AIM regulatory?

[Bandit_Driver]

From my understanding, and I have no legal document to source from, is that the FARs are regulatory and the AIM is like a "How to be a good neighbor" pamphlet.

You beat me to it Doug...That is how I think of it too.

 

[Douglas]

Hey, while we are at it we can again debate:

-FBO vs ATP
-PFT
-CFI vs non-CFI jobs!

Just playing Mike. Just had to throw it back once. Just once.
------

In my book, it says somewhere in the front pages, "If we want to get you, we can probably find something somewhere and the AIM could possible be in part of our tool bag."
Luckily I really don't think inspectors care to bust people. I think they do their job and if you kill somebody or nearly kill somebody, they will probably find everything they have to come after you.

Other than that, I don't care about the idea.

 

[tgrayson]

This is such a wonderful lawyer speak sentence. Absolutely no definitive yes or no, I love you guys.

That is actually a mark of sophistication, rather than evasiveness. The more knowledgeable the person, the less likely he is to provide definitive answers. He realizes that definitions are sometimes arbitrary and often fail to capture the nuances of the real world. He also knows that truth is contingent on the intended use of the knowledge, which is why he often asks "Why do you want to know?"

Those who seek rigid yes/no answers are typically new to a field of knowledge and are lacking either the time or interest to learn the subject deeply. They want to memorize an answer and return to their lives. Sometimes they'll be given one, but the answer will fail to explain reality on a reliable basis because the assumptions underlying the answer don't always hold. Some people will realize the problem and seek greater knowledge, but others will insist their answers are absolutely correct and ignore all evidence to the contrary. I'm sure you know people who fall into both categories.

 

[MikeD]

Hey, while we are at it we can again debate:

-FBO vs ATP
-PFT
-CFI vs non-CFI jobs!

Just playing Mike. Just had to throw it back once. Just once.
------

In my book, it says somewhere in the front pages, "If we want to get you, we can probably find something somewhere and the AIM could possible be in part of our tool bag."
Luckily I really don't think inspectors care to bust people. I think they do their job and if you kill somebody or nearly kill somebody, they will probably find everything they have to come after you.

Other than that, I don't care about the idea.

LOL. Nah, I was just passing along that even at some of the high dollar flight schools, debates like these seem to exist too.

 

[Joe Gremlin]

I don't use it here, but on some other forums, my signature block contains the following:

Aviation Regulation Fallacies and Half-Truths

1. The AIM is not regulatory.
2. A Safety Pilot is only a lookout.
3. The Pilot In Command is the only person with responsibility for the safety of a flight.
4. It's your logbook.

Warning: fftopic:

If it's not my logbook, whose logbook is it?

 

[Holocene]

My avlaw professor, our on site lawyer, and various other staff members at Daniel Webster all said it was not regulatory. Think of it this way, if you enter a pattern at an uncontrolled field outside the bounds of the AIM without incident can you be violated?

I actually did that on my private checkride. Still passed.

 

[derg]

Hey, while we are at it we can again debate:

-FBO vs ATP
-PFT
-CFI vs non-CFI jobs!

Just playing Mike. Just had to throw it back once. Just once.

Mikey hasn't fired a Gatling gun in anger for a little too long, don't tempt him!

 

[cefiro]

I have always understood the AIM to be good practice, but not regulatory

 

[ClearedToThe]

Here is my argument to all those that say the AIM is not "regulatory"...

"Where does it say you have to stop at a hold short line in the FARs?"

Answer: NOWHERE! Only the AIM states this.

Good luck defending yourself on crossing a hold short line without a clearance by saying "well it's in the AIM, not the FARs".... :bandit:

 

[mshunter]

Here is my argument to all those that say the AIM is not "regulatory"...

"Where does it say you have to stop at a hold short line in the FARs?"

Answer: NOWHERE! Only the AIM states this.

Good luck defending yourself on crossing a hold short line without a clearance by saying "well it's in the AIM, not the FARs".... :bandit:

Well, kinda right. Now, there is no explecite reg that talks about the hold short lines, there is this.........

91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

And seeing that while approaching the hold ahort lines at a controled airport, you are under control, I guess thats the reg you'd be violated with. Along with 91.13. So technically, it is in the FAR's. Just not worded the way you'd like it to be. The only out you would have is if they told you to "Taxi to runway 12" and left out "hold short."


Edit: I hate being the regulation Nazi.

 

[Ngrossman]

Just to throw a curveball in here, one of my professors told me that while the FARS may be regulatory, they cannot be used in an administrative court of law. The only thing apparently admissible is the final rule upon the subject. So following that line of thought is it possible that we should just get the final rules on all aviation related things in the CFR's and use those as the regulations. Or do i have this all mixed up cause it seems to me like we as an industry are screwed if we do or if we dont

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Just to throw a curveball in here, one of my professors told me that while the FARS may be regulatory, they cannot be used in an administrative court of law.

