"Known ice" new legal interpretation
- Thread starter jrh
- Start date
braunpilot
What day is it?
Just more circular thinking. The only thing that I see of note is the revision of the AIM. It sounds to me like they are differing to the AIM. They are placing all their eggs in the AIM.
But wouldn't that make the AIM a regulatory document instead of an INFORMATIONAL manual?
At least they decided to take a look at it. That is better than what they were doing.
:banghead:
But wouldn't that make the AIM a regulatory document instead of an INFORMATIONAL manual?
At least they decided to take a look at it. That is better than what they were doing.
:banghead:
jynxyjoe
Queso King
They can and do bust pilots for not observing the AIM. Reasoning goes something like this, "well you're reckless and dangerous if you don't do what the AIM says".
EDIT: I think I'm proving your point, AIM might as well be treated as a regulatory document
braunpilot
What day is it?
Yeah, I agree. Had an FAA Inspector on my CFI checkride tell me that you can do 360's on the end of the runway as long as the turns are in the proper direction. But you turn right instead of the left and they can bust you for not following proper FAR. Go figure. I am not saying that pilot's should not follow it but it seems that this is another way for the FAA to go around the NRPM process and edit the rules every few months instead of years. Something just doesn't seem to add up yet.
I talked with another CFI and they thought the best part of the letter was the information about the Area Forecast is too broad. I agree, you? Nice to see that they want us to get all the information, what about when Lockmart fails...again.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
"The AIM is not regulatory" is one of the great fallacies or half-truths about aviation law.
Minnesota_Flyer
New Member
braunpilot
What day is it?
Maybe I didn't make that clear and I apologize. Yes the directions of turns in the pattern IS regulatory and the FAA can and will, if they so choose, do an enforcement action against you. I agree.
He was just commenting that, if it's left turns, make left 360's all day long in the pattern and not be in violation of the law.
Must be tired and not thinking clearly...sorry.
Minnesota_Flyer
New Member
No worries. I probably read your post too quickly. I have run into people before who think that the direction of turns thing is AIM and "non-regulatory" so they can do whatever they want. And I feel I must disabuse such people of their notions.
ClearedToThe
Well-Known Member
Correct me if I'm wrong...but I believe the only place you will see it written that you must get clearance to cross a hold short line is in the AIM as well.
This is the argument I use for anyone that uses the lame excuse that the AIM "technically" isn't regulatory Oh yeah? Where in the FARs does it say you must stop at a hold short line? :buck:
This is the argument I use for anyone that uses the lame excuse that the AIM "technically" isn't regulatory Oh yeah? Where in the FARs does it say you must stop at a hold short line? :buck:
deadstick
Well-Known Member
This reminds me of the ruling on reading back clearances/instructions to ATC (if you read it back incorrectly, the controller does not have to correct you). This seems to take Lockheed-Martin off the hook for weather briefings.
The running joke has been "Weathermen are the only people who can be wrong 70% of the time and still keep their jobs." Well, heck, if they can't get it right, how are we? Those folks spend years studying JUST the raw data and how to draw conclusions from it.
Lawyers....just making the laws vague enough so you can hang yourself.
The running joke has been "Weathermen are the only people who can be wrong 70% of the time and still keep their jobs." Well, heck, if they can't get it right, how are we? Those folks spend years studying JUST the raw data and how to draw conclusions from it.
Lawyers....just making the laws vague enough so you can hang yourself.
OldTownPilot
Well-Known Member
This doesn't seem to be much different than the LOI that rescinded that whack jobs letter that said if its below freezing and in a cloud its known icing.
Basically if you #### up we will violate you, if not, we don't give a crap.
Basically if you #### up we will violate you, if not, we don't give a crap.
LatitudeDancer
Well-Known Member
Reminds me of what I heard a chief instructor say this summer to a CFI class...something like "the FARs are for obtaining a license/rating and the AIM is for loosing it."
Well...since you asked for it:
91.129 (i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at any airport with an operating control tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or taxiway, or take off or land an aircraft, unless an appropriate clearance is received from ATC.
Now, maybe the AIM is where it gives you the guidance that the hold-short lines are where the runway technically begins, but it's pretty clearly spelled out in the FARs.
It is cathartically comfortable to discuss whether the AIM is / is not part of the FARs. . . what do you think about the interpretation regarding "known icing conditions"?
Translated to more human language the way I understand the interpretation is:
1. If there is known ice (e.g. pireps), then known icing conditions exist.
2. If visible moisture and below freezing temps exist, this is "known icing conditions", but you can still fly there without getting violated if you have an exit strategy (there are plenty of exit strategies, e.g. a sufficiently high ceiling to be able to descend below the ice, gaps between the clouds, etc.)
3. You can also fly into known icing conditions if your POH says the anti / de-icing systems can handle the ice.
I actually think the interpretation is reasonable. . . I'm a bit shocked at being able to agree with the FAA
Translated to more human language the way I understand the interpretation is:
1. If there is known ice (e.g. pireps), then known icing conditions exist.
2. If visible moisture and below freezing temps exist, this is "known icing conditions", but you can still fly there without getting violated if you have an exit strategy (there are plenty of exit strategies, e.g. a sufficiently high ceiling to be able to descend below the ice, gaps between the clouds, etc.)
3. You can also fly into known icing conditions if your POH says the anti / de-icing systems can handle the ice.
I actually think the interpretation is reasonable. . . I'm a bit shocked at being able to agree with the FAA
Fly_Unity
Well-Known Member
It is cathartically comfortable to discuss whether the AIM is / is not part of the FARs. . . what do you think about the interpretation regarding "known icing conditions"?
Translated to more human language the way I understand the interpretation is:
1. If there is known ice (e.g. pireps), then known icing conditions exist.
2. If visible moisture and below freezing temps exist, this is "known icing conditions", but you can still fly there without getting violated if you have an exit strategy (there are plenty of exit strategies, e.g. a sufficiently high ceiling to be able to descend below the ice, gaps between the clouds, etc.)
3. You can also fly into known icing conditions if your POH says the anti / de-icing systems can handle the ice.
I actually think the interpretation is reasonable. . . I'm a bit shocked at being able to agree with the FAA
Im glad this finally came out! For example you can do a flight to a close by airport if both stations are reporting overcast 8000, as long as your below the layer and have an exit plan in case your get in it, but you dont have to cancel the flight if there is an Airmet for icing from the sfc upwards. Just better common sense
