BREAKING NEWS! As of 5pm ET, October 15th 2024, the FAA has issued a legal Stay of the Moss Interpretation: “while the Agency reviews its policies and regulatory options. This stay does not represent a conclusion of the contents of that interpretation and will be effective until such time as the Agency issues, new or supplemental guidance.” Special thanks to my good friend and associate Mike Busch, Pete Bunce at GAMA, and so many others in the industry that I have worked together with in this effort. Stay tuned for more information!
So an A&P still needs to be in the hanger, as per 14 CFR 43.3(d)? Or can the hanger be full of non certified mechanics being supervised from an A&P on the golf course via zoom?
So the FAA basically was not providing proper hands on supervision to their legal department which caused this Moss Interpretation to be released in the first place. Sounds like the FAA should practice what they preach. I once had a government agency in a different field give me this answer to his interpretation of a rule I was questioning. He said what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
@@2milesowen587 Actually the FAA did provide proper supervision as the memo was reviewed and signed by a 26 year USAF lawyer.. I think she knows a thing or two about what "in person" actually means, don't you?? And that supervision was "in person". And no where in the regulations for lawyers does it say supervision must be "in person" like it says in 14CFR43.3(d) that supervision for non certified mechanics must be "in person". Has this country become so screwed up that people can't even realize that "in person" means "in person"?? If you don't like the words in the regulation, go thru the regulation process, not try and pay off lawyers to change the meaning of words..
I propose that all FAA lawyers must be overseen, in person, by a judge that will catch mistakes and be ready to take over the interpretation immediately when required.
I am a pilot owner. I have an older airplane (don't we all) and I am deeply involved with the inspection and repair of my airplane under supervision. As the owner and operator I want the best maintenance possible for my own safety. My mechanic is overwhelmed with work. If I was not helping, the work would never get done.
There are publications for the proper rules to maintain and repair aircraft, some published by the Faa others by the manufacturer. For an owner the airplane has the Owners manual which must be followed. The other, much more general are to be followed by the mechanic. It is wise for a pilot/owner to be aware to understand this and know what is expected from the mechanic and his responsibilities .
@@Synergy7Studios Yeah exactly that. I spent many minutes removing baffling panels and spark plugs just so he can do a compression check. Note he did the compression check. I cleaned the plugs, he approved the work, then I put everything back together.
@@braincraven we do the same in our shop with some owners. I feel like a knowledgeable pilot is the best kind. Way easier to troubleshoot some issues. I enjoy teaching what I have learned over the past 35 years. I also want to be there if I am signing the logbooks.
After reading the comments I would like to inform those A&Ps that find the ruling proper that they are not the only highly trained and skill individuals working on aircraft. With over 50 years in aircraft maintenance as an A&P supervising non-certificated technicians I can attest to the fact that anA&P certificate does not make the good technician, it is the experience and attitude that makes a safe and competent aircraft technician. Over the years I have supervised numerous aircraft technicians and learned to weed out those that lack skill or proper attitude toward safety, both non-certificated and certificated mechanics.
Nor does a license make a great (or even ok) pilot. A friend of mine regularly flies unlicensed, not even a student pilot certificate. Claims he's "better than most of" the dummy flight instructors where he works. I haven't witnessed it, but to some degree, he talks the talk. (I'm a comm/multi/instrument pilot and cfi, so can detect some bs.) So....? If the a&p means nothing because some a&p's are dopes, how about pilot licenses? I'm not so sure I disagree with the interpretation.. I'm also an AP/IA. A local shop sort of abuses the unlicensed apprentice situation, aircraft owners don't always know the qualifications of those working on their machines, and the shop likes to keep it that way. I'm sort of a fan of the licenses. They don't make you competent, but it is a bit of a filter, to keep the complete unknowns out of the business. That applied to both mechanics and pilots...my friend will end up busted or something worse. Maybe this interpretation could have a positive effect on the crap pay & benefits that ga a&p's seem to be stuck with.
I’ve been working as an apprentice for seven months and have my o and p exam next month. I don’t consider any work I’ve done anything short of a and p standard. You’re right it is the individual.
@@michaelhilger8638 I think that’s the point. If the mechanic working on the airplane is 28 months into a 30 month OJT apprenticeship and has already passed their written general, airframe and powerplant tests, then they have already made the effort, but have not yet achieved the required time. How much over-the-shoulder direct supervision is required for someone who has already accomplished numerous oil changes and tire and brake replacements? Sounds as if a shop would have to hire at least one A&P for every apprentice. What GA shop is hiring A&Ps at $60 an hour to start (plus or minus a B-scale) when airlines are finally making up for 25 years of not hiring?
I agree that there are good and bad A&Ps. Do you read the FAR as you do not need to physically be there if someone is doing work that you are signing off?
I learned in the last century that writing a letter requesting an interpretation of a Federal regulation is a lot like pulling the pin out of a grenade. You better think really hard if you need it, and even harder about how it might get answered.
Thank you for posting this. Missed it last night live so very happy to be able to watch it now. Now to the crux of the matter: 1. If you’re afraid of the answer from regulatory agency, don’t ask. 2. If the person answering is someone who got to his/her position through means other than skills/capability, don’t ask! We live in the world, unfortunately, where everyone is afraid of own shadow.
I’m a mechanic for Southwest Airlines. I work a lot and deferred the maintenance of me Cessna 182T to a shop with what I thought was using A&P mechanics. I never told the shop I was an A&P because I wanted to see if they where BS ing me. They did some stuff the piqued my curiosity. And talked to the guys working and none where A&Ps and where working unsupervised. The A&P that was in the shop was in the office playing video games. I had some strong words with him and pulled my aircraft out of the shop. I notified the FAA, tore into the plane myself and compiled a write up list of their defective work, notified the FAA, and sued them to correct all the defective work. The whole shop
You must be a lawyer on the side. Do the work yourself or don't bitch. If you aren't aware of the variance in A&P abilities and thoroughness you are naive; not everyone is as perfect as you are. One must perform due diligence 🤨 when paying for doctors, mechanics OR pilots. No wonder we have such asinine interpretations from the feds. sheesh.
Supervision shouldn't require a guy looking over your shoulder. I've taught my teens how to change the brake pads/rotors/calipers on our vehicles. Certainly safety critical. I don't have to be in the room the whole time. I check in at critical points to check that things were done correctly before parts are closed up. If they can't remember what to do or run into something they haven't seen before they call me in to explain or make a decision. The time an instructor or supervisor spends on a project should reduce as the experience of the trainee increases. Now in your case, if they completed the work, billed you, and returned the aircraft to you, and there were still documented errors or mechanical discrepancies, then yeah, the supervisor screwed up.
I think this is incorrect stands of view. Was it wrong for the A&P playing videos games? Sure. But taking it out on the guys that don’t have their A&P is wrong. You don’t graduate school and get unlimited knowledge. It’s all about experiance. A&P is just a certificate that one holds. I rather trust a mechanic without A&P that has been working for 3 years vs a brand new licensed tech.
@@stevepowell842 killing GA by driving up maintenance costs for everyone. The FAA’s interpretation is also a lot stricter than you seem to think. Just being in the hangar is likely not enough for compliance because the supervisor is supposed to notice mistakes and take over if necessary.
@@Finder245 Certainly not what this interpretation spelled out. Regulation just says supervision must be "in person". Maintenance costs are not going to go up, because the A&P should have been in the shop supervising, not playing solitaire from his home computer being a virtual A&P.
GA is a nuisance in the public mind, and could go away with no great public heartburn. Then there would be only drones and airliners flying. The "pilot shortage" could be addressed by remaking Part 141 into a military style ab-initio flight training program run by aeronautical university/airline partnerships. The students would fund the academic side through tuition, with the airline funding flight ops and sim training. Military standard flight physical and security clearance qualifications would be required for entry.
I have recently seen several instances of newly licensed A&Ps who came out of school and can't even do a tire, wheel bearing, brake pad replacement without screwing it up. Unfortunately having the license doesn't make you a good mechanic. Lots of aircraft owners can do a much better job doing the actual work than these fresh "licensed" A&Ps.
After 2 years of school and 2 years, with one to go of full-time apprentice employment before my son gets his A&P license, I think you have your head up your ass. The total bullshit that some owners do to their own planes and insist "it's OK to fly" are weekly stories he tells of the planes he sees coming into the shop.
It's the same jn any field. I've worked with self taught engineers that design circles around certified, degreed, licensed engineers. It really is about the person and their experience. Combine the two and you can get exceptional geniuses.
Your statement is correct. But those "aircraft owners" need to be supervised IN PERSON 100% of the time if the tasks they are performing are MORE THAN Preventative Maintenance. That SUPERVISION needs to be by the appropriately rated mechanic "IN THE HOUSE." That does NOT mean the supervisor needs to stand over the person performing the work. But they cannot be 40 miles away.
I'm going to tactfully disagree. It depends on the aircraft owner's experience, AND the task being performed. After 48 years of ownership, my IA doesn't need to watch me change a tire or even change a cylinder. I've done those tasks often enough, and he knows it. I am responsible enough to stop work and consult him before doing something I have questions about. When this happens, I've also done some research to present to him as well. But, looking over my shoulder is NOT a necessity.
I laughed when Mike said this legal interpretation came out "without proper oversight". Maybe an A&P and a Pilot should personally observe with physical presence the work of legal interpretations to notice mistakes and take over if necessary.
I put my kid through law school. Having watched that process I am convinced that an A&P or a Pilot could make a much more appropriate "interpretation". Like one of my kid's law professors told him while attending..."you better improve your social skills because your success as a lawyer is not dependent upon your knowledge of the subject matter".
@@chipsawdust5816 You don't think a lawyer, or even anyone that can fog up a mirror could make the determination that "in person" actually meant "in person" and not virtually, especially considering the law in question was written 60 years ago?
@@ronmaxim8009 Apples and oranges. Most attorneys don't study aviation law. I'm not arguing what "in person" means (Busch likes to make mountains out of molehills sometimes), just that most attorneys don't know 14 CFR. My wife also went to law school and yeah, she knows administrative law (and 14 CFR since she worked in aviation), but they didn't teach it in any useful way.
I find the FAA answers correct in every way You can allow bad maintenance on airplanes by trying to play with the rules that has worked You can pull over when your have problems in your airplane because of shady maintenance we must keep aviation safe and keep it professional not turn it into a word game to cheat the rules All maintenance should be done with a supervisor available in person very simple rule
Mr. Busch, you are an asset to the GA community. Thank you for all you have done for us. If all IAs ran their facilities with the professionalism and pride you have exercised throughout your career, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I personally have been PIC during multiple serious, as in aircraft- and life-threatening, mechanical failures that have been directly attributable to substandard maintenance work. My experience is not unique amongst pilot-owners. I have had so many bad experiences with A&Ps that I now have anticipatory anxiety on every flight out of maintenance. Since becoming more hands-on, the stuff I have identified fresh out of the shop has been egregious. Wires taped down with duct tape, loose oil drain plugs, missing safety wire, loose or incorrect-model spark plugs, missing air filters, pinched brake lines, low-gauge wire zip-tied to sharp sheet metal, missed evidence of arcing near starters and alternators, improperly-installed throttle and mixture cables, unsecured batteries, pinched tire tubes...the list goes on and on. The FAA is compelled to act. Easily preventable maintenance gaffes are killing too many people and bending too many airframes.
In order to be sure that FAA interpretations are crafted in proper context, FAA legal staff who write and/or issue binding interpretations about actions of certificated individuals should be required to hold the certificate about which they are writing, OR must be supervised by certificated staff who is/are readily available, in person, for consultation... a physical hands on approach to supervision. If not, why not?
They were asked to interpret what the term "in person" and "personally observes".. Since I assume these lawyers are persons, and have been in a room or observed something, that would make them imminently qualified to make the determination as to what "in person" and "personally observes" mean in the context of the language in the law.
How about this outcome: It won't matter. I'm an AP/IA and 135 charter pilot. See both maintenance and flight related regulations bent and broken all the time, mostly by the same repeat offenders. Others see the same thing. It is simply known. If it is common knowledge, you can bet the Feds know it. They ignore it. And I don't just mean not looking too hard- FAR 135 duty time regulations? Multiple pilots have asked for enforcement of this..the response has ranged from "crickets" to hostility. The local FSDO seems to like finding minor fault with one local maintenance facility that seems to run an exceptionally tight maintenance operation (no, never worked there). But ignore others that specialize in lacking training, tooling, and data. The Feds seem to specialize in this...going tangential- do we have some immigration rules being overlooked? Sanctuary cities? Taking a page from that book- maybe our local FSDO will just acknowledge some "sanctuary hangars", or airports. If you ask me, they already have. When pressed to address the allowance of untrained "mechanics" working on certificated aircraft, that carry paying passengers, without supervision, what the heck do you expect them to say? If you think they will somehow undo this interpretation, you're dreaming. No way. It's on paper, it even makes sense. They will just ignore it. When, inevitably, some lawyered up rich persons child dies in an accident related to sloppy maintenance done by an unqualified person, they will bring out the memorandum, say they are "very concerned", but, can't catch everyone. Then, point out our "safest airspace", blah, blah. The maintenance facility might get spanked, and the Feds that ignored the problem will continue on, collecting paychecks and the rare-in-aviation decent retirement. For writing rules, then forgetting all about them.
IF you really believe what you wrote, how about you tell everyone what 135 operation you work for? Then we will see if the FAA turns a blind eye to enforcement... I can only imagine what government agencies will be like if this country hires a 34 time convicted felon and one that owes millions to his rape victim...
Sixty years ago - well I was on the verge of soloing but less than ten years later I was working under the exact same system the regulation describes... as a U.S. Navy ADR 3, Aviation Machinist's Mate Third Class- changing parts on recip engines, performing line turns, etc. with my own work periodically being checked by ADR 1 or an AD- CPO, making corrections any time one was needed. Back THEN it was a fail-safe way of getting planes "up" safely. After all, we had to crew them as well!
