Originally Posted by
R_Strowe
If Congress did not intend to require membership in a CBO, then why did they not state "in accordance with the programming" instead of "within the programming"?
That question would best be posed to Congress, no? Simple oversight? If they intended to require membership in a CBO, why did they not just state, "be a member of"?
Originally Posted by R_Strowe
If Congress did not mean to require membership in a CBO, why was footnote #7 placed in 112 H Rpt 381? (where these quotes came directly from)
To give an example of an organization that met their definition of a CBO that had an acceptable Safety code?
Originally Posted by R_Strowe
And if it makes you all happy, under the current FAA interpretation, the AMA, and Mr. Hanson, have falsely stated that membership is required.
Thank-You. Why did it take you so long to admit that? Mr. Hanson has stated that even AFTER the FAA clearly stated that membership was not required. Do yu think Mr. Hanson is stupid, or do you think he meant to force folks to join?
Originally Posted by R_Strowe
And if Mr. Hanson's intention was to force membership in the AMA, then that too is wrong and he should be immediately removed from his position, flogged, drawn and quartered, and then shot at dawn.
Are you admitting that was his intention or not? If not, what other explanation is there?
Originally Posted by R_Strowe
Happy?
I'm always happy!
Astro