Aircraft Maintenance: FAA puts disruptive determination on hold
Moss interpretation stayed pending new guidance
In my previous column, I discussed the serious impact that the FAA’s recent Moss interpretation would have on general aviation maintenance, and the evolving battle to overturn it. On October 15, the FAA issued a temporary legal stay of that interpretation, but the battle is far from over.
The Moss interpretation primarily disallowed any form of electronic or remote supervision of aircraft maintenance. In addition, and more importantly, it effectively removed a supervising mechanic’s discretion by ignoring the language of 14 CFR §43.3(d) that states that supervision must be done “to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly.” The Moss interpretation requires that supervision must be a “physical, hands-on approach” where the supervisor is always in position “to notice mistakes and take over if necessary.”
FAA legal interpretations are not highly publicized. The FAA simply sends a letter to the individual who requested the interpretation and posts the resulting document on an obscure part of its website. On September 3, the FAA posted the Moss interpretation. It took two weeks before the owner of a Part 145 repair station noticed the significance of the language in the interpretation and reached out to Mike Busch, who also contacted me. Busch set out to craft a formal request for reconsideration to send to the FAA, obtaining an impressive list of signatories from aviation maintenance shops around the country. His letter is an excellent example of how to take a complex subject, make it understandable, and advocate for change.
I took on the task of working with our industry groups and government. Conversations with AOPA President Mark Baker and Experimental Aircraft Association CEO Jack Pelton were extremely positive and resulted in quick action from both organizations. Attorney Sarah MacLeod, executive director of the Aeronautical Repair Station Association, crafted a compelling legal argument against the interpretation and organized co-signers for the October 10 letter from 16 aviation advocacy organizations including AOPA.
Pete Bunce, CEO of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, worked to establish direct communications with the FAA leadership, including FAA Deputy Administrator Katie Thomson. I also worked with Rep. Sam Graves’s (R-Mo.) staff. As chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and a major player in the new FAA reauthorization bill, Graves is in a unique position to assist with GA issues.
Lastly, we enlisted the help of all of you. Through a series of webinars and podcasts including SocialFlight Live, Cockpit2Cowl with Brian Schiff, and others, we reached out to educate pilots, mechanics, and even FAA employees, explaining the implications of the Moss interpretation and why it needed to be changed.
This unified approach from the industry was critical because, at the same time that we were organizing a response, we were also receiving reports from FAA maintenance inspectors that they were adapting maintenance facility inspections to comply with the new interpretation of supervision. Without swift action, the Moss interpretation threatened to result in federal sanctions against some random, small maintenance shop that would be forced to mount an expensive legal defense, risking the livelihood of owners and staff in the process.
The good news is that, on October 15, the FAA issued a temporary legal stay of the Moss interpretation. However, the letter is very clear that this is only a temporary action “while the Agency reviews its policies and regulatory options” and that “this stay does not represent a conclusion on the contents of that interpretation.”
Although we have a temporary reprieve from the enforcement of the Moss interpretation, a larger battle remains. We must address how video and electronic supervision can be used to help improve aviation safety, rather than compromising it. We must ensure that certificated mechanics maintain their ability to supervise trainees and aircraft owners performing maintenance in accordance with the complexity of the task and experience of the individual. We must also address the concerns that some pilots have regarding maintenance quality and safety. The system that has been in place for decades relies on two foundational principles:
- Certificated mechanics and technicians have the authority to use their judgment when supervising uncertificated trainees, aircraft owners, and staff to ensure that the work is being done properly.
- Only a certificated mechanic may sign off on the work performed, personally attesting that the work was done properly and that it is airworthy and approved for return to service.
It’s important to point out that the Moss interpretation was never about improving aircraft safety. Aviation mechanics are accountable for the work they sign off on under existing regulations. If an aircraft were to be signed off in unairworthy condition, that is a serious violation of existing regulations that should be brought to the attention of the provider, and, if necessary, the FAA.
The Moss interpretation was issued in response to an inquiry about remote technology use, not in pursuit of new regulations to advance aviation safety. I am hopeful that the united response from the GA industry will result in not just a permanent reversal of the Moss interpretation, but a well-thought-out approach to how we apply current and future technologies to increase safety and support of and for our maintenance industry that is concurrently understaffed and under fire.
The group involved in appealing the Moss interpretation has formally requested meetings with the FAA to discuss a thoughtful path forward on these issues. Should that meeting happen, I will be sure to keep you updated. Until next time, I hope you and your families remain safe and healthy, and I wish you blue skies.
