If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
"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 So any case law decided on the basis of prior explicit or implicit definitions is no longer applicable.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enforcement action taken against a pilot for using a definition in the then-current AIM rather than using some other, unpublished definition that the FAA proposes instead?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 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
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. That is a statement of faith. It is a faith I do not have. I don't know if there's any evidence yet of being prosecuted for obeying the AIM. Jose -- You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
Gary Drescher wrote:
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. There's every way. In the first place, case law trumps everything. In the second place, the Federal administrative court system has an explicit policy that any government agency has the last word in interpreting its own regulations. The only time the court will rule against the FAA is when the FAA attempts to interpret a regulation in a fashion that is different from an earlier interpretation. In other words, the FAA can't violate a pilot for doing something one way and then violate another pilot for doing just the opposite. Other than that, the FAA can interpret the regulations any way they see fit. George Patterson Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to your slightly older self. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
Maybe, but I really doubt it unless my problem resulted in an accident
or maybe a "deal" for the controller if I had to make a descent that they couldn't clear quickly enough. Even though I've flown in northeast winters for 28 years and tend to "take a look" even if icing is a possibility, I've only once ever gotten into anything I'd call trouble. Even then, I didn't need to declare, I just needed a block altitude clearance so I could descend until I could maintain altitude. Fortunately, I reached the equilibrium altitude prior to reaching ground elevation. :-) So what you're saying is that you're lucky to be alive. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
"Jose" wrote in message
... 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. That is a statement of faith. It is a faith I do not have. I wouldn't call it faith. There are some violations of due process that are so blatantly absurd that (empirically) they can't survive judicial review (except when there's a powerful vested interest involved; but that's not the case when it comes to busting a random private pilot for flying into icing conditions). I don't know if there's any evidence yet of being prosecuted for obeying the AIM. I'd say that until and unless some such evidence comes to light, the a priori likelihood of such an event is so low that it's not worth taking the possibility seriously. --Gary |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:K0rof.16285$Ea6.4779@trnddc08... Gary Drescher wrote: 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. There's every way. In the first place, case law trumps everything. No it doesn't. But even if it did, case law is grounded in existing regulations and official documents that elaborate those regulations. And if those change, then the prior case law is simply no longer addressing the current situation. In the second place, the Federal administrative court system has an explicit policy that any government agency has the last word in interpreting its own regulations. The only time the court will rule against the FAA is when the FAA attempts to interpret a regulation in a fashion that is different from an earlier interpretation. In other words, the FAA can't violate a pilot for doing something one way and then violate another pilot for doing just the opposite. Other than that, the FAA can interpret the regulations any way they see fit. George, what evidence do you have that that's the sole basis on which an administrative court will overrule the FAA? In particular, what evidence is there that other forms of blatant violation of due process are not also grounds for overturning an FAA verdict? (Officially instructing pilots to do something, and then busting them for complying, is as flagrant a violation of due process as one can imagine.) --Gary |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
Gary Drescher wrote:
George, what evidence do you have that that's the sole basis on which an administrative court will overrule the FAA? Sorry, I meant the appeals court. Recent cases mentioned in Yodice's column in AOPA Pilot. To quote, we have "But the FAA appealed the NTSB's decision to the Court of Appeals, which held that the NTSB must defer to the FAA's interpretation" and "you can expect that the NTSB will be bound to defer to the FAA's interpretation of your conduct as a violation of the FAR, unless you are prepared to show the FAA's interpretation to be arbitrary, capricious, or illegal." This was added to the legal statutes in 1994. George Patterson Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to your slightly older self. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
Paul Folbrecht wrote:
Maybe, but I really doubt it unless my problem resulted in an accident or maybe a "deal" for the controller if I had to make a descent that they couldn't clear quickly enough. Even though I've flown in northeast winters for 28 years and tend to "take a look" even if icing is a possibility, I've only once ever gotten into anything I'd call trouble. Even then, I didn't need to declare, I just needed a block altitude clearance so I could descend until I could maintain altitude. Fortunately, I reached the equilibrium altitude prior to reaching ground elevation. :-) So what you're saying is that you're lucky to be alive. In that case, yes, luck played a role. But I was also starting out at a very high altitude (11,000', which was 2,000 feet above where any icing was forecast) and flying away from the icing conditions (Lake Erie) with a 60K tailwind, so I did have many things in my favor. Hitting ice that high certainly wasn't expected though or I would have deviated farther south of the Lake. Matt |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Flying through known or forecast icing
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Issues around de-ice on a 182 | Andrew Gideon | Piloting | 87 | September 27th 05 11:46 PM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Have you ever... | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 229 | May 6th 05 08:26 PM |
Known Icing requirements | Jeffrey Ross | Owning | 1 | November 20th 04 03:01 AM |
Wife agrees to go flying | Corky Scott | Piloting | 29 | October 2nd 03 06:55 PM |