This is all well and good but...when the A&P fails to supervise the work of their non A&P's things go bad quickly. I have had a near engine out due to the spark plug wires falling off the plugs (one fell off and the other 7 were less than finger tight) after a non-supervised employee worked on my airplane. My nosewheel was re-assembled incorrectly during an annual. Others at my airport have similar issues. We now do a post maintenance inspection to catch the screwups
@@fredworrell2468 I guess it is up to you to determine whether the spark plugs are connected properly and if you are satisfied that they will work like you want them to, just by looking at them. But, I would like to know how it was determined that the non A&P was responsible for the loose spark plug wires (assuming that is what you are implying). I don't see how you could know that without witnessing the work. If you weren't watching, the A&P in charge could easily blame someone else lower than himself for his own mistakes. My point is: Just because someone is certified to do some particular work, doesn't mean they will do quality work. In my opinion, personal attitude and experience far outweigh certification.
I would say these laws are being written by people who have no real world experience. It's not just the equipment that needs intermittent observation and inspection. I was in the Coast Guard and fire service and in both places I had mentors who took me by the hand in the beginning, and supervised me from some distance after that. Then after I had WITHOUT close supervision for some months, my mentors would come back and walk with me as we did these tasks because they wanted to ENSURE that bad habits hadn't crept in. I can fondly remember the fear as my supervisor joined me on my daily tasks AND GRATEFUL THAT HE DID!!! And it was great pride when I surprised MY trainee by joining HIM while he did HIS daily task many years later. THAT'S how the torch gets passed and pride bubbles up from competency.
You sound like you are not in favor of "virtual supervision". You sound like it is important that the A&P be actually in the shop supervising or just being in the shop if needed.... Bravo.. Just like what the rule has said now for 60 years..
Point well made on how the FAA, NTSB, and other governing and investigating bodies for aviation do it today. Personally, when I looked at a critical step in engine maintenance in an inspector or supervisor capacity, I even took an image of what I saw for posterity, just to make sure. 🤷🏽♂️👍🏽
@@bpm-atx Yes, but....they are both articulate and careful with their words, and bring not only accuracy but suitable interpretation to the issue. What would you have them leave out, or underplay?
I APPLAUD THE F.A.A FOR THIS NEW MOSS PROGRAM. I TOO LIKE YOUR GUEST AM AN A&p IA mechanic with years of experience with the airlines as well as in general avaition. noteworthy an experienced engine shop in polo alto airport Calif has 8 mechanics who are from mexico and none of them don,t have an A&P licience period. im 61 yrs old and been in avaition for over 45 yrs before i retired as well as a licienced private pilot since 1986. mark san francisco calif. (im based out of half moon bay airport.
I listened until 37:33 and did not hear anything that suggested that the phrase “to the extent necessary” was interpreted in a way that changed the amount of supervision. So, what I heard is that if the certificate holder feels that the supervision is necessary, then the certificate holder can’t phone it in and has to be there to observe in-person, which makes sense to me and likely (hopefully) is what people are already doing.
I hate to say it but this is no different then when everyone got their panties in a wad when the mandated in 2020 ADS-B out was required. I literally watched owner/operators yell and scream at FAA reps that they were killing the GA industry… fast forward 4 years and they are the first to say “wow… it’s kind of nice being able see not just big planes but little ones too.” They are turning an ant hill into a mountain. As an A&P IA I have no problems with working side by side with the pilot/owner of their plane. Or letting them work on it by themselves as long as I can visibly see the end result after the fact. I’ve had some tell me that the inspector last year said these certain things or those certain things are within limits to which I simply reply I’ll read the AD/service letter/service bulletin or manual and make my own determination based on the reference material. Here’s what I’ll say I have pilots call me and talk to me all the time about certain things and I’ll either tell them go ahead or wait till I’m there. That’s not going to change even with this “interpretation”. I think what it is is these pilots that are use to getting their brother in law that’s also an IA to sign off their planes without even looking at it that live in different states are pissed because they may have to actually take their plane to someone who’s not going to bullshit the inspection or MX because it’s their license on the line. Any pilot that is ok with some guy walking up to your plane after all MX is done and everything is closed saying looks like an airplane is the reason why GA is dying and visa versa any dickhead A&P or A&P IA that’s ok with signing off something in “good faith” is not only the reason why GA is dying but your also asking for a skull fucking from the FEDS should anything happen to said aircraft. And I don’t care how nice or funny or wonderful or how best friend a pilot is with you. The first thing that a pilot learns wether in the military or flight school is to shed any and all responsibility of a mishap regardless of how big or small and you can be sure if the FAA is getting involved the first words out of your BFF pilots mouth will be “They did the annual! Or They Touched it last” so why even put yourself up for failure?. And here’s another question for the people getting up in arms.. if you are still going to do oil changes or change tires etc etc are you really going to call your local FSDO rep and say “hey I’m doing unsupervised MX on my plane you better come get me!” The answer is no so please calmly pull your head out of your ass and continue to do you and keep poking holes in the sky.
Obviously the lawyer that wrote this "interpretation" obviously has never been in a real world working or training environment and does not know how the GA mechanics, AP, AP&AI, operate on a daily basis. He has his head stuck in a book. Unfortunately he is protecting his own lively hood to the detriment of anything else. I spent 2 years at Sacramento City College A&P program and there were very few times a teacher was looking over my shoulder. The usual case was he would tell us or show us how and then send us off to do the work. When done he would return and inspect our work. if this holds, people will loose jobs, prices will go up, shops will close, etc. Glad I finished my working and flying career years ago.
Sounds like your teacher was "in person", not virtual.. This rule is 60 years old and this section has never been a problem. Everyone interpreted "in person supervision" as the the supervisor had to be in the facility, not a 1000 miles away behind a computer screen...
Disregarding the new interpretation, the FAA must continue (as they have in the distant past) to address the issues that cause the highest number of accidents FIRST. The FAA can address the scratched paint on the flap handle some other time.
I have 5 classes left for my A&P, and obviously the exams. I also have a private pilot certificate. I got my A&P because I got really tired of having to fly for maintenance since no mechanics are at my field and the fact that I couldn't do a lot of minor maintenance. I just don't see how you can do GA if you don't have an A&P or repairman's certificate or an LSRM. Mechanics and shops are really too busy with corporate customers...doesn't matter if you have the money to pay. A business is paying them millions to do maintenance for their own fleet...they don't have time for your cessna.
Are you suggesting that attorneys who write opinions for the FAA should be subject to in-person supervision such that when they make a mistake the supervisor can intervene immediately to fix a mistake?
Supervision is to the level of assessing one’s competency of the one being supervised and checking STAGES of work so that the certifying person can check correct compliance of work done before moving on. The level of confidence in the worker cannot remove the need for certain stage inspections.
I am surprised the airlines were not mentioned as part of the impacted parties of this rulemaking. Within the maintenance operations of major airlines there must be a significant workforce that is not A&P certified but does perform actions that could now be interpreted as in need of supervision.
What if the Bar Association said a Sr. Attorney is required to be present, in person, to oversee and takeover when a Jr. attorney is writing a letter or brief?
The interpretation means that, except for preventive maintenance, a mechanic cannot sign off work done by non certified persons unless said mechanic was able to supervise and intervene if necessary. This was started because someone wanted to work on an aircraft and have the mechanic inspect it over video calls and sign it off remotely.
@@mikeeubank246 …which is a procedure formally approved of by the FAA for airlines & repair stations. At this time, the entire Moss Interpretation is on hold while we negotiate a more logical approach from the FAA.
Keep in mind that a legal interpretation usually means a couple of things: 1) it informs the public of the agency's policy (and thus enforcement) of a regulation; 2) it is what at least one lawyer believes is defensible in a court of law. Neither of these things mean that someone will actually get found guilty if it actually gets to the point that the FAA tries to take them in front of an ALJ.
@@wurzzzz Excellent points. I would add that our efforts to achieve the current legal stay of the Moss interpretation are to protect the maintenance shop owner. It’s unfortunate, but the cost of getting through the legal process defending against an enforcement action (even if you win) could be devastating to many small shops.
As a properly trained A&P, I don't like unlicensed personal working on aircraft without in person, direct supervision. Simple procedures are very often done improperly without the proper background from an airframe and powerplant school training. Along with the poor pay, modern aircraft maintenance has almost become a farce.
As a pilot/ owner who has been a professional mechanic and business owner in the automotive and heavy equipment fields for close to 40 years, I had to instruct my property trained A&P mechanic how to properly rebuild the front strut in my aircraft after he improperly repaired it twice, as well as loan him the proper tool for reassembly. The bottom line is, you either have the aptitude and understanding, or you do not. A certificate simply means you passed a test and is not necessarily an indication of a good mechanic. This is true in almost all industries.
"....to the extent necessary..." is the key phrase. If you think all the time I worked at a big name repair depot without an A&P ticket, that I had an A&P looking over my shoulder every second, you'd think wrong. Quite frankly some of the certificated A&Ps I've seen lately could learn a thing or 2 from the guys who did get their tickets by work experience.
As an A&P, you have the right to decide to what extent you need to supervise the work under all interpretations. The FAA’s interpretation just takes away your authority to say that you don’t need to be present for some parts of the work performed. I don’t think you really want that.
I agree that this interpretation is a clear violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Secondly, the interpretation creates additional ambiguity. At what point must an A&P step in? Upon each rivet being removed or after they are ready to be reinstalled? This is an example why we want healthy discussion debate when laws are written in the legislative process.
What part of the "supervisor personally observes" and the "supervisor is readily available, in person" is now ambiguous after this interpretation?? At what point must an A&P step in? Well, that is clearly stated in the regulation.."the supervisor personally observes the work being done to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly ". If in the estimation of the A&P that the person doing the work must be watched 100% of the time, then there is your answer..If the A&P deems he only needs to look at the final product, then there is your answer.. This was a legal interpretation of the terms "personally observes" and "the supervisor is readily available, in person"..They ruled based on the plain meaning of the language in the current rule. If people don't like the language that was used in the legislation, then the legislation should be modified by going thru the legislative process..Not by trying to get a lawyer to agree that in person does not really mean in person.
Mike, please do more to "quantify" the impact of your concerns. Does the FAA interpretation benefit pilot safety, or adversely impact profitability of the workshop? I'm 100% for improved pilot safety. I've had too many instances of substandard maintenance result in serious safety incidents..eg. aborted takeoff run in a high performance taildragger at high DA (you can't slam on the brakes), loss of all static system coupled flight instruments in-flight. Had to land using manifold pressure and RPM alone. Both incidents caused by the same $$$ shop after same annual.
My local airport is now 5 jets and basically no recreational left. No one tied down visiting. The main entry is locked up after 6 pm. The weather room is gone. Everything online. The flight school is using an old 172. In Europe there are dozens of modern training aircraft. Sad. 😢
My friend, we already have that, with LSA and experimental aircraft that perform better than the stuff coming out of Wichita or Florida. Also they're safer because you can add a ballistic parachute or airbags or any safety device that you see fit.
I am shocked and saddened that Mr. Mike Busch would think the general counsel's interpretation of the rule be anything different than what they have clarified. The only way for safety standards to be maintained is for the supervising A&P to be present at all times. It take years for a mechanic to gain solid competency in all areas required to maintain general aviation aircraft. I fix too many aircraft incorrectly maintained by those who are less than capable but licensed none the less at least on paper. A&P/IA
2 unlicensed employees at Delta just died, trying to change a tire. A supervisor on duty, on the shop floor, and awake; would have noticed that the air had not been let out of the tire.
If Delta is unable to change a tire without direct supervision being involved than Delta has a huge problem. Anybody that touches a tire should be trained on the dangers of such an operation and it shouldn't take the supervisor to know that. My understanding is someone from their paint shop was assisting in the repair/maintenance action and it cost him his life, very sad😮
@@christophergagliano2051That pretty well stereotypes people. Some learn and reason quickly, some never truly get it, no matter what venue. Ironically the ones that never truly get are actually the instructor...see it all the time.
@@scottpatterson4105 I got one for you, years ago I was working in a small shop and one of the technicians who claimed he was an A&P couldn't read. I mean he couldn't read a maintenance manual or a parts manual or an AD. Now he could have been lying about his A&P but he worked on all kinds of airplanes and never cracked a maintenance manual, a regulation, or advisory circular (AC) nothing at all. And he certainly broke a bunch of crap just by over torquing nuts, bolts, and other related hardware and now he teaches at a 147 school 😲
@@christophergagliano2051 I would say it's fairly impossible to service any variety of equipment without reading. I sure he lied because a written is part of the test.
@@scottpatterson4105 Well I witnessed this guy making a logbook entry and he wrote some type of number down like it was his A&P number, hell it could have been a lottery ticket # from way back in 2017 lol
In firefighting we call it "direct supervision" and "general supervision". A rookie gets direct supervision but a 20 year veteran gets general supervision.
After the recent SCOTUS Chevron Decision, the FAA doesn’t have this authority any longer. The specific letter of the law is what is allowed only. Congress must pass the change as a change to law, it cannot be done by interpretive fiat by the FAA
@@bohem3006 But that is what was asked of the FAA in this instance.. The petitioner asked that the FAA interpret "in persons" to mean virtual, even though the rule is over 60 years old and "in person" has always meant "in person". All agencies have the ability to interpret the very rules that Congress authorized them to create.. The Chevron Decision did not change that.
While we are all hoping for a better GA future with the EAA "MOSAIC" affairs we get back-stabbed and ambushed with this BS Load of fiat Government overreach. Sad days. We need Government advocacy more then ever ! Regards from Alaska!
I strongly believe that proper supervision is crucial. My last annual inspection was done by a less-than-reliable A&P mechanic at Boerne Stage, Texas, whom I’d rather not name. Unfortunately, they forgot to tighten the exhaust pipes on my airplane, and after just 30 hours of flight time, they broke. This resulted in over $8,000 in repairs during a trip to Sedona, while I was in New Mexico. The A&P was rarely present on the field, and I highly doubt he took the time to ensure his team had completed the work correctly.
The internal "in Person " questions are coming forward in terms of the FAA(DOT) new in person requirement for "in person" work verses "Telework". we are just trying to see if the interpretation of "in person" remains consistent. When the FAA engages in virtual training , forums , meetings etc.. ...since Plandemic, many want to know if those types of work still count as "in person" work.
GA is nothing but a thorn in the side of the FAA, from maintenance to airport to airspace and ATC system. They would be perfectly happy if they only had to deal with the airlines. It’s not the regulation that needs modified and re-organized, it’s the FAA that needs modified and re-organized . With people in charge that understand aviation, not lawyers, or political appointees. It’s simple we need a GA friendly & knowledgeable, POTUS .
