Re: FAR 91.157 Operating in icing conditions

"Teacherjh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> At the very least, the law that says "I will not do stupid things with
> airplanes". The FARs word it thusly:
>
> "91.13 (a)  Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No
person
> may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger
the
> life or property of another."
>

Those are not equivalent statements.  I am free to do something stupid with
airplanes as long as the only life or property endangered belongs to me.
That's the part of FAR 91.13 that is widely misunderstood.


>
> You seem to be under the misconception that the laws are limited to
statute.
> They are not.  Further, the laws are subject to "interpretation", and you
don't
> get to do the interpreting.  The FAA does.
>

Actually, the FARs mean what they say.  Unfortunately, there are many in the
FAA whose understanding of them is no better than yours and thus they are
commonly "misinterpreted".


>
> Avweb has an article at
> http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184265-1.html
> that provides background and citiations of actual decisions that were made
that
> cemented this policy in place.
>
> It goes on to say how the FAA and NTSB are not always in agreement, and
the
> NTSB can overrule the FAA in some cases.  There's a lot of case law which
you
> can review.  It is there that the "regulations" will be found - as
precedent
> that the FAA can choose from when they investigate an event.
>
> If this doesn't satisfy you, ask the FAA directly by calling the FSDO.
Get it
> in writing, post it here, and then take a guess as to how well that will
stand
> up should there be an incident.
>

No need for any of that, my only purpose was to show that you didn't know
what you were talking about.  That you claim a law exists that you cannot
cite accomplishes that.