It doesn't bear on my argument at all; I wasn't proposing to draw any
conclusion about criminal law by analogy to civil law. I was simply
quoting
a US Supreme Court reference to the existence of an entrapment concept in
noncriminal law, directly contradicting your (unsupported) claim that
entrapment applies exclusively to criminal cases.

But you haven't shown where it *does* apply to enforcement action.

Patty was a professional license revocation based upon an act which
amounted to criminal conduct.

It was an administrative (noncriminal) case, and any putative criminal
status of the conduct was not essential to the reasoning by which the
entrapment defense was deemed applicable. For example, the decision
approvingly quoted the Florida Supreme Court "that '[i]t is contrary to
law
and public policy for an officer or member of an administrative board to
induce the commission of a wrong or a crime for the purpose of securing a
pretext to punish it.' (Peters v. Brown (Fla. 1951) 55 So.2d 334, 336.)".

Note the words "a wrong *or* a crime"; there is no restriction to criminal
offenses as opposed to other infractions. Nor would such a restriction be
germane to the decision's stated rationale for recognizing an entrapment
defense, namely, the erosion of public confidence in justice that would
ensue if authorities can induce the commission of infractions (by persons
not otherwise so inclined) and then prosecute those infractions.

Entrapment cases talk about the government's "overbearing of the will" of
the defendant, to the point where the defendant did not have the mens rea
to commit the offense.

That's one of several forms of entrapment (not the one that's relevant to
what we're discussing).

But go ahead, make that argument and tell us how it works out for you.

I've already offered to report back here if I ever get in trouble. But
meanwhile (since it's likely to be a *very* long wait), it would be
helpful
if you could cite even a single example, ever, of the FAA busting a pilot
for trusting a definition of a regulatory term (or any other information)
that the FAA has published in the AIM.

But you haven't shown where a pilot was exonerated in reliance upon a
regulatory term that differed from a position advanced by the FAA.

I've already shown here that, contrary to legend, appeals court rulings
require FAA interpretations to meet a standard of reasonableness that
would
overturn any such capriciousness; and even if not, the concept of
entrapment
would still be applicable.

No, you haven't, and no, it wouldn't. There is nothing but dicta talking
about reasonableness. Please cite one holding which mandates that the FAA's
position meet a standard of reasonableness. Please cite one holding which
establishes that reliance upon and AIM provision gives rise to an entrapment
defense if the FAA asserts an interpretation of an FAR to the contrary.

Those due-process safeguards, combined with the
absence of any precedent for busting a pilot for abiding by the AIM, make
it
difficult to see why anyone would take seriously the possibility that they
might become the first pilot in the history of aviation to be ensnared by
such a trap.

--Gary