckless while not following
the AIM. I don't believe that all non-AIM procedures are careless or
reckless; that would be silly. But I don't get to decide. The FAA
does, after the fact, on a case by case basis.

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

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
The AIM itself says it is not regulatory. Is the AIM wrong?

No and yes. First, here's what the AIM says about itself with regard to FAA
regulation:

"This publication, while not regulatory, provides information which
reflects examples of operating techniques and procedures which may be
requirements in other federal publications or regulations."

(From: http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Prefac...ol.html#Policy )

But the AIM may be used by other regulatory bodies, such as municipalities,
which explicitly make portions of the AIM regulatory. For example, a quick
Google search shows an example from the Kodiak Alaska Municipal Airport
Ordinance which makes portions of the AIM part of their ordinance:

"18.36.100 Landing and takeoff, monitor frequency requirement. All aircraft
with radios, upon takeoff or landing, shall be required to monitor and
maintain two-way radio communications with frequency 119.8 (Kodiak Tower),
and all aircraft shall comply with the recommended procedures of the
Aeronautical Information Manual. (Ord. 593 §1, 1981; Ord. 406 §3(7), 1973)

18.36.110 Aircraft traffic regulations adopted. The traffic advisory
practices at non-tower airports contained in the Aeronautical Information
Manual, dated July 20, 1995, as regularly updated by the Federal Aviation
Administration and published by the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box
371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954, are adopted and shall constitute the
laws of the city relating to aircraft traffic practices in the Kodiak
Municipal Airport. The city clerk is directed to keep a copy on file in the
clerk's office. (Ord. 1026, 1996; Ord. 435 §2, 1975)"

(From: http://www.city.kodiak.ak.us/citycode/code_18.htm )

Howdy!

In article k.net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"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.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

Since we're offering suggestions, let me suggest that you avoid putting
words in other people's mouths.

It has moral force, in that a failure to heed the AIM can lead to
considerable peer pressure to conform to the Pretty Good Suggestions
it contains. That has no regulatory force, in that you won't face
certificate action for it, but you may well face other action, such
as having an FBO decide that you aren't fit to rent their aircraft.

Naturally, I don't have any specific examples here, but I can visualize
these potential consequences.

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/

On Oct 19, 4:13 am, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

Here's a hypothetical:
1) aircraft A and aircraft B exchange some paint in the air and then do
some damage to third parties on the ground;
2) the pilot of aircraft A followed all procedures recommended by the
AIM and was in compliance with all FARs; and
3) the pilot of aircraft B was in compliance with all FARs but failed
to follow at least one procedure recommended by the AIM.

Around whose neck would liability attach? Maybe both, but more likely
the pilot of aircraft B.

There was an article in IFR magazine in the early '90s written by an
aviation attorney who, based on his reading of various cases, said that
the AIM has become pseudo-regulatory in the court of law. I'm getting
older and my memory is fading, so I may be wrong. When there is an
accepted or prescribed "standard of behavior," courts are apt to assign
blame to those who don't follow that accepted or prescribed norm.

So, I don't think it matters whether the AIM is regulatory or not.

"rps" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 19, 4:13 am, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

Here's a hypothetical:
1) aircraft A and aircraft B exchange some paint in the air and then do
some damage to third parties on the ground;
2) the pilot of aircraft A followed all procedures recommended by the
AIM and was in compliance with all FARs; and
3) the pilot of aircraft B was in compliance with all FARs but failed
to follow at least one procedure recommended by the AIM.

Around whose neck would liability attach? Maybe both, but more likely
the pilot of aircraft B.

There was an article in IFR magazine in the early '90s written by an
aviation attorney who, based on his reading of various cases, said that
the AIM has become pseudo-regulatory in the court of law. I'm getting
older and my memory is fading, so I may be wrong. When there is an
accepted or prescribed "standard of behavior," courts are apt to assign
blame to those who don't follow that accepted or prescribed norm.

So, I don't think it matters whether the AIM is regulatory or not.

The AIM is considered the guide to best practice. Therefore a deviation from
best practice lays one open for scrutiny and sanction. Otherwise the AIM has
no point.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
[Me]: The AIM can thus be 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?


First, let's get off the "AIM kick." The AIM is the user-friendly
version of many other things "on the record," exactly like an IRS
Publication. However, now and then even the Tax Court cites an IRS
Pub in a footnote, and in at least one case I recall, in the
opinion body itself. Maybe an FAA case has cited the AIM, or has
not, it really doesn't matter. A distinction without a difference.

