AIM is pseudo-regulatory

In another thread ("Radio Procedure - Runway ID," which is now pretty
much a stale thread), some of us debated whether the AIM is regulatory.
I indicated that an article appearing in IFR magazine in the early 90s
that was authored by an attorney indicated that the AIM has become
pseudo-regulatory.

One of this newsgroup's more vocal (and sometimes controversial)
contributors asked for case citations in response to a contribution by
someone else. The following cases appear to indicate that violating
the AIM is sufficient to establish that the pilot breached his duty of
reasonable care, and thus operated his airplane negligently:

Management Activities, Inc. v. United States, 21 F.Supp.2d at 1175;
Dyer v. United States, 832 F.2d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir.1987);
First of America Bank-Cent v. United States, 639 F.Supp. at 453;
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. United States, 462 F.Supp. 674; and

Thinguldstad v. United States, 343 F.Supp. 551, 552-53 (S.D.Ohio 1972).


Like most older court cases, they are not easily available online, at
least for free. You can find them on www.westlaw.com,
www.lexisnexis.com for a fee, or perhaps at your nearest publicly
accessible law library. You could also request your attorney to
provide a copy.