Originally Posted by astrohog

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"?

Because the legislation is written in typical Washington legalese. I'm of the opinion that that is in fact what it says, but obviously your opinion is different than mine.


To give an example of an organization that met their definition of a CBO that had an acceptable Safety code?

Then why state "like the AMA"?, which opens the door to other players in the field. It also lends credibility to the CBO requirement argument.



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?

Because I was on a flight to Guam to get to work, and didn't have internet? Just kidding. I have never disagreed that Hanson was innocent, but I find it hard to believe that he would have made such statements to a national magazine like The Hill without having his op-ed vetted by AMA's legal department.



Are you admitting that was his intention or not? If not, what other explanation is there?

I honestly do not know what was in the man's mind. You and others believe that he was doing this for nefarious purposes. Others (like myself) have believed that he and the AMA saw the writing on the wall and did this because they knew that bigger numbers equal more influence, especially when it comes to government agencies. I will admit that you all may be correct, but the other explanation is also valid. It comes down to a "glass half empty/glass half full" way of thinking.


I'm always happy!

Excellent! I am as well. Getting ready to go to Captain upgrade in 1 month, never thought I'd finish my career as a wide-body Captain, life just keeps getting better!


Astro