Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
impinge on Congress’s goal of ensuring ‘a single, uniform system for regulating aviation safety.’ ” (citation omitted)). To allow a patchwork of state law and industry regulations for pilot hiring and training would strip bare Congress’s intent in passing the FAA. The state law and industry customs Plaintiff seeks to impose clearly enter the scope of the preempted field of pilot hiring and training standards, and, as such, are preempted by federal law. See Goodspeed Airport, 634 F.3d at 210; see, e.g., Ventress, 747 F.3d at 721-22 (“Our review of the applicable FARs confirms that pilot qualifications and medical standards for airmen ... are pervasively regulated.... [W]e conclude that the FAA and accompanying FARs preempt [the plaintiffs state law] claims.”); French, 869 F.2d at 4 ; In re Air Crash I, 798 F.Supp.2d at 485-86;
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an argument not raised before the bankruptcy court will not be considered for the first time on appeal
B. holding that faas pervasive pilot medical standards preempted wrongfuldischarge claims that required determination of a pilots medical fitness to fly
C. holding that when a court of appeals has jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal the scope of appellate review is not limited to the precise question certified by the district court because the district courts order not the certified question is brought before the court
D. holding that a fraud class action cannot be certified when individual reliance will be an issue
E. holding that the faa and fars afford  no room for the imposition of statelaw criteria visavis pilot suitability for the medical standards which an airline pilot must meet before he will be certified
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.