The AIM v. FAR

[leardvr]

Is the AIM regulatory? I've heard yes and no and am to lazy right now to look it up. Kind of inbarasing, I should know this (and how to spell).

 

[Buschpilot]

Negative good buddy.

Ref page 2 in the AIM (this page is unnumbered, by the way), 'Flight Information Publication Policy';

"D. This publication, while not regulatory, provides information......"

Cheers!

B

 

[ShawnC]

I was taught that the AIM and the various Advisory circular are recommended ways for a pilot to obey the FARs. They aren't regs, but following them will generally keep you on the right side of the regs.

 

[Rvrrat]

devious interrelationships

91.103 spells out the minimum information that must be obtained AFTER making the blanket commandment to become familiar with ALL available information pertaining to a flight.
The AIM, while not regulatory in nature is acknowledged to contain standard procedures.
Advisory Circulars "inform the aviation public in a systematic way of nonregulatory material. Unless incorporated into a regulation by reference, the contents of an advisory circular are not binding on the public." (AC 00-2)

Bottom line; treat them as though they were regulations even if they are technically not.

 

[501261]

DEFINATLY NOT! The AIM is only advise, only FAR's and and FAA legal interpretations are regulatory!

There are even some things in AIM and a few AC's that seem to go against the FAR's.

 

[boxcar]

"There are even some things in AIM and a few AC's that seem to go against the FAR's."

Would you list the FARs and AC/AIM sections you're referring to? I've always understood that the AIM and AC's were written primarily as plain language explanations of FAR requirements.

 

[501261]

Would you list the FARs and AC/AIM sections you're referring to? I've always understood that the AIM and AC's were written primarily as plain language explanations of FAR requirements.

I'd be happy to but I'm on the road so it's going to take me a few days to dig up the AC's, but there definatly are some (NOT that the AIM or AC's are wrong just not what the FAR's state).

As far as the AIM discrepencies are concerned, and I can't take credit for this, I think ASquared brought this up initially, but the AIM recommends entering the pattern on a 45 degree entry. A very common and accepted procedure, but how can you enter on the 45 and not be in violation of 91.126b which states you have to make ALL turns to the left (or right)?

Just something to thing about!

 

[Timebuilder]

A very common and accepted procedure, but how can you enter on the 45 and not be in violation of 91.126b which states you have to make ALL turns to the left (or right)?

If a student (or a flight review candidate) asked me this question, I would say that the turns are made to the left once one is established in the pattern, and that the 45 entry is a method which permits you to "see and avoid other aircraft".

In addition, we must become familiar with "all available information" regarding the flight, and the AIM provides a great deal of "information". Thus, we are directed to this information by regulation, which is extremely close to being regulatory in itself.

 

[bobbysamd]

AIM

The AIM may not be regulatory per se, but it is published by the FAA and is the FAA's preferred way of doing business. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, it is regulatory.

In other words, for example, enter a hold on an instrument checkride not as the AIM recommends and you risk a lot of grief, if not an outright bust, from your examiner. Fail to make one of the AIM-recommended reports, such as entering the hold, and risk a similar fate. You can argue to death with the examiner that the AIM is not regulatory, and still lose that argument.

 

[bigsky]

while I agree it may not be 100% regulatory it is probably the single best peice of aviation literature out there!

 

[501261]

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.

Fail to make one of the AIM-recommended reports, such as entering the hold, and risk a similar fate. You can argue to death with the examiner that the AIM is not regulatory, and still lose that argument.

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!