Originally Posted by
speedracerntrixie
Franklin, all that does is back up my statement that Hanson misinterpreted what the FAA put out there. I have already conceded that. Hydro's claim ( and you have made the same claim as well ) was that Hanson attempted to force the FAA into making membership nessesary to be within the programming. So far you nor anyone else has presented a strong enough case for that to be factual. Like I said earlier, I understand where you are coming from but remove the bias and to this point in time there is not enough evidence to support your claim that Hanson tried to use the FAA in order to boost AMA membership. All it does is back up the desire to have Hanson replaced. It also backs up the policy to be tight lipped about their dealings with the FAA.
So you would have us believe that Hanson misinterpreted "
The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO..."?? Or --- Is it more likely that he was gaslighting to make people believe that membership was required?
To quote Richard Dawson ... "
And the survey says...!"
As for evidence, if you look at AMA membership revenue vs. timing of 336, it's abundantly evident why AMA pushed for the "...and within the programming..." language:
