What's the latest on "forecast icing = known icing"

Entrapment is a concept applicable only to criminal prosecutions. It does
not apply to enforcement actions. You do not have a right to counsel, a
right against self-incrimination, or other rights associated with criminal
prosecutions in enforcement actions.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
The point is here FAA counsel gets to tell the ALJ what is legal and what
is illegal, and usually it is the other way around.

Your original point was much stronger, and turns out to be incorrect:
contrary to your assertion, FAA v. Merrell does not require absolute
deference to FAA interpretations, but rather requires holds FAA
interpretations to a standard of reasonableness, as I had claimed to begin
with.

I don't think you have any idea how the system works. The FAA is going to
charge you with careless and reckless in addition to the regs pertaining
to known ice.

I addressed this point earlier in the thread. If you have a reply to what
I already argued, please post it and I'll be glad to respond.

They're going to argue longstanding precedent, and you're going to argue
that precedent is not on point *because a non-regulatory administrative
manual* had a definition changed.

Not changed, added. There was no previous written definition. In FAA v.
Merrell, the appeals court addresses the significance of "written
guidance" (or the lack thereof) from the FAA about interpreting the regs;
the court does not limit its discussion to guidance contained in the regs
themselves.

The ALJ, and the NTSB on appeal, are bound to accept the interpretation
of the FARs which is advanced by the Administrator, unless the
interpretation is arbitrary and capricious.

Yes; again, that's exactly what I've been saying: the interpretation can
be overturned if it's blatantly unreasonable (arbitrary, capricious, or
otherwise illegal).

I don't know that I've seen many cases on the "arbitrary or capricious"
standard as it would be applied to an interpretation of law.

Then on what basis do you dispute the commonsense claim that it would be
arbitrary and capricious for the FAA to tell pilots, in its main advisory
publication for pilots, that a given regulatory term is correctly
interpreted a certain way, and then to turn around and argue in an
enforcement action that that's the wrong interpretation? (And why wouldn't
it constitute entrapment for the government to publish a manual that
persuades a pilot to commit an infraction, and then bust him for it?)

--Gary