Check this out...especially the last paragraph. It is the Introduction to
the AIM:

"The following is in essence, the statement issued by the FAA Administrator
and published in the December 10, 1964, issue of the Federal Register,
concerning the FAA policy as pertaining to the type of information that will
be published as NOTAMs and in the Aeronautical Information Manual.
a. It is a pilot's inherent responsibility to be alert at all times for and
in anticipation of all circumstances, situations, and conditions affecting
the safe operation of the aircraft. For example, a pilot should expect to
find air traffic at any time or place. At or near both civil and military
airports and in the vicinity of known training areas, a pilot should expect
concentrated air traffic and realize concentrations of air traffic are not
limited to these places.
b. It is the general practice of the agency to advertise by NOTAM or other
flight information publications such information it may deem appropriate;
information which the agency may from time to time make available to pilots
is solely for the purpose of assisting them in executing their regulatory
responsibilities. Such information serves the aviation community as a whole
and not pilots individually.
c. The fact that the agency under one particular situation or another may or
may not furnish information does not serve as a precedent of the agency's
responsibility to the aviation community; neither does it give assurance
that other information of the same or similar nature will be advertised,
nor, does it guarantee that any and all information known to the agency will
be advertised.
d. 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. It is made
available solely to assist pilots in executing their responsibilities
required by other publications.
Consistent with the foregoing, it shall be the policy of the Federal
Aviation Administration to furnish information only when, in the opinion of
the agency, a unique situation should be advertised and not to furnish
routine information such as concentrations of air traffic, either civil or
military.

The Aeronautical Information Manual will not contain informative items
concerning everyday circumstances that pilots should, either by good
practices or regulation, expect to encounter or avoid."

I subscribe to the Summit Aviation CD-ROM that contains just about every
piece of paper issued by the FAA, regularly updated, and as I look at the
list of changes to the AIM I do not find 7-1-22 (used to be 7-1-23) listed
anywhere. Admittedly, there is a lag between when the FAA does something and
when Summit publishes it.

Bob Gardner


Bob Gardner


"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
. ..
I still think you are reading something into the AIM that isn't there, even
if the AIM could be used as a defense in a certificate action. Judges seem
to like precedents, however old, and IMHO would lean toward their fellow
judges rather than toward the anonymous writers of the AIM.

Bob

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
The latest on known icing is a 2004 case...

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...05/pc0508.html

In all my years of lecturing on icing and attending FAA icing
conferences I have never heard anyone, FAA or NWS, put forward the
argument that you espouse. It is bogus.

I said something original, therefore it must be bogus?

Bob, the AIM definitions that my due-process argument depends on are very
recent (2005), so *of course* you haven't heard my argument in all your
prior years of lecturing. It wasn't applicable then.

Every precedent cited in the AOPA article you point to above also
precedes the new AIM definitions, so the due-process argument I raised is
simply not addressed in those cases. (And the article itself was
obviously based on older versions of the AIM, because the article says
that "the FAA offers very little guidance" as to the meaning of "known
icing conditions"--which was true of previous versions of the AIM, but no
longer.)

Even before the 2004 case

The 2004 case cited in the AOPA article is doubly irrelevant to my
argument, because 1) it precedes the new AIM definitions; and 2) in the
2004 case, the NTSB found that the flight instructor continued to fly
(despite an opportunity to land) even after observing ice on the
aircraft; that observation establishes "known icing" under *both* the new
and old definitions.

it was well established by the NTSB (Administrator vs Bowen) that
forecast conditions of moisture plus below-freezing temps constitute
known icing.

Again, you are citing cases that long precede the new AIM definitions, so
of course those cases do not address my due-process argument, which
depends on the FAA's publication of those definitions.

You are late to the party, Gary.

No, I'm just keeping abreast of recent developments, rather than assuming
incorrectly that nothing has changed.

Regards,
Gary

Bob Gardner

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Peter" wrote in message
...

I apologise in advance as this is a topic done to death in the past,
but I have heard various bits of info on this recently, some quoting
FAA or NTSB rulings etc, and others disputing that they are relevant
because there have been more recent events including a clarification
in the AIM.

I am in Europe but this is potentially relevant to me because I fly an
N-reg aircraft (not certified for any icing conditions).

What is the latest situation on this from the USA?

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

"Forecast Icing Conditions: Environmental conditions expected by a
National Weather Service or an FAA-approved weather provider to be
conducive to the formation of inflight icing on aircraft. "

"Known Icing Conditions: Atmospheric conditions in which the formation
of ice is observed or detected in flight."

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0701.html#7-1-23

--Gary