So you think "in person" as written in the rule should be interpreted as "not in person"?? And why would you want to leave that question up to a guy who ran up 8 trillion in debt, bankrupted 6 companies and stole nuclear defense secrets?
@@ronmaxim8009 I said A GA friendly and knowledgeable POTUS that understands freedom and liberty, that understands public youth spaces, and is a advocate for personal liberties. Like working on your own airplane. No, one of our choices is a neo liberal in a blue suit, and a neo liberal on steroids in a red suit. What we have to worry about is them wanting to privatize the air, traffic control system, and airports, so there is user fees on everything . That’s how they’re gonna bury personal GA, make it too expensive for the bugs smashers to fly.. The Golden age of everything is at risk
I suspect that for owners of certificated planes who know how to, and do most all of their own maintenance above and beyond the allowed owner items, this interpretation will mean little. They will continue to do things the same way. If an A&P or IA will no longer sign off the work, because he/she was not present 100% of the time, then much of the work will simply be done anyway by the owner, nothing will said to anyone, and no logbook entry will be made.
Repair stations operate off part 43. The A&P/repairman doesn't use their personal certificate to sign return to service. They use the repair station certificate number.
Funny thing about the word “contemplate” is that it in no way carries value as does “shall;” it does not even carry the value of “should.” ‘Contemplate’ means you have given consideration without decision one way or another. ‘Contemplate’ creates no bindings. In your discussion you mentioned how you might watch more closely the initial trainee versus one more experienced nearing the end of an apprenticeship. In so doing, you have met this concept of contemplating being able to catch and being able to take over. You’ve considered the level of the one being observed. The second sentence “… must be available…” is a subordinate sentence to the contemplation. “Must be available” applies if your specific contemplation took you one way though being subordinate, should your contemplation have taken you the other, the underlying sentence wouldn’t apply. After all, contemplation is not binding.
To be clear, the second sentence in the “trouble block” describes what constitutes a “hands-on form of supervision” while the preceding sentence says such is contemplated but does not direct such as contemplation is not directive in nature.
Thank you for watching out for all us. As Mike eluded to, this response from the FAA seems to have been written and submitted without direct oversight and subsequent inspection and sign off. Hmmm?!?!?
The underlying regulation does not change. This is merely the FAAs argument should it ever be brought forward in an enforcement action. If a pilot/owner has a lawyer who can successfully argue that the FAA’s interpretation is wrong, then that becomes the precedent.
I know those involved in the origin of this question. The question on clarification was based the interpretation of "in person supervision" with regard to of all the new communication technologies available today. This was not around an enforcement, but rather an operator felt it could be reasonable, given todays remote technology, the that definition of "in person supervision" could be extended "virtually," where if a small repair issue arises in a remote location(no certificated repair available), "someone" present could remotely under video supervision make the fix with the supervisor virtually present, forgoing the time and expense to have operator send an A&P to make the minor repair. Needless, to say the response was surprising...
No surprising. The regulation is pretty clear.. It says "in person". That can always be changed by amending the rule.. But the FAA and all other agencies cannot write rules anymore thanks to the SC knocking down the Chevron deference... Rules will have to be written by Congress now..
The FAA's failure to regulate the large shops all the way up to Boeing is going to crush the small shops with regulatory overreach in an effort to cover up the FAA's own deficiencies. This scenario rhymes with the Colgan air disaster. The FAA made the 1,500 hour rule to cover up fatigue and lack of situational awareness by 2 pilots with more than 1500 hours each. Now we get 141 flight instructors with 10 hours of solo time. I wish Mike luck.
Sounds like they need sub levels of "repairer". Could do it like the Army did. Maintenance levels 0 - 4. Writting it into my Shop SOP for advancements. Apprentice all the way to DME with timelines and additional training.
Would seem pertinent that the FAA would hire personnel that had some kind of insight as to how aviation functions. We have lots of folks nowadays hired because they have a college education but no practical knowledge or experience in the field they are hired to work in
If you can't derive the same answer from the regulation itself, you shouldn't be supervising anyone anyhow. They didn't rewrite the rule - it isn't a "NEW RULING." It's just confirming that the regulation means what it says. I don't think anyone can truthfully say they don't understand "IN PERSON."
I have seen interactions with government officials before. It seems that sometimes the fastest way to get their attention is a lawsuit, but It would have to come from the big organizations, not an individual. If I am teaching a flight student, they can not learn as well until they solo.
You guys are overthinking this. The memo does not require the supervising mechanic to do 100% supervision during the operation. What the memo says is that: "The certified mechanic must be "available". Here's another data point. The current regulation (14 CFR 43.3 (d) says that the supervisor mechanic will be "readily available". But the most recent memo from the FAA says that the supervisory mechanic only needs to be "available". Now if you put on your thinking cap what that means is per the memo, supervision is actually less restrictive because the supervisor mechanic does not have to be "readily" available, only available. 😲 In addition, what the memo means is the trainee mechanic can't complete a maintenance activity and then cover it up where the certified mechanic can't see what was done, that's what this memo means. And if the supervising mechanic is not happy with the work then he can take over and rework the maintenance activity as noted in the decision memo.
@@christophergagliano2051 Attorneys at several aviation organizations disagree. They believe this interpretation means exactly what we discussed, constant oversight. So do the FAA enforcement folks.
@@SocialFlight Well I don't put much trust with attorneys even though they've trusted me on numerous occasions. I held a DAR appointment with the FAA for over 15 years meaning I'm in the regulations all the time or at least I was before I retired. Again I don't see where anything requires 100% supervision and that's the key, so if it's not required 100%, then you don't have to do 100% supervision, And that's a fact.
@@SocialFlightobviously the attorneys want everyone to see it as a doomsdays situation, that way you guys will spend $1M with those attorneys fighting a fight you think exists….making the attorneys $$$$.
@@christophergagliano2051 I’d certainly be happy if it turns out you are correct and I also hope that they will overturn the allowance of some electronic supervision as deemed appropriate to the situation by the supervising mechanic. Ultimately, if the regulation stands, we will see how it is enforced and how the NTSB court rules on it. That will tell us where things really stand. Keep in mind that this interpretation started (most likely) as part of an enforcement action regarding electronic supervision. So the next enforcement action citing the moss interpretation probably isn’t far off in the future.
@@SocialFlight My friend I disagree, first off, this is not a regulation change, it is a memo not a regulation change. Secondly no way would I trust electronic / video supervision, that's a dumbest thing I've ever heard of. That supervising mechanic needs to be in the hanger/shop checking up on the trainees as they do their work.
I have spoken to my friends who work at airlines. Their 2 cents is that these shops don't want to hire only A&Ps because they have to pay them more. This is not really an airplane owner issue. The gentlemen on this are basically lobbyists for maintenance facilities, including their own
I just started back flying after a 35 year period and hearing this sort of stuff infuriates me when feds try to dump on GA segments 😡😡😡 Thanks for taking this threat head on!!!
As an A&P, IA i've been burned too many times by owners who want to do their own work. TBH, all it takes is one mistake... and I was lucky they weren't critical. If you're an A/C owner and want to "help", then spend YOUR time & money getting an A&P as well. Just because you can fly, and you own it, doesn't automatically mean you have the talent to fix it.
I will counter you by saying that a certified mechanic/IA can easily make a “mistake”, just like anyone else, not even necessarily skill based. It could be caused by distraction that causes missed steps, or the certified person just having too much work to do on too many airplanes. In twenty years of aircraft ownership, I have witnessed several mistakes during maintenance of my aircraft, at least one of which that could have been catastrophic for me and did not take a genius to see. Owners are not stupid. Their hide is usually the one at risk, and owner oversight of their maintenance people is equally as legitimate as what you perceive as an owner putting your maintenance certificate at risk. I do not implicitly trust anyone who works on my airplane, and that would include you. Nothing personal. I will also add that some things an owner can do are so simple in terms of intellectual capacity, like a routine oil change, that to require the involvement of a certified mechanic is absurd. When authority by declaration on paper becomes absolute and obviates common sense, the healthy checks and balances like those that should exist through humility and mutual respect between an aircraft owner and his/her maintenance facility break down. I have learned to avoid facilitators, shall we say, whose opinion of themselves is that they can do nothing wrong.
@@wkelly3053a mechanic who feels the work is not done properly can re-do it or supervise in person the re-do of the work before returning it to service.
You can work at a mayor airline and get a free sign off so you can take the mechanic test 😊 there’s a way around guys, don’t spend 40k in school, is free when a mechanic signs you off I seen it all the time and the FAA looks away.
A pharmacist is responsible, and their license is in harm's way with everything a technician does under their supervision, I believe. Pretty heavy responsibility for an A&P mechanic is same is in place for them.
I think the Chevron Deference Decision has some bearing on the FAA's legal (supreme Court decision) authority to interpret there own regulations anymore.
The FAA can interpret them, just as they did in this case... And if people are butt hurt about it, they can appeal to a judge.. And that judge will have to decide if "in person" means "virtual" in the context of when this was written. So instead of agencies with institutional knowledge making interpretations, it will be judges ( who are all lawyers and not experts in any field ) making interpretations. yay Chevron!!!
@@stevepowell842 There will be appeals and stays filed if the FAA uses (any Interpretation) as the Basis for certificate action. I believe this is where the rubber meets the road. Since the Chevron reversal the FAA will have a Hard time using an interpretation in the administrative action (certificate action ) or in a civil action against a non certificated person as the basis for the action. IMEHO
I’m sorry but I agree with the FAA interpretation. I do think that an A&P should be walking the shop looking over the shoulder of half a dozen non-licensed workers. If the worker thinks he is assembling the cylinder correctly and doesn’t ask for help, but doesn’t install the valve springs before installing the valve covers, it would have been real helpful for an A&P to be glancing at the work periodically to see what was being done. I have had my 172 returned from a large local shop multiple times and I can tell an A&P obviously didn’t provide any supervision.
@@Hallahanify The fu- Okay, if you can't trust certification, how the hell are you supposed to know who is and isn't qualified to fix your shit? What, are you supposed to just go off the fucking vibes?
@@Hallahanifyand? Plenty of pilots that aren’t qualified either. I also agree with this. I would never remotely supervise any maintenance action and would never put my cert on the line without direct supervision of the MX task
@@Hallahanify Having over 30 years experience in aviation maintenance and 10+ years in aviation accident investigation I concur that certification does not relate to aviation incident data. Human error despite the certification and or experience of the mechanic / pilot / repairman is the root cause of 95% of aviation incidents.
So you want your representative to tell the FAA that they must interpret "in person" to mean that an A&P doesn't actually have to be there "in person", in direct conflict with the literal meaning of "in person"? If the FAA intended for supervision to be remote or virtual, they would have stated that in the rule they wrote 60 years ago and that no one until recently has had any problem with it.
Electrician here: apprenticeships are vital for the future of the trades. There are BS programs for electricians, others, that are simply “trainee” programs, when what we need is registered, tracked, meaningful apprenticeship. We’ve got to train the next generation in robust ways (and there’s lots of poor ways that don’t work that are practiced in the real world, that doesn’t make them good), and that does include the looser, better, more training-rich opportunities that come with having an apprentice turned loose to work without being strictly supervised like what the FAA is proposing. This is an overreaction to bad practices and the way to win the day is to also reject the bad practices, explain how things are done well, and ask how people can be brought up to the good standard, not some new silly one.
I don't see what your issue with the FAA is..They are saying an A&P MUST be in the building where the maintenance activities by non rated mechanics are being performed. Why would anyone want and apprenticeship program where the supervising A&P is a thousand miles away and not personally observing the work??
@@stevepowell842that’s not what this says. Being in the building is no longer enough while an apprentice is working. The FAA memo requires 100% direct supervision which is wild. In my industry and state (which has THE hardest licensing test in the country), an apprentice electrician can get a “work alone card” in their last year, still with restrictions, still has to be given direction at the start of the day, but they can enjoy the freedom and challenge of working solo while the licensed electrician still holds liability.
@@Kevlux86 You might want to read the interpretation.. nothing has changed about the supervision of non certified mechanics, other than to say "in person" explicitly requires physical presence, not virtual presence. The administration ruling mentions nothing about 100% physical supervision, it is up to the supervising mechanic as to how much supervision is necessary. I couldn't find anything in the memo requiring 100% direct supervision.. Maybe you can point it out for me. www.faa.gov/media/84326
@@Kevlux86 Can you show me in the interpretation where it say 100% direct supervision? Don't tell me what Mike says. Show me in the interpretation where 100% direct supervision is required.
@@stevepowell842 He can't, because it doesn't. And in the last 60 years that's never been the situation. Sixty years ago people counted on common sense a bit more - which has gone the way of the dodo bird.
Get Mike to address the fact that it is hard to get the 6 month work experience to get current. I am an A&P. I got my certificates in 2000. I worked on a friends airplane for 6 months after getting my certs and have not worked on a certificated plane since. I worked on a experimental build for 3 months 3 years ago. I cannot find anyone that is a a&p that will let me work under them so that I can get the 6 months to get current by the FAA. I cannot get a certificated college (the one that I originally got my certs.) to allow me to come to classes to get current. They say the FAA does not consider their classes good to get current!!! I can take classes to get the certs in the beginning but they are not good enough to get me current!!!. I have called the FAA several times and their only answer was to go get a job. I told them I cannot get a job if I am not current! Their only answer is go get a job! Get Mike to address this with the FAA!!!! Thanks
Military equivalency for CFI, CFII, MEI has the same issue. You can use equivalency to get your instructor but if you had it previously, you have to have kept it current in the normal FIRC route. If you let it lapse, military equivalency cannot restore it. How silly is this? Similarly for you, working experimental builds can be used to get your maintenance quals just like the classes.
@@TheReadBaron91 no, you don’t actually have to put regulations on things. Not everything needs to be regulated. Especially if you’re an approval/authorizing based ruleset institution that likes to prescribe things.
Have you applied to a job and been refused because you say you are not current? GA piston shops hire people without A&P and sign off their work as a normal part of business. This interpretation of physical presence will not change how they do things. They are already in compliance. If you want to work on aircraft I believe you would be able to find employment as a mechanic.
