IO540
I thought that's what you were referring to.
What Martin said and Pat wrote was quoting a written reply from the FAA Head Office in Oklohoma City to questions put to them by AOPA UK.
Tom Hughston and his supporters objected vehemently to what was said but did not furnish any reference to support their claim that what we had reported was wrong, such as a reference to an FAA document. You'll notice that Tom's post does not provide any such reference. If FAA Head Office says X is true and Tom says it is not then without any supporting evidence what should we do?
As I indicated in my earlier post it was subsequently found out that the information furnished by FAA Head Offiice was incorrect. I'm not about to go through the whole thing again but I personally researched the issue and discovered that although the Oklohoma City letter and the FAA's own website stated that you had to appear in person at a FSDO and that was the only way to do it There was indeed a way to do it through someone such as Tom, working out of the New York Field Office. The FAA documentation indicating this was not provided to us by FAA, Tom, or any of his supporters, I personally dug it out by diligent research. There was a certain amount of correspndence about this at the time on the then AOPA Forum and I published the results of my research on there.
This was certainly not a case of AOPA campaigning against anyone, it was straightforward reportage of answers to questions put to the FAA.
Tom suggests that AOPA were peddling misinformation regarding N Reg and said in the post you quote "The CAA and the DFT are not cracking down on N reg and GA". Presumably you believe the concerns raised in
this post do not indicate that AOPA's warnings were well founded?