Flying through known or forecast icing

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

I think of the AIM as a layman's "interpretation" of the FAR's.

Sure, that's one way to think of it. But it's something else too: it's
also
official guidance from the FAA as to what the FARs mean. And that has to
figure into a court's appraisal of whether some proposed FAA
interpretation
of the FARs meets the standard of reasonableness.

I don't think of the AIM as either a layman's
"interpretation" of the FAR's or "official guidance from the
FAA as to what the FARs mean." Interpretations and official
guidance as to what the FAA thinks regulations mean come
from the FAA's Chief Counsel's Office.

Yes, that's another source. But (for example) when the AIM defines terms
that are used in the FARs but not defined in the FARs, then it's offering
pilots guidance as to what the FARs mean.

Moreover, I don't
think of any certificated pilot as a 'layman," there's way
too much training, study and testing for that label to apply
to pilots.

I took Matt to mean that we're laypersons with regard to matters of law.

--Gary