Out of simple curiosity, it would be interesting to know if all of the people involved in the original assembly of an engine (at the engine manufacturer) were FAA " certificated" to perform their tasks or are they simply skilled assemblers being allowed to do the work under a system of supervision much relaxed compared to what the FAA seems to now mandate for maintenance mechanics. Whether a mistake occurs at EITHER the manufacturing level or the maintence level...if serious enough, it could get someone killed! My guess is that the level of oversight at the manufacturer is not the same as what now appears mandated for a maintenance shop... it seems unfair if both entities are not held to the same standard! That being said... There are people that by nature "cut corners", or after making a mistake try to "bandaid" an issue to cover it up. Unfortunately, some of that lot will pick mechanical repair as their career of choice! It happens all the time in the auto repair industry...sometimes with service manager collusion to avoid the dealership incurring a financial liability for a damaged part (it's called " send it out the door and cross your fingers"! All I'm saying is that a weak mechanic overseen by a cost driven supervisor doesn't guarantee a good result...even with 100% supervision. And...more to your point, it is ludicrous to seemingly mandate having a certficated mechanic at arm's length for every repair...a shop would have to hire double staff to perform mechanical repair functions. And since the lessons that stick with you are mostly "hands on" instead of "out of a book", how will it be feasible to keep a steady stream of qualified mechanics entering the pipeline in the future if there isn't an economically feasible way to bring good prospects on board to get that critical hands-on experience?
The big difference here is an engine manufacturer or an airframe manufacturer or a propeller manufacturer all operate under an FA approved quality system that has many more checks and balances than a general aviation repair shop. That's why you don't have to have 100% supervision by a certified mechanic in a manufacturing facility.
The big difference here is an engine manufacturer or an airframe manufacturer or a propeller manufacturer all operate under an FA approved quality system that has many more checks and balances than a general aviation repair shop. That's why you don't have to have 100% supervision by a certified mechanic in a manufacturing facility.
Just read the interpretation and it seems appropriate that the FAA or other entity should initiate a rule change which would consider advances in communication technology. Jonathan Moss, Manager, Little Rock FSDO, AFG-600, should spearhead the change! “…We”re not happy until you’re not happy!”
Thanks to the SC shutting down the Chevron Doctrine, the FAA or other entity cannot initiate a rule change.. That must come from Congress...Good luck with that...
I think we should all greatly appreciate the humor and irony of the statement at 50:18. So your saying the folks at the FAA were fine with this unsupervised young lawyer writing the response with no one looking over their shoulder and the reason this has blown up is because someone with more experience and knowledge of the situation did not inspect/sign-off on their work before letting this response fly out into the world.
Do we really need a lawyer with 40 years of experience to tell us all what "in person" means?? Is that what has become of our education system? Is it not obvious what "in person" means?? If the people who wrote this rule 60 years ago wanted virtual supervision of mechanics, they would have stated that in the rule.. But they did not. .They said the supervision must by "in person"..
During Covid, I personally can attest that the FAA approved and conducted several 135.299 checkrides via GoPro and remote (Facetime, Google Meet, etc) that were conducted without an actual check pilot in the cockpit. Doesn't this sort of establish a precedent by the FAA own actions? There was no phyisical presence of a check pilot.
So when I do an owner assisted Annual & the Shop says you can fly your plane back home or whee ever and we will in the next week complete the Logs and any necessary Paper work and you can pick them up next week or we can mail them to you is asking for the FAA to yank mr certificate. I have never gotten the Logs in a Timely manor after an Anual. I was sure that they were waiting to see if I'd CRASH and then they'ed say we never ever saw that plane.
At some point older aircraft will become too old and new aircraft will need to arrive on the scene in numbers or GA is going to implode. The other big threat is that small airports are large parcels of real estate which make property developers salivate.
It would be interesting to see how the Airlines will handle this. They have many underwing employees that do things on the airliners that were in the past handled by maintenance staff. Does adding oil to a jet engine now require an A&P?
Former major league baseball catcher Joe Garagiola once told a story of an umpire who got so involved in accurately calling the balls and strikes that he was almost resting his head on Garagiola's shoulder. Joe kept trying to adjust his position so he could play his position properly, to no avail. Finally, out of desperation, he just turned his head a little, and said, "Kiss me." And was promptly tossed out of the game. All that to say, apparently, A&Ps and A&P IAs will have to start wearing black along with the appropriate pads and face masks.
There is no big change.. Still need an A&P physically in the facility when non certified monkeys are working on certified aircraft.. Just like it has been for the last 60 years..
No FAA attorney should be allowed to write rule interpretations without continuous onsite supervision, in order that the supervisor can immediately notice and correct mistakes, or take over if necessary.
I would like to express my complete agreement with the FAA interpretation on this matter. As both a surgeon and a pilot, I am acutely aware of the critical nature of the life that depends on both professions. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the American Board of surgery will permit me to approve a surgical procedure without being personally and directly involved in the procedure, especially after a resident or Assistant has completed operation. Will you have surgery done on you when the Surgeon is not present in the operating room? Given significant responsibilities inherent in both fields. We must prioritize, safety, and throughout oversight. The stakes are simple to high to take any unnecessary chances.
@@gabekremer7148 Depends on your definition of liability. A single error committed by an A&P can simultaneously put at risk multiple lives as well as some property. However surgeons are required by state law, to have hundreds of thousands or even million(s) of dollars of professional liability insurance, or that amount of cash set aside in escrow (or an irrevocable letter of credit) at all times, in the event a plaintiff's successful claim needs to be fulfilled. A&Ps have no such state requirement. Which definition is considered "way more liability" ?
@JustSayN2O Are you an A&P that's been sued? Be stupid to have the license and practice without atleast a million behind your license in liability. You also don't see doctors getting sued for what they did 20 years ago. Happens daily to A&P. Most doctors can't kill 380 people at a time. Pretty sure I have more responsibility and I've seen it first hand for 20 years now.
Its not a new regulation.. If the FAA had made the interpretation that "in person" meant "not in person" like these guys wanted, then it would be a new regulation.. Thanks to Chevron, if these guys want remote supervison, they will have to go thru Congress....
Putting the onus of asking questions on a trainee is not the right approach. A trainee simply cannot be trusted to know he might be making a mistake. A supervisor MUST be proactive. I support the FAA's interpretation. Perhaps shops need to limit the number of trainees on staff.
@@stevepowell842 An A&P needs to be providing enough supervision to catch any mistakes made by an uncertificated trainee. Simply being in the shop means next to nothing. The temptation to flood a shop with lower paid trainees is high. We airplane owners are the ones who “pay the price” of poor quality work. There’s been a steep decline in practical skills in recent years. I sometimes find my plane leaving a shop with more problems than it had when I brought it there.
@@Tom-tk3du Well then the way to remedy that is thru the legislative process, not by having an FAA lawyer interpret what "to the extent necessary" means and come up with a hard line number.
@@stevepowell842 What’s difficult to understand about “to the extent necessary”? How much supervision is required depends on the supervisory skills of the A&P and the techs under him. If shops don’t figure this out, the legislative remedy will be to prohibit non-A&P’s from working on aircraft. Period.
@@Tom-tk3du If you have issues with the number uncertified trainees in a shop, then make the FSDO aware of your concerns.. The regulations give the A&P a lot of leeway in how he runs his business, just as it should be.. But if that leeway is being abused, and not reported to the FAA, then yes, the remedy will be to prohibit non-A&Ps in a shop..
With the Supreme Courts recent reversal of Chevron in the Loper Bright v. Raimondo case, these types of opinions are no longer subject to the jurisdiction of administrative law judges. These rule changes can be challenged in Federal Court, utilizing the full process of Federal Law. Under the Chevron doctrine, courts deferred to “reasonable” agency interpretations of a statute if the underlying statute was found to be ambiguous (including silent) on a specific issue-even in cases where the court might have thought there was a better interpretation. Loper criticized Chevron’s framework as “demand[ing] that courts mechanically afford binding deference to agency interpretations” if the law is found to be ambiguous (emphasis in original). The doctrine was considered to “put a thumb on the scale” in favor of an agency’s legal interpretations. Loper squarely overruled Chevron. The decision dramatically reduces deference to the agency and places on courts the obligation to determine fully independently whether an agency’s actions are consistent with the words of the statute and intent of Congress. Courts must in every case, even one of statutory ambiguity, rely on the “traditional tools of statutory construction” to identify the “best reading” of a statute to determine whether the agency’s action is consistent with the statute. The agency’s opinion can still be considered to the extent the court finds it persuasive, but the days of significant deference are over. Ambiguity in statutes must now be addressed by Congress in adopting more precise legislation, rather than by courts deferring to the agency interpretation of that ambiguous intent.
It would be nice if every pilot/AP&IA was married to a lawyer, in 10yrs or so, they could get a ruling on whatever was questioned. The bonus would be you wouldn't have to find and pay a lawyer to represent you.
I would add that Pilots will also reap the benefits of Loper, as ANY decision will be heard at a full hearing, with all the benefits that come with due process and the application of the Federal rules of procedure, rules of evidence ect, in front of a federal judge that doesn’t have any skin in the game. The Trent Palmer situation would’ve never ended up where it is, in a post Chevron world. No longer is it acceptable to have administrative judges hand down punishment, those days are over. I’m watching closely for case law, most of it’s coming out of 2nd amendment cases, however it applies equally to the FAA as well as the ATF, or any other federal agency. Justice Robert’s best day for sure…..
Oh great. So now, in Post-Chevron world, we have to have a federal court on every street corner to litigate every minute element of every one of hundreds of thousands of agency guidelines...most of which are reasonable and necessary to the operation of our big, fat, dumb, happy country? No thanks. I'd rather have a system in which dumb interpretations like this case can be challenged and dealt with in an admittedly aggravating but reasonable manner. The US economy is not a mom and pop shoe store, and our government agencies deal with a lot of big and serious issues....some dealt with better than others. Turning this stuff over to federal courts means that nothing is regulated...good luck with that. Turning it over to industry means that too often Boeing-like catastrophes occur, or mines and bridges collapse, or that old-folks are neglected to death in nursing homes, or fresh water sources are poisoned with industrial drainage and sewage, or that Wells Fargo rips off their customers. Unless John Roberts is an experienced A&P I'd rather not have him opining or wrenching on my plane. By the same token I don't want him holding up my annual until a hundred prior lawsuits are decided. When a city's streets become a tangle of inefficient potholed asphalt spaghetti you don't bomb the city flat and hope that will improve traffic. You analyze, plan, fix, and renovate in an orderly way so that the business of the city can continue and move forward. Mike's analysis is correct and should be well received by the FAA and dealt with in a revision.
This is also what is referred to as an "equivalent level of safety method." (Police State/Deep state) bureaucrat (Lawyer) making a Risk Based Decision (RBDM) equating in person as being the person and therefore an ""equivalent level of safety " BTW ...solo flight requires a Certification. Just trying to help.
“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.” FAR 43.3d... Yup.. Personally means you are actually "personally" in the facility, not 1000 miles away having a cocktail on the beach "supervising" the installation of a new cylinder. I don't understand what all the kerfluffle is about. If you don't like the "in person" part of the law, you get your congresscritter to change the law. Really that simple.
Yes that's for an aircraft, engine, or rotorcraft inspection/certification projects, it is not applicable to aircraft maintenance, repair or alterations.
![[Live] : ONE 169 วันนี้!! "อนาโตลี vs อูมาร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3YZVWuFJg/mqdefault.jpg)
BREAKING NEWS! As of 5pm ET, October 15th 2024, the FAA has issued a legal Stay of the Moss Interpretation: “while the Agency reviews its policies and regulatory options. This stay does not represent a conclusion of the contents of that interpretation and will be effective until such time as the Agency issues, new or supplemental guidance.”
Special thanks to my good friend and associate Mike Busch, Pete Bunce at GAMA, and so many others in the industry that I have worked together with in this effort. Stay tuned for more information!
So an A&P still needs to be in the hanger, as per 14 CFR 43.3(d)? Or can the hanger be full of non certified mechanics being supervised from an A&P on the golf course via zoom?
So the FAA basically was not providing proper hands on supervision to their legal department which caused this Moss Interpretation to be released in the first place. Sounds like the FAA should practice what they preach. I once had a government agency in a different field give me this answer to his interpretation of a rule I was questioning. He said what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
@@2milesowen587 Actually the FAA did provide proper supervision as the memo was reviewed and signed by a 26 year USAF lawyer.. I think she knows a thing or two about what "in person" actually means, don't you?? And that supervision was "in person". And no where in the regulations for lawyers does it say supervision must be "in person" like it says in 14CFR43.3(d) that supervision for non certified mechanics must be "in person".
Has this country become so screwed up that people can't even realize that "in person" means "in person"??
If you don't like the words in the regulation, go thru the regulation process, not try and pay off lawyers to change the meaning of words..
I propose that all FAA lawyers must be overseen, in person, by a judge that will catch mistakes and be ready to take over the interpretation immediately when required.
Facts. This is the common sense way of thinking.
@@davidhaddaway4377 So a commen sense interpretation of "in person supervision" is a work from home supervisor?
I would like to add that all FAA lawyers should be IFR rated pilots without exception.
@@WoutervanTiel So it takes an IFR rating to determine that "in person" means "in person" and not remote or virtual?? why??
@@stevepowell842 you are asking the wrong person. Somebody else said that
I am a pilot owner. I have an older airplane (don't we all) and I am deeply involved with the inspection and repair of my airplane under supervision. As the owner and operator I want the best maintenance possible for my own safety. My mechanic is overwhelmed with work. If I was not helping, the work would never get done.
There are publications for the proper rules to maintain and repair aircraft, some published by the Faa others by the manufacturer. For an owner the airplane has the Owners manual which must be followed. The other, much more general are to be followed by the mechanic.
It is wise for a pilot/owner to be aware to understand this and know what is expected from the mechanic and his responsibilities .
@@arturoeugster7228 Exactly! I am smart enough to know what I don't know because I ask a million questions. I really like being under supervision.
How does that work exactly? Do you just hang out at his shop and help take panels off?
@@Synergy7Studios Yeah exactly that. I spent many minutes removing baffling panels and spark plugs just so he can do a compression check. Note he did the compression check. I cleaned the plugs, he approved the work, then I put everything back together.
@@braincraven we do the same in our shop with some owners. I feel like a knowledgeable pilot is the best kind. Way easier to troubleshoot some issues. I enjoy teaching what I have learned over the past 35 years. I also want to be there if I am signing the logbooks.
