It seems that FAA legal interpretations are often cited as definitive evidence that something is legal or illegal. In the case of using them to show that something is legal, that makes sense, but I don't get how they can prove something is illegal. Wouldn't ant enforcement be an adversarial court case such as FAA v. Pilot? Isn't there a chance the court could rule that the FAA is wrong and whatever the pilot did is actually legal?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
0
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
When a pilot disagrees with a FAA enforcement action, they bring their case to the NTSB administrative law judges to decide which party is correct. You can read about these cases here.
https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/Pages/ONOQuery.aspx
Yes. The FAA has lost some of these cases.
