Aircraft Maintenance: New FAA interpretation could devastate GA

To understand the significance of the FAA’s action, it’s important to understand how maintenance supervision has worked for decades. The model for aircraft maintenance quality and safety is based on two separate processes: performing maintenance and approving the work for return to service.

Performing maintenance

A person working under the supervision of a holder of a mechanic or repairman certificate may perform the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations that his supervisor is authorized to perform, if the supervisor personally observes the work being done to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly and if the supervisor is readily available, in person, for consultation.

The most important phrase in the regulation is “to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly.” In practice, certificated A&P mechanics supervise staff, trainees, and aircraft owners in their shop, teaching them how to do various tasks and using their judgment to determine when they need to assist, directly supervise, or simply give instructions and come back to inspect the results of the work. The supervisor’s discretion about when and how to personally supervise the work is critical because every task is different with regard to complexity and risk. For example, an oil change is a very low-risk operation that may require no observation of the work done until it is complete. In contrast, installing a cylinder might require direct observation every step of the way. In addition to the complexity of the various maintenance tasks, the experience of the individual is equally important. A brand-new trainee requires a completely different level of supervision than someone who has worked in the shop for years and is already qualified to take the test to become an A&P in their own right.

Approving the work

Although the regulations allow for uncertificated people to perform supervised maintenance, it is vitally important to point out that only the holder of a mechanic or repairman certificate may approve the work and return the aircraft or component to service. This is the catch-all that ensures safety in our industry. Only the supervising mechanic can make the logbook entry, and it is that individual’s certificate and liability on the line. Therefore, it is in the supervising mechanic’s interest to inspect the work and verify that everything was done properly and is truly airworthy before attesting to it in writing.

The Moss interpretation

FAA regulations under 14 CFR are the rules that those who operate under FAA jurisdiction must follow, or risk facing violation or prosecution. However, in cases where a particular regulation may be ambiguous, a request for interpretation may be made to the FAA chief counsel. The response, in the form of a letter or memo, becomes the agency’s legal position that FAA staff will follow. This means that enforcement actions against individuals and businesses will be based on both the text in applicable regulations, and any relevant legal opinions or interpretations made by FAA attorneys.

The Moss interpretation began on July 8, 2022, when Jonathan Moss, manager of the Little Rock Flight Standards District Office, requested an interpretation of 14 CFR §43.3(d), essentially asking if a supervisor must be physically present at the site of the maintenance, or if he may supervise remotely, through Zoom, FaceTime, live feed TV, photographs, downloadable video, or other electronic means.

It took over two years for the FAA to respond with an interpretation, and as is often the risk with asking for an interpretation, the response went much further than a yes/no answer to the question being asked. Included in the three-page Moss interpretation were two essential elements.

The first addressed the concept of remote, video supervision:

The Office of the Chief Counsel finds that the phrase “in person” explicitly requires physical presence. Virtual presence, through a live video feed or other technological means, cannot replace the physical presence of a supervising mechanic.

The second addressed the concept of supervision itself:

The phrase “readily available, in person, for consultation” contemplates a physical, hands-on approach to supervision. The certificated mechanic must be available, not just to answer questions, but to notice mistakes and take over if necessary.

The problem with the Moss interpretation

There are two issues with the Moss interpretation. The first issue is concerning, but not necessarily devastating. The FAA Office of the Chief Counsel found that virtual technologies cannot be used in lieu of in-person supervision. This is surprising in a world where medicine—even surgery—is sometimes performed using remote technologies and, it should be pointed out, much of the FAA’s own supervisory work with the industry is done remotely.

That said, the second part of the interpretation is what could have devastating repercussions for general aviation. "The certificated mechanic must be available, not just to answer questions, but to notice mistakes and take over if necessary,” as the new FAA interpretation states, completely discounts the concept of supervisor discretion and, in fact, does not acknowledge the text in 14 CFR §43.3(d) that specifically says “to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly.”

In fact, I would argue that there is no point to the regulation language “and if the supervisor is readily available, in person, for consultation” if this new FAA interpretation is correct and the supervisor must be present at all times to notice mistakes and take over if necessary. There are several other issues with the Moss interpretation, including the fact that the question asked concerned the phrase “in person,” which only appears in the regulation in reference to the supervisor being called over for consultation. The interpretation, however, applies that language to task supervision versus consultation, when requested by the person performing the task.

Finally, the Moss interpretation cites NTSB case law in an attempt to justify its reasoning, but this reliance is misplaced because in that case work was performed with no supervision at all, and no legal return-to-service logbook entry.

The industry is responding

If supervising mechanics are indeed required to be side-by-side with every trainee, the current system of GA maintenance simply cannot survive as we know it. I have spoken with over a dozen GA shop owners and maintenance managers. They all agreed that if one-to-one, full-time supervision is truly mandated, as most read the Moss interpretation to mean, they would have to dramatically cut their workforce because the model is no longer financially viable. Most said that they would lay off any uncertificated staff, reducing their shop staff to only themselves and what few certificated A&P mechanics they could hire. They would eliminate all trainees and stop supporting supervised owner-maintenance entirely.

In a world where shops already struggle to hire certificated A&Ps, this would eliminate the only advantage that small, GA maintenance facilities have to attract new mechanics: practical experience and training toward an A&P certification. We already live in a world where most shops have vast backlogs, leaving many aircraft grounded while waiting for an available mechanic. Eliminating trainees and owners from the shop floor could be a disaster for an already stressed system.

As soon as the Moss Interpretation was published, it became “the official view of the FAA” that will be enforced. However, rest assured that the industry is working urgently to try to get it revised. I have been working with Mike Busch to petition the FAA, and discussed the issue with AOPA President Mark Baker, who is putting AOPA’s resources into action. In addition, the leaders of several other aviation organizations within the industry are coordinating on responses to the FAA. I would encourage you to read the Moss interpretation for yourself to become educated and support our effort to get the FAA to reconsider this interpretation. Until next time, I hope you and your families remain safe and healthy, and I wish you blue skies.