After reading the comments I would like to inform those A&Ps that find the ruling proper that they are not the only highly trained and skill individuals working on aircraft. With over 50 years in aircraft maintenance as an A&P supervising non-certificated technicians I can attest to the fact that anA&P certificate does not make the good technician, it is the experience and attitude that makes a safe and competent aircraft technician. Over the years I have supervised numerous aircraft technicians and learned to weed out those that lack skill or proper attitude toward safety, both non-certificated and certificated mechanics.
Nor does a license make a great (or even ok) pilot.
A friend of mine regularly flies unlicensed, not even a student pilot certificate. Claims he's "better than most of" the dummy flight instructors where he works.
I haven't witnessed it, but to some degree, he talks the talk. (I'm a comm/multi/instrument pilot and cfi, so can detect some bs.)
So....? If the a&p means nothing because some a&p's are dopes, how about pilot licenses?
I'm not so sure I disagree with the interpretation.. I'm also an AP/IA. A local shop sort of abuses the unlicensed apprentice situation, aircraft owners don't always know the qualifications of those working on their machines, and the shop likes to keep it that way.
I'm sort of a fan of the licenses. They don't make you competent, but it is a bit of a filter, to keep the complete unknowns out of the business.
That applied to both mechanics and pilots...my friend will end up busted or something worse.
Maybe this interpretation could have a positive effect on the crap pay & benefits that ga a&p's seem to be stuck with.
Pretty simple, if you're such a super mechanic, take the time and make the effort and get the ticket...
I’ve been working as an apprentice for seven months and have my o and p exam next month. I don’t consider any work I’ve done anything short of a and p standard. You’re right it is the individual.
@@michaelhilger8638 I think that’s the point. If the mechanic working on the airplane is 28 months into a 30 month OJT apprenticeship and has already passed their written general, airframe and powerplant tests, then they have already made the effort, but have not yet achieved the required time. How much over-the-shoulder direct supervision is required for someone who has already accomplished numerous oil changes and tire and brake replacements? Sounds as if a shop would have to hire at least one A&P for every apprentice. What GA shop is hiring A&Ps at $60 an hour to start (plus or minus a B-scale) when airlines are finally making up for 25 years of not hiring?
I agree that there are good and bad A&Ps. Do you read the FAR as you do not need to physically be there if someone is doing work that you are signing off?
I learned in the last century that writing a letter requesting an interpretation of a Federal regulation is a lot like pulling the pin out of a grenade. You better think really hard if you need it, and even harder about how it might get answered.
ATF regional offices created a fair bit of chaos due to their issuing of conflicting interpretations.
@@M1903a4 yep interpret it yourself, if you have the expertise or it will be a lawyer with no expertise setting a precedent that may not be practical
Thank you for posting this. Missed it last night live so very happy to be able to watch it now. Now to the crux of the matter:
1. If you’re afraid of the answer from regulatory agency, don’t ask.
2. If the person answering is someone who got to his/her position through means other than skills/capability, don’t ask!
We live in the world, unfortunately, where everyone is afraid of own shadow.
Good advice from many a lawyer... Never ask a question that you don't know the answer to.
DEI
I’m a mechanic for Southwest Airlines. I work a lot and deferred the maintenance of me Cessna 182T to a shop with what I thought was using A&P mechanics. I never told the shop I was an A&P because I wanted to see if they where BS ing me. They did some stuff the piqued my curiosity. And talked to the guys working and none where A&Ps and where working unsupervised. The A&P that was in the shop was in the office playing video games. I had some strong words with him and pulled my aircraft out of the shop. I notified the FAA, tore into the plane myself and compiled a write up list of their defective work, notified the FAA, and sued them to correct all the defective work.
The whole shop
You must be a lawyer on the side. Do the work yourself or don't bitch. If you aren't aware of the variance in A&P abilities and thoroughness you are naive; not everyone is as perfect as you are. One must perform due diligence 🤨 when paying for doctors, mechanics OR pilots. No wonder we have such asinine interpretations from the feds. sheesh.
Supervision shouldn't require a guy looking over your shoulder. I've taught my teens how to change the brake pads/rotors/calipers on our vehicles. Certainly safety critical. I don't have to be in the room the whole time. I check in at critical points to check that things were done correctly before parts are closed up. If they can't remember what to do or run into something they haven't seen before they call me in to explain or make a decision. The time an instructor or supervisor spends on a project should reduce as the experience of the trainee increases.
Now in your case, if they completed the work, billed you, and returned the aircraft to you, and there were still documented errors or mechanical discrepancies, then yeah, the supervisor screwed up.
What was the outcome of your lawsuit?
I think this is incorrect stands of view. Was it wrong for the A&P playing videos games? Sure. But taking it out on the guys that don’t have their A&P is wrong. You don’t graduate school and get unlimited knowledge. It’s all about experiance. A&P is just a certificate that one holds. I rather trust a mechanic without A&P that has been working for 3 years vs a brand new licensed tech.
Customer of the Year! lol
The FAA is killing GA and then everyone is scratching their head wondering why there's a pilot shortage 🤔
Killing GA by making a supervisor actually be in the hanger where the maintenance of aircraft is being done?? Oh, the horrors...
@@stevepowell842 killing GA by driving up maintenance costs for everyone. The FAA’s interpretation is also a lot stricter than you seem to think. Just being in the hangar is likely not enough for compliance because the supervisor is supposed to notice mistakes and take over if necessary.
@@Finder245 Certainly not what this interpretation spelled out. Regulation just says supervision must be "in person". Maintenance costs are not going to go up, because the A&P should have been in the shop supervising, not playing solitaire from his home computer being a virtual A&P.
@@stevepowell842 yeah, after another read, I agree with you. I kind of don’t know what Mike’s concern is then…
GA is a nuisance in the public mind, and could go away with no great public heartburn. Then there would be only drones and airliners flying. The "pilot shortage" could be addressed by remaking Part 141 into a military style ab-initio flight training program run by aeronautical university/airline partnerships. The students would fund the academic side through tuition, with the airline funding flight ops and sim training. Military standard flight physical and security clearance qualifications would be required for entry.
I have recently seen several instances of newly licensed A&Ps who came out of school and can't even do a tire, wheel bearing, brake pad replacement without screwing it up. Unfortunately having the license doesn't make you a good mechanic. Lots of aircraft owners can do a much better job doing the actual work than these fresh "licensed" A&Ps.
After 2 years of school and 2 years, with one to go of full-time apprentice employment before my son gets his A&P license, I think you have your head up your ass. The total bullshit that some owners do to their own planes and insist "it's OK to fly" are weekly stories he tells of the planes he sees coming into the shop.
@@2drsdanI work daily with A&Ps that couldn't even cut it at a Jiffy Lube. It's less about the license and more about the person.
It's the same jn any field.
I've worked with self taught engineers that design circles around certified, degreed, licensed engineers.
It really is about the person and their experience.
Combine the two and you can get exceptional geniuses.
Your statement is correct. But those "aircraft owners" need to be supervised IN PERSON 100% of the time if the tasks they are performing are MORE THAN Preventative Maintenance. That SUPERVISION needs to be by the appropriately rated mechanic "IN THE HOUSE." That does NOT mean the supervisor needs to stand over the person performing the work. But they cannot be 40 miles away.
I'm going to tactfully disagree. It depends on the aircraft owner's experience, AND the task being performed. After 48 years of ownership, my IA doesn't need to watch me change a tire or even change a cylinder. I've done those tasks often enough, and he knows it. I am responsible enough to stop work and consult him before doing something I have questions about. When this happens, I've also done some research to present to him as well. But, looking over my shoulder is NOT a necessity.
I laughed when Mike said this legal interpretation came out "without proper oversight". Maybe an A&P and a Pilot should personally observe with physical presence the work of legal interpretations to notice mistakes and take over if necessary.
I put my kid through law school. Having watched that process I am convinced that an A&P or a Pilot could make a much more appropriate "interpretation". Like one of my kid's law professors told him while attending..."you better improve your social skills because your success as a lawyer is not dependent upon your knowledge of the subject matter".
Haha. That's exactly the same thought that I had when he said that.
@@vaughnbay I imagine your kid knows administrative law exists, but that he knows nothing about 14 CFR.
@@chipsawdust5816 You don't think a lawyer, or even anyone that can fog up a mirror could make the determination that "in person" actually meant "in person" and not virtually, especially considering the law in question was written 60 years ago?
@@ronmaxim8009 Apples and oranges. Most attorneys don't study aviation law. I'm not arguing what "in person" means (Busch likes to make mountains out of molehills sometimes), just that most attorneys don't know 14 CFR. My wife also went to law school and yeah, she knows administrative law (and 14 CFR since she worked in aviation), but they didn't teach it in any useful way.
I find the FAA answers correct in every way
You can allow bad maintenance on airplanes by trying to play with the rules that has worked
You can pull over when your have problems in your airplane because of shady maintenance we must keep aviation safe and keep it professional not turn it into a word game to cheat the rules
All maintenance should be done with a supervisor available in person very simple rule
Mr. Busch, you are an asset to the GA community. Thank you for all you have done for us. If all IAs ran their facilities with the professionalism and pride you have exercised throughout your career, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I personally have been PIC during multiple serious, as in aircraft- and life-threatening, mechanical failures that have been directly attributable to substandard maintenance work. My experience is not unique amongst pilot-owners. I have had so many bad experiences with A&Ps that I now have anticipatory anxiety on every flight out of maintenance. Since becoming more hands-on, the stuff I have identified fresh out of the shop has been egregious. Wires taped down with duct tape, loose oil drain plugs, missing safety wire, loose or incorrect-model spark plugs, missing air filters, pinched brake lines, low-gauge wire zip-tied to sharp sheet metal, missed evidence of arcing near starters and alternators, improperly-installed throttle and mixture cables, unsecured batteries, pinched tire tubes...the list goes on and on. The FAA is compelled to act. Easily preventable maintenance gaffes are killing too many people and bending too many airframes.
Love the channel and content! Thank you for keeping us little people who are hanging on in GA informed!
In order to be sure that FAA interpretations are crafted in proper context, FAA legal staff who write and/or issue binding interpretations about actions of certificated individuals should be required to hold the certificate about which they are writing, OR must be supervised by certificated staff who is/are readily available, in person, for consultation... a physical hands on approach to supervision. If not, why not?
They were asked to interpret what the term "in person" and "personally observes".. Since I assume these lawyers are persons, and have been in a room or observed something, that would make them imminently qualified to make the determination as to what "in person" and "personally observes" mean in the context of the language in the law.
How about this outcome:
It won't matter.
I'm an AP/IA and 135 charter pilot. See both maintenance and flight related regulations bent and broken all the time, mostly by the same repeat offenders. Others see the same thing. It is simply known. If it is common knowledge, you can bet the Feds know it. They ignore it. And I don't just mean not looking too hard-
FAR 135 duty time regulations? Multiple pilots have asked for enforcement of this..the response has ranged from "crickets" to hostility.
The local FSDO seems to like finding minor fault with one local maintenance facility that seems to run an exceptionally tight maintenance operation (no, never worked there). But ignore others that specialize in lacking training, tooling, and data.
The Feds seem to specialize in this...going tangential- do we have some immigration rules being overlooked? Sanctuary cities?
Taking a page from that book- maybe our local FSDO will just acknowledge some "sanctuary hangars", or airports. If you ask me, they already have.
When pressed to address the allowance of untrained "mechanics" working on certificated aircraft, that carry paying passengers, without supervision, what the heck do you expect them to say?
If you think they will somehow undo this interpretation, you're dreaming. No way. It's on paper, it even makes sense. They will just ignore it.
When, inevitably, some lawyered up rich persons child dies in an accident related to sloppy maintenance done by an unqualified person, they will bring out the memorandum, say they are "very concerned", but, can't catch everyone. Then, point out our "safest airspace", blah, blah.
The maintenance facility might get spanked, and the Feds that ignored the problem will continue on, collecting paychecks and the rare-in-aviation decent retirement.
For writing rules, then forgetting all about them.
IF you really believe what you wrote, how about you tell everyone what 135 operation you work for? Then we will see if the FAA turns a blind eye to enforcement... I can only imagine what government agencies will be like if this country hires a 34 time convicted felon and one that owes millions to his rape victim...
Sixty years ago - well I was on the verge of soloing but less than ten years later I was working under the exact same system the regulation describes... as a U.S. Navy ADR 3, Aviation Machinist's Mate Third Class- changing parts on recip engines, performing line turns, etc. with my own work periodically being checked by ADR 1 or an AD- CPO, making corrections any time one was needed. Back THEN it was a fail-safe way of getting planes "up" safely. After all, we had to crew them as well!
My dad retired as an AMCS and flew as a flight engineer on P-3 (VP10) and C-130(VR24). Cannot complete the mission if the a/c isn't up to snuff!
This is all well and good but...when the A&P fails to supervise the work of their non A&P's things go bad quickly. I have had a near engine out due to the spark plug wires falling off the plugs (one fell off and the other 7 were less than finger tight) after a non-supervised employee worked on my airplane. My nosewheel was re-assembled incorrectly during an annual. Others at my airport have similar issues. We now do a post maintenance inspection to catch the screwups
Did you forget to do a preflight? A loose spark plug wire would be something that I would catch before I even started the engine.
@@elliottdiedrich2123 Removal of the cowling can take two people and is not part of the preflight.
@@fredworrell2468 I guess it is up to you to determine whether the spark plugs are connected properly and if you are satisfied that they will work like you want them to, just by looking at them. But, I would like to know how it was determined that the non A&P was responsible for the loose spark plug wires (assuming that is what you are implying). I don't see how you could know that without witnessing the work. If you weren't watching, the A&P in charge could easily blame someone else lower than himself for his own mistakes. My point is: Just because someone is certified to do some particular work, doesn't mean they will do quality work. In my opinion, personal attitude and experience far outweigh certification.
I would say these laws are being written by people who have no real world experience.
It's not just the equipment that needs intermittent observation and inspection.
I was in the Coast Guard and fire service and in both places I had mentors who took me by the hand in the beginning, and supervised me from some distance after that.
Then after I had WITHOUT close supervision for some months, my mentors would come back and walk with me as we did these tasks because they wanted to ENSURE that bad habits hadn't crept in.
I can fondly remember the fear as my supervisor joined me on my daily tasks AND GRATEFUL THAT HE DID!!!
And it was great pride when I surprised MY trainee by joining HIM while he did HIS daily task many years later.
