501261
Consigliere
- Joined
- May 27, 2002
- Posts
- 829
Re: AIM
QUOTE]Originally posted by bobbysamd
In other words, for example, enter a hold on an instrument check ride not as the AIM recommends and you risk a lot of grief, if not an outright bust, from your examiner.[/QUOTE]
And the applicant SHOULD fail the check ride, but in a strictly "legal" sense all that is required is that you stay in the protected airspace. How you get there is "technically" irrelevant.
Look, the AIM is not regulatory and you can NOT be violated for going against the AIM! However, going against the AIM will get you "noticed." I have always maintained that I can find a VIOLATION on anybody (if I was a Fed), given enough time. So the real reason to follow the AIM is not to have a FED start asking questions, because once he starts asking he will eventually be able to find a violation if s/he was mean spirited enough.
And no, you can not be violated for going against the AIM (by itself, careless or reckless, etc. notwithstanding). A+B=C is NOT a violation of A (91.103+AIM= violation), the FAR's are screwed up, but you cannot be violated for something that is the not in the FAR's and the AIM is NOT a FAR!
This is getting to simply be a play on words, Regulatory vs. Advisory. Who cares? If you can’t take good advice, you’re probably too stupid to follow the rules and will be busted anyway!
QUOTE]Originally posted by bobbysamd
In other words, for example, enter a hold on an instrument check ride not as the AIM recommends and you risk a lot of grief, if not an outright bust, from your examiner.[/QUOTE]
And the applicant SHOULD fail the check ride, but in a strictly "legal" sense all that is required is that you stay in the protected airspace. How you get there is "technically" irrelevant.
This is covered by the FAR's, 91.183!
Look, the AIM is not regulatory and you can NOT be violated for going against the AIM! However, going against the AIM will get you "noticed." I have always maintained that I can find a VIOLATION on anybody (if I was a Fed), given enough time. So the real reason to follow the AIM is not to have a FED start asking questions, because once he starts asking he will eventually be able to find a violation if s/he was mean spirited enough.
And no, you can not be violated for going against the AIM (by itself, careless or reckless, etc. notwithstanding). A+B=C is NOT a violation of A (91.103+AIM= violation), the FAR's are screwed up, but you cannot be violated for something that is the not in the FAR's and the AIM is NOT a FAR!
This is getting to simply be a play on words, Regulatory vs. Advisory. Who cares? If you can’t take good advice, you’re probably too stupid to follow the rules and will be busted anyway!
