Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
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.
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.
This is such a wonderful lawyer speak sentence. Absolutely no definitive yes or no, I love you guys.
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.
Warning: fftopic: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.
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?
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.
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:
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.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.
"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.Warning: fftopic:
If it's not my logbook, whose logbook is it?
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.
Mikey hasn't fired a Gatling gun in anger for a little too long, don't tempt him!
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.
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.
.
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...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.
...and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.Ah, but sometimes there just is no definitive yes or no.
And sometimes it doesn't matter whether there is one or not.