THAT'S how the torch gets passed and pride bubbles up from competency.
You sound like you are not in favor of "virtual supervision". You sound like it is important that the A&P be actually in the shop supervising or just being in the shop if needed.... Bravo.. Just like what the rule has said now for 60 years..
Point well made on how the FAA, NTSB, and other governing and investigating bodies for aviation do it today. Personally, when I looked at a critical step in engine maintenance in an inspector or supervisor capacity, I even took an image of what I saw for posterity, just to make sure. 🤷🏽♂️👍🏽
Mike on 2.0 x speed is just about listenable.
seems to apply to both of them :)
@@bpm-atx Yes, but....they are both articulate and careful with their words, and bring not only accuracy but suitable interpretation to the issue. What would you have them leave out, or underplay?
Thanks for your work on these complex rules...
Well done Jeff And Mike…. I’m completely onboard with everything you guys said during this video. Behind you all of the way ! 👍🏼
I APPLAUD THE F.A.A FOR THIS NEW MOSS PROGRAM. I TOO LIKE YOUR GUEST AM AN A&p IA mechanic with years of experience with the airlines as well as in general avaition. noteworthy an experienced engine shop in polo alto airport Calif has 8 mechanics who are from mexico and none of them don,t have an A&P licience period. im 61 yrs old and been in avaition for over 45 yrs before i retired as well as a licienced private pilot since 1986. mark san francisco calif. (im based out of half moon bay airport.
Great information - we will cover it in our podcast this week as well.
I listened until 37:33 and did not hear anything that suggested that the phrase “to the extent necessary” was interpreted in a way that changed the amount of supervision. So, what I heard is that if the certificate holder feels that the supervision is necessary, then the certificate holder can’t phone it in and has to be there to observe in-person, which makes sense to me and likely (hopefully) is what people are already doing.
I hate to say it but this is no different then when everyone got their panties in a wad when the mandated in 2020 ADS-B out was required. I literally watched owner/operators yell and scream at FAA reps that they were killing the GA industry… fast forward 4 years and they are the first to say “wow… it’s kind of nice being able see not just big planes but little ones too.” They are turning an ant hill into a mountain. As an A&P IA I have no problems with working side by side with the pilot/owner of their plane. Or letting them work on it by themselves as long as I can visibly see the end result after the fact. I’ve had some tell me that the inspector last year said these certain things or those certain things are within limits to which I simply reply I’ll read the AD/service letter/service bulletin or manual and make my own determination based on the reference material. Here’s what I’ll say I have pilots call me and talk to me all the time about certain things and I’ll either tell them go ahead or wait till I’m there. That’s not going to change even with this “interpretation”. I think what it is is these pilots that are use to getting their brother in law that’s also an IA to sign off their planes without even looking at it that live in different states are pissed because they may have to actually take their plane to someone who’s not going to bullshit the inspection or MX because it’s their license on the line. Any pilot that is ok with some guy walking up to your plane after all MX is done and everything is closed saying looks like an airplane is the reason why GA is dying and visa versa any dickhead A&P or A&P IA that’s ok with signing off something in “good faith” is not only the reason why GA is dying but your also asking for a skull fucking from the FEDS should anything happen to said aircraft. And I don’t care how nice or funny or wonderful or how best friend a pilot is with you. The first thing that a pilot learns wether in the military or flight school is to shed any and all responsibility of a mishap regardless of how big or small and you can be sure if the FAA is getting involved the first words out of your BFF pilots mouth will be “They did the annual! Or They Touched it last” so why even put yourself up for failure?. And here’s another question for the people getting up in arms.. if you are still going to do oil changes or change tires etc etc are you really going to call your local FSDO rep and say “hey I’m doing unsupervised MX on my plane you better come get me!” The answer is no so please calmly pull your head out of your ass and continue to do you and keep poking holes in the sky.
Obviously the lawyer that wrote this "interpretation" obviously has never been in a real world working or training environment and does not know how the GA mechanics, AP, AP&AI, operate on a daily basis. He has his head stuck in a book. Unfortunately he is protecting his own lively hood to the detriment of anything else. I spent 2 years at Sacramento City College A&P program and there were very few times a teacher was looking over my shoulder. The usual case was he would tell us or show us how and then send us off to do the work. When done he would return and inspect our work. if this holds, people will loose jobs, prices will go up, shops will close, etc. Glad I finished my working and flying career years ago.
Sounds like your teacher was "in person", not virtual.. This rule is 60 years old and this section has never been a problem. Everyone interpreted "in person supervision" as the the supervisor had to be in the facility, not a 1000 miles away behind a computer screen...
Disregarding the new interpretation, the FAA must continue (as they have in the distant past) to address the issues that cause the highest number of accidents FIRST. The FAA can address the scratched paint on the flap handle some other time.
I have 5 classes left for my A&P, and obviously the exams. I also have a private pilot certificate. I got my A&P because I got really tired of having to fly for maintenance since no mechanics are at my field and the fact that I couldn't do a lot of minor maintenance. I just don't see how you can do GA if you don't have an A&P or repairman's certificate or an LSRM. Mechanics and shops are really too busy with corporate customers...doesn't matter if you have the money to pay. A business is paying them millions to do maintenance for their own fleet...they don't have time for your cessna.
Are you suggesting that attorneys who write opinions for the FAA should be subject to in-person supervision such that when they make a mistake the supervisor can intervene immediately to fix a mistake?
Supervision is to the level of assessing one’s competency of the one being supervised and checking STAGES of work so that the certifying person can check correct compliance of work done before moving on. The level of confidence in the worker cannot remove the need for certain stage inspections.
I am surprised the airlines were not mentioned as part of the impacted parties of this rulemaking. Within the maintenance operations of major airlines there must be a significant workforce that is not A&P certified but does perform actions that could now be interpreted as in need of supervision.
What if the Bar Association said a Sr. Attorney is required to be present, in person, to oversee and takeover when a Jr. attorney is writing a letter or brief?
Well they don't. They trust junior lawyers know the difference between "in person" and "virtual".
A 'jr lawyer' has passed the state bar, and taken the oath of office. A shadetree mechanic is just that.
Thanks for exposing this issue
The interpretation means that, except for preventive maintenance, a mechanic cannot sign off work done by non certified persons unless said mechanic was able to supervise and intervene if necessary. This was started because someone wanted to work on an aircraft and have the mechanic inspect it over video calls and sign it off remotely.
@@mikeeubank246 …which is a procedure formally approved of by the FAA for airlines & repair stations. At this time, the entire Moss Interpretation is on hold while we negotiate a more logical approach from the FAA.
Keep in mind that a legal interpretation usually means a couple of things: 1) it informs the public of the agency's policy (and thus enforcement) of a regulation; 2) it is what at least one lawyer believes is defensible in a court of law. Neither of these things mean that someone will actually get found guilty if it actually gets to the point that the FAA tries to take them in front of an ALJ.
@@wurzzzz Excellent points. I would add that our efforts to achieve the current legal stay of the Moss interpretation are to protect the maintenance shop owner. It’s unfortunate, but the cost of getting through the legal process defending against an enforcement action (even if you win) could be devastating to many small shops.
Mike Bush is awesome. I've learned alot from his Saavy aviation YT videos.
As a properly trained A&P, I don't like unlicensed personal working on aircraft without in person, direct supervision. Simple procedures are very often done improperly without the proper background from an airframe and powerplant school training. Along with the poor pay, modern aircraft maintenance has almost become a farce.
Work done by osmosis we called it
As a pilot/ owner who has been a professional mechanic and business owner in the automotive and heavy equipment fields for close to 40 years, I had to instruct my property trained A&P mechanic how to properly rebuild the front strut in my aircraft after he improperly repaired it twice, as well as loan him the proper tool for reassembly.
The bottom line is, you either have the aptitude and understanding, or you do not. A certificate simply means you passed a test and is not necessarily an indication of a good mechanic. This is true in almost all industries.
even newbie school trained mechs should be supervised for a year knowing some of the winners I went to school with.
"....to the extent necessary..." is the key phrase. If you think all the time I worked at a big name repair depot without an A&P ticket, that I had an A&P looking over my shoulder every second, you'd think wrong. Quite frankly some of the certificated A&Ps I've seen lately could learn a thing or 2 from the guys who did get their tickets by work experience.
As an A&P, you have the right to decide to what extent you need to supervise the work under all interpretations. The FAA’s interpretation just takes away your authority to say that you don’t need to be present for some parts of the work performed. I don’t think you really want that.
I agree that this interpretation is a clear violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Secondly, the interpretation creates additional ambiguity. At what point must an A&P step in? Upon each rivet being removed or after they are ready to be reinstalled? This is an example why we want healthy discussion debate when laws are written in the legislative process.
What part of the "supervisor personally observes" and the "supervisor is readily available, in person" is now ambiguous after this interpretation?? At what point must an A&P step in? Well, that is clearly stated in the regulation.."the supervisor personally observes the work being done to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly ". If in the estimation of the A&P that the person doing the work must be watched 100% of the time, then there is your answer..If the A&P deems he only needs to look at the final product, then there is your answer.. This was a legal interpretation of the terms "personally observes" and "the supervisor is readily available, in person"..They ruled based on the plain meaning of the language in the current rule. If people don't like the language that was used in the legislation, then the legislation should be modified by going thru the legislative process..Not by trying to get a lawyer to agree that in person does not really mean in person.
Mike, please do more to "quantify" the impact of your concerns. Does the FAA interpretation benefit pilot safety, or adversely impact profitability of the workshop? I'm 100% for improved pilot safety. I've had too many instances of substandard maintenance result in serious safety incidents..eg. aborted takeoff run in a high performance taildragger at high DA (you can't slam on the brakes), loss of all static system coupled flight instruments in-flight. Had to land using manifold pressure and RPM alone. Both incidents caused by the same $$$ shop after same annual.
GA is already on a downward path. We need a new effort to push affordable for the people GA and not business GA.
Due to far many incidents and accidents they believe GA needs to disappear literally. Theyre doimg thw same with cars.
@@08turboSS There has always been risks but GA has been way safer than riding a bicycle or walking across the street. It's a total misconception.
@@braincraven such as?
My local airport is now 5 jets and basically no recreational left. No one tied down visiting. The main entry is locked up after 6 pm. The weather room is gone. Everything online. The flight school is using an old 172. In Europe there are dozens of modern training aircraft. Sad. 😢
My friend, we already have that, with LSA and experimental aircraft that perform better than the stuff coming out of Wichita or Florida. Also they're safer because you can add a ballistic parachute or airbags or any safety device that you see fit.
I am shocked and saddened that Mr. Mike Busch would think the general counsel's interpretation of the rule be anything different than what they have clarified. The only way for safety standards to be maintained is for the supervising A&P to be present at all times. It take years for a mechanic to gain solid competency in all areas required to maintain general aviation aircraft. I fix too many aircraft incorrectly maintained by those who are less than capable but licensed none the less at least on paper. A&P/IA
2 unlicensed employees at Delta just died, trying to change a tire. A supervisor on duty, on the shop floor, and awake; would have noticed that the air had not been let out of the tire.
If Delta is unable to change a tire without direct supervision being involved than Delta has a huge problem. Anybody that touches a tire should be trained on the dangers of such an operation and it shouldn't take the supervisor to know that. My understanding is someone from their paint shop was assisting in the repair/maintenance action and it cost him his life, very sad😮
"I'm sure this happened without proper oversight"
Irony.
We also have remote pilots, of very big airplanes, in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Many owners are in fact better mechanics than many A&Ps and IAs.
I open and close, oversee anything a shop does...and correct as neccessary.
I agree, one big problem is you only have to be a mechanic for 2 years before you could become an IA I find this absolutely horrifying.
@@christophergagliano2051That pretty well stereotypes people. Some learn and reason quickly, some never truly get it, no matter what venue. Ironically the ones that never truly get are actually the instructor...see it all the time.
@@scottpatterson4105 I got one for you, years ago I was working in a small shop and one of the technicians who claimed he was an A&P couldn't read. I mean he couldn't read a maintenance manual or a parts manual or an AD. Now he could have been lying about his A&P but he worked on all kinds of airplanes and never cracked a maintenance manual, a regulation, or advisory circular (AC) nothing at all. And he certainly broke a bunch of crap just by over torquing nuts, bolts, and other related hardware and now he teaches at a 147 school 😲
@@christophergagliano2051 I would say it's fairly impossible to service any variety of equipment without reading. I sure he lied because a written is part of the test.
@@scottpatterson4105 Well I witnessed this guy making a logbook entry and he wrote some type of number down like it was his A&P number, hell it could have been a lottery ticket # from way back in 2017 lol
I'm so glad I got rid of my two GA planes. Maybe someday I'll build an experimental.
In firefighting we call it "direct supervision" and "general supervision". A rookie gets direct supervision but a 20 year veteran gets general supervision.
Hard to fathom that one low ranking bureaucrat has this much power.
This is no accident.
After the recent SCOTUS Chevron Decision, the FAA doesn’t have this authority any longer. The specific letter of the law is what is allowed only. Congress must pass the change as a change to law, it cannot be done by interpretive fiat by the FAA
@@bohem3006 But that is what was asked of the FAA in this instance.. The petitioner asked that the FAA interpret "in persons" to mean virtual, even though the rule is over 60 years old and "in person" has always meant "in person". All agencies have the ability to interpret the very rules that Congress authorized them to create.. The Chevron Decision did not change that.
While we are all hoping for a better GA future with the EAA "MOSAIC" affairs we get back-stabbed and ambushed with this BS Load of fiat Government overreach. Sad days. We need Government advocacy more then ever ! Regards from Alaska!
I strongly believe that proper supervision is crucial. My last annual inspection was done by a less-than-reliable A&P mechanic at Boerne Stage, Texas, whom I’d rather not name. Unfortunately, they forgot to tighten the exhaust pipes on my airplane, and after just 30 hours of flight time, they broke. This resulted in over $8,000 in repairs during a trip to Sedona, while I was in New Mexico. The A&P was rarely present on the field, and I highly doubt he took the time to ensure his team had completed the work correctly.
The internal "in Person " questions are coming forward in terms of the FAA(DOT) new in person requirement for "in person" work verses "Telework". we are just trying to see if the interpretation of "in person" remains consistent. When the FAA engages in virtual training , forums , meetings etc.. ...since Plandemic, many want to know if those types of work still count as "in person" work.
