"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
But as of 2005, the FAA *has* published an explicit definition of the
term, and has done so in the AIM, a publication that is intended in part
to explain and clarify to pilots some details of the regulations (even
though the AIM's contents do not themselves *constitute* regulations).

... and thus do not constitute legal definitions either.

It's a definition that has legal ramifications, for the two reasons I gave
in my previous post.

Let's ask a different question. Suppose it comes to the FAA's attention
that a pilot flew undeiced into conditions which no longer constitute
"known icing" under the new AIM definition (but once did), and the FAA
decided to pursue legal action against the pilot on the basis of their old
definition and case law. Since the FAA gets to interpret the rules their
way, suppose the FAA even wins the case. What recourse does the AIM give
the pilot, which would be recognized by appropriate judicial people to get
the pilot off the hook?

You're asking what the basis for appeal would be if the FAA were to bust a
pilot for using the definition that the AIM told him to use?

That's precisely the question I already answered; I argued for two such
bases.

The first has to do with the interpretation of the FARs. Appeals courts have
granted the FAA wide latitude in saying what the regulations mean--but not
*absolute* latitude. The FAA's interpretation still has to pass a basic
"reasonableness" test. Would an ordinary person consider it *reasonable* for
the FAA to explicitly tell pilots, in its main advisory publication, to
interpret a regulatory term in a certain way, and then argue during an
enforcement action that that's the *wrong* way to interpret the term? I
don't see how anyone could argue that that would be reasonable.

The second basis for appeal is the entrapment argument. I've already
mentioned it a couple of times and no one has pointed out any flaw in it, so
I won't repeat it again.

They have prosecuted pilots for abiding by the FARs, why not the AIM. The
case I refer to (iirc) involved a pilot who took off from an uncontrolled
field in uncontrolled airspace; after making his own determination that it
would be safe, he took off IFR and was busted as "careless or reckless".

Being busted for careless or reckless flight is not being busted for abiding
by the FARs. Perhaps the ruling you vaguely recall was indeed unreasonable,
or perhaps the pilot was really being reckless on that occasion. We'd need a
lot more information to discuss it seriously (but it still wouldn't bear on
the current question).

--Gary