Originally Posted by cj_rumley

Here, from AMA blog, is how AMA defines it, or interprets the intention of Congress in PL 112-95:


AMA's legal quarrel with FAA centers on the assertion that the intent of Congress was unambiguous, and so FAA had no right to interpret it. The discussion here blows a big hole in that argument. Ironic that folks most opposed to the FAA interpretation have provided ample evidence demonstrating that the terminology used by Congress is ambiguous as to their intent as FAA will respond, isn't it?

cj