So there is a difference between "in person" and virtual... And 43.3(d) requires "in person", not virtual..
GA is nothing but a thorn in the side of the FAA, from maintenance to airport to airspace and ATC system.
They would be perfectly happy if they only had to deal with the airlines.
It’s not the regulation that needs modified and re-organized, it’s the FAA that needs modified and re-organized .
With people in charge that understand aviation, not lawyers, or political appointees.
It’s simple we need a GA friendly & knowledgeable, POTUS .
So you think "in person" as written in the rule should be interpreted as "not in person"?? And why would you want to leave that question up to a guy who ran up 8 trillion in debt, bankrupted 6 companies and stole nuclear defense secrets?
@@ronmaxim8009 I said A GA friendly and knowledgeable POTUS that understands freedom and liberty, that understands public youth spaces, and is a advocate for personal liberties. Like working on your own airplane.
No, one of our choices is a neo liberal in a blue suit, and a neo liberal on steroids in a red suit.
What we have to worry about is them wanting to privatize the air, traffic control system, and airports, so there is user fees on everything .
That’s how they’re gonna bury personal GA, make it too expensive for the bugs smashers to fly.. The Golden age of everything is at risk
Harris will continue this hostile agency shixshow
@@timdykes6675Trump is hardly Liberal 🙄🙄 that makes no sense
@@100pyatt ?
I suspect that for owners of certificated planes who know how to, and do most all of their own maintenance above and beyond the allowed owner items, this interpretation will mean little. They will continue to do things the same way. If an A&P or IA will no longer sign off the work, because he/she was not present 100% of the time, then much of the work will simply be done anyway by the owner, nothing will said to anyone, and no logbook entry will be made.
How will this ruling effect 145 repair stations where the only required AP is the responsible name on the certificate?
Repair stations operate off part 43. The A&P/repairman doesn't use their personal certificate to sign return to service. They use the repair station certificate number.
Funny thing about the word “contemplate” is that it in no way carries value as does “shall;” it does not even carry the value of “should.” ‘Contemplate’ means you have given consideration without decision one way or another. ‘Contemplate’ creates no bindings. In your discussion you mentioned how you might watch more closely the initial trainee versus one more experienced nearing the end of an apprenticeship. In so doing, you have met this concept of contemplating being able to catch and being able to take over. You’ve considered the level of the one being observed. The second sentence “… must be available…” is a subordinate sentence to the contemplation. “Must be available” applies if your specific contemplation took you one way though being subordinate, should your contemplation have taken you the other, the underlying sentence wouldn’t apply. After all, contemplation is not binding.
To be clear, the second sentence in the “trouble block” describes what constitutes a “hands-on form of supervision” while the preceding sentence says such is contemplated but does not direct such as contemplation is not directive in nature.
Descriptive of a form not prescriptive for the form of supervision.
Thank you for watching out for all us. As Mike eluded to, this response from the FAA seems to have been written and submitted without direct oversight and subsequent inspection and sign off. Hmmm?!?!?
How will this affect and Major airlines AMT training programs and the AMT schools?
Supervision will have to be "in person", not remote... Just like it has been for 60 years.
The underlying regulation does not change. This is merely the FAAs argument should it ever be brought forward in an enforcement action. If a pilot/owner has a lawyer who can successfully argue that the FAA’s interpretation is wrong, then that becomes the precedent.
I know those involved in the origin of this question. The question on clarification was based the interpretation of "in person supervision" with regard to of all the new communication technologies available today. This was not around an enforcement, but rather an operator felt it could be reasonable, given todays remote technology, the that definition of "in person supervision" could be extended "virtually," where if a small repair issue arises in a remote location(no certificated repair available), "someone" present could remotely under video supervision make the fix with the supervisor virtually present, forgoing the time and expense to have operator send an A&P to make the minor repair. Needless, to say the response was surprising...
No surprising. The regulation is pretty clear.. It says "in person". That can always be changed by amending the rule.. But the FAA and all other agencies cannot write rules anymore thanks to the SC knocking down the Chevron deference... Rules will have to be written by Congress now..
The FAA's failure to regulate the large shops all the way up to Boeing is going to crush the small shops with regulatory overreach in an effort to cover up the FAA's own deficiencies. This scenario rhymes with the Colgan air disaster. The FAA made the 1,500 hour rule to cover up fatigue and lack of situational awareness by 2 pilots with more than 1500 hours each. Now we get 141 flight instructors with 10 hours of solo time. I wish Mike luck.
what's the ratio of uncertificated trainees / mechanics over A&P's in a shop?
Sounds like they need sub levels of "repairer". Could do it like the Army did. Maintenance levels 0 - 4. Writting it into my Shop SOP for advancements. Apprentice all the way to DME with timelines and additional training.
Would seem pertinent that the FAA would hire personnel that had some kind of insight as to how aviation functions. We have lots of folks nowadays hired because they have a college education but no practical knowledge or experience in the field they are hired to work in
Remember the FAA MOTO, "The FAA ain't HAPPY Till you/Everyone else is UNHAPPY".
My personal favorite; If it ain't broke, keep screwing with it till it IS broke.
If you can't derive the same answer from the regulation itself, you shouldn't be supervising anyone anyhow. They didn't rewrite the rule - it isn't a "NEW RULING." It's just confirming that the regulation means what it says. I don't think anyone can truthfully say they don't understand "IN PERSON."
I have seen interactions with government officials before. It seems that sometimes the fastest way to get their attention is a lawsuit, but It would have to come from the big organizations, not an individual. If I am teaching a flight student, they can not learn as well until they solo.
Would you be good signing off that student to fly in a plane that had an annual done by non certified mechanics with no in person supervision?
You guys are overthinking this. The memo does not require the supervising mechanic to do 100% supervision during the operation. What the memo says is that:
"The certified mechanic must be
"available".
Here's another data point. The current regulation (14 CFR 43.3 (d) says that the supervisor mechanic will be "readily available". But the most recent memo from the FAA says that the supervisory mechanic only needs to be "available".
Now if you put on your thinking cap what that means is per the memo, supervision is actually less restrictive because the supervisor mechanic does not have to be "readily" available, only available. 😲
In addition, what the memo means is the trainee mechanic can't complete a maintenance activity and then cover it up where the certified mechanic can't see what was done, that's what this memo means. And if the supervising mechanic is not happy with the work then he can take over and rework the maintenance activity as noted in the decision memo.
@@christophergagliano2051 Attorneys at several aviation organizations disagree. They believe this interpretation means exactly what we discussed, constant oversight. So do the FAA enforcement folks.
@@SocialFlight Well I don't put much trust with attorneys even though they've trusted me on numerous occasions. I held a DAR appointment with the FAA for over 15 years meaning I'm in the regulations all the time or at least I was before I retired. Again I don't see where anything requires 100% supervision and that's the key, so if it's not required 100%, then you don't have to do 100% supervision, And that's a fact.
@@SocialFlightobviously the attorneys want everyone to see it as a doomsdays situation, that way you guys will spend $1M with those attorneys fighting a fight you think exists….making the attorneys $$$$.
@@christophergagliano2051 I’d certainly be happy if it turns out you are correct and I also hope that they will overturn the allowance of some electronic supervision as deemed appropriate to the situation by the supervising mechanic. Ultimately, if the regulation stands, we will see how it is enforced and how the NTSB court rules on it. That will tell us where things really stand. Keep in mind that this interpretation started (most likely) as part of an enforcement action regarding electronic supervision. So the next enforcement action citing the moss interpretation probably isn’t far off in the future.
@@SocialFlight My friend I disagree, first off, this is not a regulation change, it is a memo not a regulation change.
Secondly no way would I trust electronic / video supervision, that's a dumbest thing I've ever heard of. That supervising mechanic needs to be in the hanger/shop checking up on the trainees as they do their work.
I have spoken to my friends who work at airlines. Their 2 cents is that these shops don't want to hire only A&Ps because they have to pay them more. This is not really an airplane owner issue. The gentlemen on this are basically lobbyists for maintenance facilities, including their own
I just started back flying after a 35 year period and hearing this sort of stuff infuriates me when feds try to dump on GA segments 😡😡😡 Thanks for taking this threat head on!!!
So you are ok with a non certified mechanic working on your rental or personal aircraft without any in person supervision??
As an A&P, IA i've been burned too many times by owners who want to do their own work. TBH, all it takes is one mistake... and I was lucky they weren't critical. If you're an A/C owner and want to "help", then spend YOUR time & money getting an A&P as well. Just because you can fly, and you own it, doesn't automatically mean you have the talent to fix it.
I will counter you by saying that a certified mechanic/IA can easily make a “mistake”, just like anyone else, not even necessarily skill based. It could be caused by distraction that causes missed steps, or the certified person just having too much work to do on too many airplanes. In twenty years of aircraft ownership, I have witnessed several mistakes during maintenance of my aircraft, at least one of which that could have been catastrophic for me and did not take a genius to see. Owners are not stupid. Their hide is usually the one at risk, and owner oversight of their maintenance people is equally as legitimate as what you perceive as an owner putting your maintenance certificate at risk. I do not implicitly trust anyone who works on my airplane, and that would include you. Nothing personal. I will also add that some things an owner can do are so simple in terms of intellectual capacity, like a routine oil change, that to require the involvement of a certified mechanic is absurd. When authority by declaration on paper becomes absolute and obviates common sense, the healthy checks and balances like those that should exist through humility and mutual respect between an aircraft owner and his/her maintenance facility break down. I have learned to avoid facilitators, shall we say, whose opinion of themselves is that they can do nothing wrong.
@@wkelly3053a mechanic who feels the work is not done properly can re-do it or supervise in person the re-do of the work before returning it to service.
You can work at a mayor airline and get a free sign off so you can take the mechanic test 😊 there’s a way around guys, don’t spend 40k in school, is free when a mechanic signs you off I seen it all the time and the FAA looks away.
BS
A pharmacist is responsible, and their license is in harm's way with everything a technician does under their supervision, I believe. Pretty heavy responsibility for an A&P mechanic is same is in place for them.
I think the Chevron Deference Decision has some bearing on the FAA's legal (supreme Court decision) authority to interpret there own regulations anymore.
There own?? where?
@@08turboSS 14 CFR Part 1 through 830- ish
Their own
The FAA can interpret them, just as they did in this case... And if people are butt hurt about it, they can appeal to a judge.. And that judge will have to decide if "in person" means "virtual" in the context of when this was written. So instead of agencies with institutional knowledge making interpretations, it will be judges ( who are all lawyers and not experts in any field ) making interpretations. yay Chevron!!!
@@stevepowell842 There will be appeals and stays filed if the FAA uses (any Interpretation) as the Basis for certificate action. I believe this is where the rubber meets the road. Since the Chevron reversal the FAA will have a Hard time using an interpretation in the administrative action (certificate action ) or in a civil action against a non certificated person as the basis for the action. IMEHO
I’m sorry but I agree with the FAA interpretation. I do think that an A&P should be walking the shop looking over the shoulder of half a dozen non-licensed workers. If the worker thinks he is assembling the cylinder correctly and doesn’t ask for help, but doesn’t install the valve springs before installing the valve covers, it would have been real helpful for an A&P to be glancing at the work periodically to see what was being done. I have had my 172 returned from a large local shop multiple times and I can tell an A&P obviously didn’t provide any supervision.
Certified doesn't mean qualified
@@Hallahanify The fu- Okay, if you can't trust certification, how the hell are you supposed to know who is and isn't qualified to fix your shit? What, are you supposed to just go off the fucking vibes?
Is there any data that shows a non A&P working in a shop causes a rise in accidents?
@@Hallahanifyand? Plenty of pilots that aren’t qualified either. I also agree with this. I would never remotely supervise any maintenance action and would never put my cert on the line without direct supervision of the MX task
@@Hallahanify Having over 30 years experience in aviation maintenance and 10+ years in aviation accident investigation I concur that certification does not relate to aviation incident data.
Human error despite the certification and or experience of the mechanic / pilot / repairman is the root cause of 95% of aviation incidents.
How/where can we get a a copy of Mike's letter so we can send it to our representatives requesting them to support raining in this ruling?
So you want your representative to tell the FAA that they must interpret "in person" to mean that an A&P doesn't actually have to be there "in person", in direct conflict with the literal meaning of "in person"? If the FAA intended for supervision to be remote or virtual, they would have stated that in the rule they wrote 60 years ago and that no one until recently has had any problem with it.
We would have lost ww2 if this were the rules back then 🇺🇸thanks to Mike and social flight
There was no such thing at virtual supervision back then... It was all "in person" supervision, which is why we won WWII....
Electrician here: apprenticeships are vital for the future of the trades. There are BS programs for electricians, others, that are simply “trainee” programs, when what we need is registered, tracked, meaningful apprenticeship. We’ve got to train the next generation in robust ways (and there’s lots of poor ways that don’t work that are practiced in the real world, that doesn’t make them good), and that does include the looser, better, more training-rich opportunities that come with having an apprentice turned loose to work without being strictly supervised like what the FAA is proposing. This is an overreaction to bad practices and the way to win the day is to also reject the bad practices, explain how things are done well, and ask how people can be brought up to the good standard, not some new silly one.
I don't see what your issue with the FAA is..They are saying an A&P MUST be in the building where the maintenance activities by non rated mechanics are being performed. Why would anyone want and apprenticeship program where the supervising A&P is a thousand miles away and not personally observing the work??
@@stevepowell842that’s not what this says. Being in the building is no longer enough while an apprentice is working. The FAA memo requires 100% direct supervision which is wild. In my industry and state (which has THE hardest licensing test in the country), an apprentice electrician can get a “work alone card” in their last year, still with restrictions, still has to be given direction at the start of the day, but they can enjoy the freedom and challenge of working solo while the licensed electrician still holds liability.
@@Kevlux86 You might want to read the interpretation.. nothing has changed about the supervision of non certified mechanics, other than to say "in person" explicitly requires physical presence, not virtual presence. The administration ruling mentions nothing about 100% physical supervision, it is up to the supervising mechanic as to how much supervision is necessary. I couldn't find anything in the memo requiring 100% direct supervision.. Maybe you can point it out for me.
www.faa.gov/media/84326
@@Kevlux86 Can you show me in the interpretation where it say 100% direct supervision? Don't tell me what Mike says. Show me in the interpretation where 100% direct supervision is required.
