AIM regulatory?

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
Was attending a course at Flight Safety at ICT last month, and the instructor was telling my class how the AIM is indeed regulatory due to this paragraph in the preface, and the bolded sentence specifically......even more specifically, the word "required":

Interesting, since another instructor later on in class said the AIM wasn't; which is always the school of thought I'd graduated from.

This manual is designed to provide the aviation community with basic flight information and ATC procedures for use in the National Airspace System (NAS) of the United States. An international version called the Aeronautical Information Publication contains parallel information, as well as specific information on the international airports for use by the international community.

This manual contains the fundamentals required in order to fly in the United States NAS. It also contains items of interest to pilots concerning health and medical facts, factors affecting flight safety, a pilot/controller glossary of terms used in the ATC System, and information on safety, accident, and hazard reporting.
 
I consider it instructions on how to follow the regulations.

Yeah, same here. Just was wondering if the Flight Safety folks knew something I didn't on that subject. You never know...
 
With the Fed's being able to throw down 91.13 on you for just about anything I try to follow it as closely as possible. Regulatory or not.
 
I have always found the "The AIM is not regulatory" argument an invitation to violation............... or collision.
 
What about the rest of that paragraph? If you use that sentence to say that the AIM is indeed regulatory, then how do you know what parts of it are merely "items of interest" or "factors affecting flight safety"?
 
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.
 
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...

I some how don't believe this.

I just recently saw the Fed's make up their own definitions on terms and basically said they would do whatever they want on a case by case basis.
 
The AIM has always been "advisory", and not "regulatory" by nature.

However, 91.13 has always been the FAA's "gotcha" on any regulatory issue that falls into a potential grey area. And AIM procedures, as I understand, have been used in evidence against the defendant in multiple NTSB court cases to support a 91.13 violation.

As far as I'm concerned, the AIM is regulatory, regardless of what official sources may say.
 
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.

I've seen it happen.
 
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.


:yeahthat: Regulatory or not, it's a good book to folow to help keep your but out of trouble.
 
:yeahthat: Regulatory or not, it's a good book to folow to help keep your but out of trouble.

I recently heard a Southernjets flight report "Leaving 350 for 270". (Korry arrival)

ZNYC: Why do you guys always say that?

Suthin' Jets: Say what?

ZNYC: Report out of an altitude.

Suthin' Jets: Because the AIM says so.

ZNYC: We don't care, and I already cleared you anyway. The AIM is not mandatory.

Suthin' Jets: The FAA thinks so.

ZNYC: I am the FAA.

Suthin' Jets: You really believe that?

_* Silence* two minutes, one missed check in.

ZNYC: Suthin' jets xxx, contact NY Approach 12x.xx...

Suthin' Jets: Switching, goodnight.

ME: Suthin' Jetsxxx leaving 330 for 270.

ZNYC: Suthin' Jetsxxx, New York Center, Roger.

;-)
 
Was attending a course at Flight Safety at ICT last month, and the instructor was telling my class how the AIM is indeed regulatory due to this paragraph in the preface, and the bolded sentence specifically......even more specifically, the word "required":

Interesting, since another instructor later on in class said the AIM wasn't; which is always the school of thought I'd graduated from.

Perhaps Mr. Babbitt would like to clarify.

We all know the supreme power of an administrative Law Judge.

My school of thought agrees with yours.
 
I tend to read that sentence much like, " Sound judgement is required for flying" Yet we all know how many morons there are flying around.
 
I've seen it happen.

Elaborate?

Edit:
Mike: I forgot to add, if you look at that line it is true. Read the next one after it as well, also true. The AIM explains certain regulations in which case they are required. It also explains various other aspects of the flight world, but if they are not linked to a regulation they are only advisory as stated above. Kind of the same application as an AC.
 
I have always found the "The AIM is not regulatory" argument an invitation to violation............... or collision.
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.

I think of the AIM as a combination of explanations of regulatory material, best practices and general information. The distinctions, especially between explanations of regulatory material and best practices, are often not particularly clear, sometimes not even legally.

IMO whether the AIM is regulatory or non-regulatory is a really fine point that has no practical significance and is probably, as you said, an invitation to a violation for a lot of folks.
 
IMO whether the AIM is regulatory or non-regulatory is a really fine point that has no practical significance and is probably, as you said, an invitation to a violation for a lot of folks.

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