Because take the AIM -- remove pure information, like weather,
various approach light systems, hand signals to taxiing aircraft,
and fatherly advice -- and what remains is FAA's position in its
own FARs and Advisory Circulars, and often prior holdings of the
NTSB. So, in litigation, FAA will if need be also cite an Advisory
Circular, if an FAR doesn't contain the specifics of the case at
issue. Like, "What's reckless, if not so obvious?"

NTSB decisions at times refer to Advisory Circulars. In the case
of Garvey v. Macko, the issue was whether an airline crew could
deny a jump-seat ride to an FAA inspector with a beard. The
dispute concerned the potential need to don oxygen masks, and their
effectiveness with a beard. Advisory Circulars were cited as
relevant to the matter, like the precise definition of
"crewmember," meaning FAA interpreting its own rules (FARs). This
legal principle is called "due deference [to agency interpretations
of its own rules -- FARs]."

So will then federal courts. In Woolsey v. NTSB, in the 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals (1991), the issue was whether the company
was Part 91 or 135 while carrying Reba McIntyre's band, plus other
big-name musicians too as part of their business plan. Advisory
Circulars were cited in the actual opinion body as to FAA's
definition of "common carriage."

Fred F.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .

No and yes. First, here's what the AIM says about itself with regard to
FAA
regulation:

"This publication, while not regulatory, provides information which
reflects examples of operating techniques and procedures which may be
requirements in other federal publications or regulations."

(From: http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Prefac...ol.html#Policy )

But the AIM may be used by other regulatory bodies, such as
municipalities,
which explicitly make portions of the AIM regulatory. For example, a quick
Google search shows an example from the Kodiak Alaska Municipal Airport
Ordinance which makes portions of the AIM part of their ordinance:

"18.36.100 Landing and takeoff, monitor frequency requirement. All
aircraft
with radios, upon takeoff or landing, shall be required to monitor and
maintain two-way radio communications with frequency 119.8 (Kodiak Tower),
and all aircraft shall comply with the recommended procedures of the
Aeronautical Information Manual. (Ord. 593 §1, 1981; Ord. 406 §3(7), 1973)

18.36.110 Aircraft traffic regulations adopted. The traffic advisory
practices at non-tower airports contained in the Aeronautical Information
Manual, dated July 20, 1995, as regularly updated by the Federal Aviation
Administration and published by the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box
371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954, are adopted and shall constitute the
laws of the city relating to aircraft traffic practices in the Kodiak
Municipal Airport. The city clerk is directed to keep a copy on file in
the
clerk's office. (Ord. 1026, 1996; Ord. 435 §2, 1975)"

(From: http://www.city.kodiak.ak.us/citycode/code_18.htm )


When the city of Kodiak issues a citation to a pilot for not following the
traffic advisory practices at non-tower airports contained in the
Aeronautical Information
Manual, is the pilot cited for violating the AIM, or for violating the city
ordinance?

When the city of Kodiak issues a citation to a pilot for not following the
traffic advisory practices at non-tower airports contained in the
Aeronautical Information
Manual, is the pilot cited for violating the AIM, or for violating the city
ordinance?

It doesn't matter. The pilot is cited. Therefore the AIM has
regulatory force. It is true that the cited example does not show that
the AIM has force through the FAA - the city of Kodiak could just as
well have made Skylune's posts regulatory. This is how building codes
work - some group of people gets together and decides what they like to
see, they publish a guidebook and sell it for huge amounts of money and
convince municipalities to adopt it, thus generating book sales.
Robert's Rules of Order works that way too.

Now, let me ask you - if (I say =if=) the FAA were to promulgate a
ruling that all aircraft shall comply with the recomended procedures of
the AIM, then (I say =then=) would you consider the AIM to be regulatory?

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

"rps" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 19, 4:13 am, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

Here's a hypothetical:
1) aircraft A and aircraft B exchange some paint in the air and then do
some damage to third parties on the ground;
2) the pilot of aircraft A followed all procedures recommended by the
AIM and was in compliance with all FARs; and
3) the pilot of aircraft B was in compliance with all FARs but failed
to follow at least one procedure recommended by the AIM.

Around whose neck would liability attach? Maybe both, but more likely
the pilot of aircraft B.


How were they in compliance with all FARs? It appears to me that both
pilots violated FAR 91.111. What procedure recommended by the AIM did pilot
B fail to follow?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
When the city of Kodiak issues a citation to a pilot for not following
the traffic advisory practices at non-tower airports contained in the
Aeronautical Information
Manual, is the pilot cited for violating the AIM, or for violating the
city ordinance?

The following is only a guess - consult a lawyer or the city of Kodiak for
the straight scoop: the citation would have to list the city code at least
- it might or might not list the AIM paragraphs that were violated in order
to be more specific.