@@stevepowell842 He can't, because it doesn't. And in the last 60 years that's never been the situation.
Sixty years ago people counted on common sense a bit more - which has gone the way of the dodo bird.
Get Mike to address the fact that it is hard to get the 6 month work experience to get current. I am an A&P. I got my certificates in 2000. I worked on a friends airplane for 6 months after getting my certs and have not worked on a certificated plane since. I worked on a experimental build for 3 months 3 years ago. I cannot find anyone that is a a&p that will let me work under them so that I can get the 6 months to get current by the FAA. I cannot get a certificated college (the one that I originally got my certs.) to allow me to come to classes to get current. They say the FAA does not consider their classes good to get current!!! I can take classes to get the certs in the beginning but they are not good enough to get me current!!!. I have called the FAA several times and their only answer was to go get a job. I told them I cannot get a job if I am not current! Their only answer is go get a job! Get Mike to address this with the FAA!!!! Thanks
Yes, a conundrum.
Even in Australia now with labour hire companies, we still need to have recent currency even if fully licensed.
Yeah, but skills fade, and they have to put a regulation on it somehow.
Military equivalency for CFI, CFII, MEI has the same issue. You can use equivalency to get your instructor but if you had it previously, you have to have kept it current in the normal FIRC route. If you let it lapse, military equivalency cannot restore it. How silly is this? Similarly for you, working experimental builds can be used to get your maintenance quals just like the classes.
@@TheReadBaron91 no, you don’t actually have to put regulations on things. Not everything needs to be regulated. Especially if you’re an approval/authorizing based ruleset institution that likes to prescribe things.
Have you applied to a job and been refused because you say you are not current? GA piston shops hire people without A&P and sign off their work as a normal part of business. This interpretation of physical presence will not change how they do things. They are already in compliance. If you want to work on aircraft I believe you would be able to find employment as a mechanic.
Out of simple curiosity, it would be interesting to know if all of the people involved in the original assembly of an engine (at the engine manufacturer) were FAA " certificated" to perform their tasks or are they simply skilled assemblers being allowed to do the work under a system of supervision much relaxed compared to what the FAA seems to now mandate for maintenance mechanics. Whether a mistake occurs at EITHER the manufacturing level or the maintence level...if serious enough, it could get someone killed! My guess is that the level of oversight at the manufacturer is not the same as what now appears mandated for a maintenance shop... it seems unfair if both entities are not held to the same standard!
That being said... There are people that by nature "cut corners", or after making a mistake try to "bandaid" an issue to cover it up. Unfortunately, some of that lot will pick mechanical repair as their career of choice! It happens all the time in the auto repair industry...sometimes with service manager collusion to avoid the dealership incurring a financial liability for a damaged part (it's called " send it out the door and cross your fingers"! All I'm saying is that a weak mechanic overseen by a cost driven supervisor doesn't guarantee a good result...even with 100% supervision. And...more to your point, it is ludicrous to seemingly mandate having a certficated mechanic at arm's length for every repair...a shop would have to hire double staff to perform mechanical repair functions. And since the lessons that stick with you are mostly "hands on" instead of "out of a book", how will it be feasible to keep a steady stream of qualified mechanics entering the pipeline in the future if there isn't an economically feasible way to bring good prospects on board to get that critical hands-on experience?
The big difference here is an engine manufacturer or an airframe manufacturer or a propeller manufacturer all operate under an FA approved quality system that has many more checks and balances than a general aviation repair shop. That's why you don't have to have 100% supervision by a certified mechanic in a manufacturing facility.
The big difference here is an engine manufacturer or an airframe manufacturer or a propeller manufacturer all operate under an FA approved quality system that has many more checks and balances than a general aviation repair shop. That's why you don't have to have 100% supervision by a certified mechanic in a manufacturing facility.
Just read the interpretation and it seems appropriate that the FAA or other entity should initiate a rule change which would consider advances in communication technology. Jonathan Moss, Manager, Little Rock FSDO, AFG-600, should spearhead the change!
“…We”re not happy until you’re not happy!”
Thanks to the SC shutting down the Chevron Doctrine, the FAA or other entity cannot initiate a rule change.. That must come from Congress...Good luck with that...
I think we should all greatly appreciate the humor and irony of the statement at 50:18. So your saying the folks at the FAA were fine with this unsupervised young lawyer writing the response with no one looking over their shoulder and the reason this has blown up is because someone with more experience and knowledge of the situation did not inspect/sign-off on their work before letting this response fly out into the world.
Do we really need a lawyer with 40 years of experience to tell us all what "in person" means?? Is that what has become of our education system? Is it not obvious what "in person" means?? If the people who wrote this rule 60 years ago wanted virtual supervision of mechanics, they would have stated that in the rule.. But they did not. .They said the supervision must by "in person"..
During Covid, I personally can attest that the FAA approved and conducted several 135.299 checkrides via GoPro and remote (Facetime, Google Meet, etc) that were conducted without an actual check pilot in the cockpit. Doesn't this sort of establish a precedent by the FAA own actions? There was no phyisical presence of a check pilot.
Different situation all together
So when I do an owner assisted Annual & the Shop says you can fly your plane back home or whee ever and we will in the next week complete the Logs and any necessary Paper work and you can pick them up next week or we can mail them to you is asking for the FAA to yank mr certificate. I have never gotten the Logs in a Timely manor after an Anual. I was sure that they were waiting to see if I'd CRASH and then they'ed say we never ever saw that plane.
Not required to have maintenance logs in the plane....Perfectly fine to have them at the maintenance shop.
At some point older aircraft will become too old and new aircraft will need to arrive on the scene in numbers or GA is going to implode. The other big threat is that small airports are large parcels of real estate which make property developers salivate.
It would be interesting to see how the Airlines will handle this. They have many underwing employees that do things on the airliners that were in the past handled by maintenance staff. Does adding oil to a jet engine now require an A&P?
Former major league baseball catcher Joe Garagiola once told a story of an umpire who got so involved in accurately calling the balls and strikes that he was almost resting his head on Garagiola's shoulder. Joe kept trying to adjust his position so he could play his position properly, to no avail. Finally, out of desperation, he just turned his head a little, and said, "Kiss me." And was promptly tossed out of the game.
All that to say, apparently, A&Ps and A&P IAs will have to start wearing black along with the appropriate pads and face masks.
so why WHY FAA make this big change ?
why now ?
i dont get it
just a student pilot.. try to learn
There is no big change.. Still need an A&P physically in the facility when non certified monkeys are working on certified aircraft.. Just like it has been for the last 60 years..
No FAA attorney should be allowed to write rule interpretations without continuous onsite supervision, in order that the supervisor can immediately notice and correct mistakes, or take over if necessary.
GA has been devastated every since the federal government got involved.
As the old saying goes, those who ‘can’t’ teach, and in corollary it seems that bureaucrats who ‘can’t’ legislate. What else is new?
Sorry, I agree with the fed ruling on this.
Re: 737 fleet. Do the flight deck crew a favor.and put the toilet someplace other then right behind the PIC.
I would like to express my complete agreement with the FAA interpretation on this matter. As both a surgeon and a pilot, I am acutely aware of the critical nature of the life that depends on both professions. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the American Board of surgery will permit me to approve a surgical procedure without being personally and directly involved in the procedure, especially after a resident or Assistant has completed operation. Will you have surgery done on you when the Surgeon is not present in the operating room? Given significant responsibilities inherent in both fields. We must prioritize, safety, and throughout oversight. The stakes are simple to high to take any unnecessary chances.
A&P has way more liability than a doctor
@@gabekremer7148 Depends on your definition of liability. A single error committed by an A&P can simultaneously put at risk multiple lives as well as some property. However surgeons are required by state law, to have hundreds of thousands or even million(s) of dollars of professional liability insurance, or that amount of cash set aside in escrow (or an irrevocable letter of credit) at all times, in the event a plaintiff's successful claim needs to be fulfilled. A&Ps have no such state requirement. Which definition is considered "way more liability" ?
@JustSayN2O Are you an A&P that's been sued? Be stupid to have the license and practice without atleast a million behind your license in liability. You also don't see doctors getting sued for what they did 20 years ago. Happens daily to A&P. Most doctors can't kill 380 people at a time. Pretty sure I have more responsibility and I've seen it first hand for 20 years now.
My father used to say let the men and women of wisdom speak. Thank you.❤
The issue is not who has more liability, and to your point more importantly is for an A&P to supervise in person all the work done and not remotely.
Better have an inspection authority
is this a congressional passed new regulation or is it a bureaucrat generated regulation? could the Chevron deference be used to stop it?
Its not a new regulation.. If the FAA had made the interpretation that "in person" meant "not in person" like these guys wanted, then it would be a new regulation.. Thanks to Chevron, if these guys want remote supervison, they will have to go thru Congress....
Putting the onus of asking questions on a trainee is not the right approach. A trainee simply cannot be trusted to know he might be making a mistake. A supervisor MUST be proactive. I support the FAA's interpretation. Perhaps shops need to limit the number of trainees on staff.
This interpretation mentioned nothing about number of trainees.. It simply said the A&P needed to be in the office, not working from home...
@@stevepowell842 An A&P needs to be providing enough supervision to catch any mistakes made by an uncertificated trainee. Simply being in the shop means next to nothing. The temptation to flood a shop with lower paid trainees is high. We airplane owners are the ones who “pay the price” of poor quality work. There’s been a steep decline in practical skills in recent years. I sometimes find my plane leaving a shop with more problems than it had when I brought it there.
@@Tom-tk3du Well then the way to remedy that is thru the legislative process, not by having an FAA lawyer interpret what "to the extent necessary" means and come up with a hard line number.
@@stevepowell842 What’s difficult to understand about “to the extent necessary”? How much supervision is required depends on the supervisory skills of the A&P and the techs under him. If shops don’t figure this out, the legislative remedy will be to prohibit non-A&P’s from working on aircraft. Period.
@@Tom-tk3du If you have issues with the number uncertified trainees in a shop, then make the FSDO aware of your concerns.. The regulations give the A&P a lot of leeway in how he runs his business, just as it should be.. But if that leeway is being abused, and not reported to the FAA, then yes, the remedy will be to prohibit non-A&Ps in a shop..
With the Supreme Courts recent reversal of Chevron in the Loper Bright v. Raimondo case, these types of opinions are no longer subject to the jurisdiction of administrative law judges. These rule changes can be challenged in Federal Court, utilizing the full process of Federal Law. Under the Chevron doctrine, courts deferred to “reasonable” agency interpretations of a statute if the underlying statute was found to be ambiguous (including silent) on a specific issue-even in cases where the court might have thought there was a better interpretation. Loper criticized Chevron’s framework as “demand[ing] that courts mechanically afford binding deference to agency interpretations” if the law is found to be ambiguous (emphasis in original). The doctrine was considered to “put a thumb on the scale” in favor of an agency’s legal interpretations.
Loper squarely overruled Chevron. The decision dramatically reduces deference to the agency and places on courts the obligation to determine fully independently whether an agency’s actions are consistent with the words of the statute and intent of Congress. Courts must in every case, even one of statutory ambiguity, rely on the “traditional tools of statutory construction” to identify the “best reading” of a statute to determine whether the agency’s action is consistent with the statute. The agency’s opinion can still be considered to the extent the court finds it persuasive, but the days of significant deference are over. Ambiguity in statutes must now be addressed by Congress in adopting more precise legislation, rather than by courts deferring to the agency interpretation of that ambiguous intent.
great callout! I completely forgot about this and I believe you are 100% correct.
@SocialFlight, this ends the argument.
It would be nice if every pilot/AP&IA was married to a lawyer, in 10yrs or so, they could get a ruling on whatever was questioned. The bonus would be you wouldn't have to find and pay a lawyer to represent you.
I would add that Pilots will also reap the benefits of Loper, as ANY decision will be heard at a full hearing, with all the benefits that come with due process and the application of the Federal rules of procedure, rules of evidence ect, in front of a federal judge that doesn’t have any skin in the game. The Trent Palmer situation would’ve never ended up where it is, in a post Chevron world. No longer is it acceptable to have administrative judges hand down punishment, those days are over. I’m watching closely for case law, most of it’s coming out of 2nd amendment cases, however it applies equally to the FAA as well as the ATF, or any other federal agency. Justice Robert’s best day for sure…..
Oh great. So now, in Post-Chevron world, we have to have a federal court on every street corner to litigate every minute element of every one of hundreds of thousands of agency guidelines...most of which are reasonable and necessary to the operation of our big, fat, dumb, happy country? No thanks. I'd rather have a system in which dumb interpretations like this case can be challenged and dealt with in an admittedly aggravating but reasonable manner. The US economy is not a mom and pop shoe store, and our government agencies deal with a lot of big and serious issues....some dealt with better than others. Turning this stuff over to federal courts means that nothing is regulated...good luck with that. Turning it over to industry means that too often Boeing-like catastrophes occur, or mines and bridges collapse, or that old-folks are neglected to death in nursing homes, or fresh water sources are poisoned with industrial drainage and sewage, or that Wells Fargo rips off their customers. Unless John Roberts is an experienced A&P I'd rather not have him opining or wrenching on my plane. By the same token I don't want him holding up my annual until a hundred prior lawsuits are decided. When a city's streets become a tangle of inefficient potholed asphalt spaghetti you don't bomb the city flat and hope that will improve traffic. You analyze, plan, fix, and renovate in an orderly way so that the business of the city can continue and move forward. Mike's analysis is correct and should be well received by the FAA and dealt with in a revision.
This is also what is referred to as an "equivalent level of safety method." (Police State/Deep state) bureaucrat (Lawyer) making a Risk Based Decision (RBDM) equating in person as being the person and therefore an ""equivalent level of safety " BTW ...solo flight requires a Certification. Just trying to help.
“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.” FAR 43.3d... Yup.. Personally means you are actually "personally" in the facility, not 1000 miles away having a cocktail on the beach "supervising" the installation of a new cylinder. I don't understand what all the kerfluffle is about. If you don't like the "in person" part of the law, you get your congresscritter to change the law. Really that simple.
Feds already issued policy allowing remote inspections back in 2020, PS-AIR-21-1901
Yes that's for an aircraft, engine, or rotorcraft inspection/certification projects, it is not applicable to aircraft maintenance, repair or alterations.