You misunderstood your professor (I'm assuming that someone teaching this understands it). "FAR" means "Federal Aviation Regulations" a term that refers to the regulations located in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The "FAR" =is= the final rules.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Warning: fftopic:

If it's not my logbook, whose logbook is it?

"It's your logbook" is often used by folks saying that you can write anything you want in there. Pilots have had their certificates revoked under 61.59 for doing exactly that.

It's your logbook the way that the financial books and records of a business are the business' - also an official government-required collection of information subject to production, scrutiny and verification.

 

[Lee D]

My avlaw professor, our on site lawyer, and various other staff members at Daniel Webster all said it was not regulatory. Think of it this way, if you enter a pattern at an uncontrolled field outside the bounds of the AIM without incident can you be violated? No, you cannot and you won't ever read someone being violated for that. However, if you get in an accident and happen to live there might be some repercussions in 91.13 as mentioned above, questionable though it may be.

Very long story made short . . . .Not long ago we had problems with this very thing and the FAA DID get involved. Some bozo on the ground at an uncontrolled field would freak out when our pattern entries were not exactly as perscribed by the AIM. This included correcting the crews on CTAF when they did not follow the procedures exactly. (Mr. Bozo did not have the big picture in mind as In each case what was done pattern entry-wise was done to further avoid high terrain during night time conditions or for other safety reasons.) He got the FAA involed and while no violations occured, investigations did. What followed was a lot of legal stink and headaches before everything was happily resolved. This guy really needed a girlfriend or something better to do with his free time.

Sooooo my point is we can argue if the AIM is regulatory or not, but not sticking with it can cause you unnecessary drama. Following it when you can is a darn good idea as it will keep you out of trouble and off the radar in most cases.

 

[Lee D]

Mikey hasn't fired a Gatling gun in anger for a little too long, don't tempt him!

I'd just be happy to fire a Gatling gun in "happy!"

I'm thinking firing a Gatling gun would make most angry men happy anyways. Its a win, win kind of thing. (Except for the guy on the business end of the gun.)

 

[shdw]

Sooooo my point is we can argue if the AIM is regulatory or not, but sticking with it is a darn good idea as it will keep you out of trouble and off the radar in most cases.

Just to avoid confusion here, I never meant to not follow the aim, in fact I follow it religiously, as well as teach to follow it. That being said, I realize it isn't regulatory and consists of recommendations that work most (more than 99%) of the time.


Tgray: Interesting follow up before, I was just joking with him of course, but I like the information anyways. Surprisingly, it makes sense, whoda thunked it.

 

[Lee D]

Just to avoid confusion here, I never meant to not follow the aim, in fact I follow it religiously, as well as teach to follow it. That being said, I realize it isn't regulatory and consists of recommendations that work most (more than 99%) of the time.


Tgray: Interesting follow up before, I was just joking with him of course, but I like the information anyways. Surprisingly, it makes sense, whoda thunked it.

Don't worry I didn't take your comments to be rebellious toward the AIM or regs.

 

[MikeD]

Very long story made short . . . .Not long ago we had problems with this very thing and the FAA DID get involved. Some bozo on the ground at an uncontrolled field would freak out when our pattern entries were not exactly as perscribed by the AIM. This included correcting the crews on CTAF when they did not follow the procedures exactly. (Mr. Bozo did not have the big picture in mind as In each case what was done pattern entry-wise was done to further avoid high terrain during night time conditions or for other safety reasons.) He got the FAA involed and while no violations occured, investigations did. What followed was a lot of legal stink and headaches before everything was happily resolved. This guy really needed a girlfriend or something better to do with his free time.

.

or he needed an ass-kicking down the ramp.....

 

[minitour]

Some bozo on the ground at an uncontrolled field would freak out when our pattern entries were not exactly as perscribed by the AIM. This included correcting the crews on CTAF when they did not follow the procedures exactly.

That happened to me last year once. I was coming straight in for the runway at 8 or 9k...descending at idle...in a caravan. No problem at all, right? Well...

So I make my call. Bozo comes on and says "there are no straight in approaches at this airport, you have to enter the downwind" over the radio (for noise).

Yeah. That's what I want to do. Come in right over a mountain in a single when I could come straight in over the city at 8,000', come up the river on a straight in final, descend at idle and no one will ever hear me.

Some people don't get it. Nothing you can do about it.

-mini

 

[nosehair]

Ah, but sometimes there just is no definitive yes or no.

And sometimes it doesn't matter whether there is one or not.

...and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.