FAA Puts Maintenance Supervision Guidance On Hold

In a one-paragraph letter, the FAA legal team reported this week it is placing the so-called Moss Interpretation of maintenance supervision requirements on indefinite, but not permanent hold. Industry groups and specifically Mike Busch of Savvy Aviation had protested that the interpretation would do irreparable harm to enabling apprenticeships and aircraft owner maintenance in general aviation maintenance.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.avweb.com/uncategorized/a-collection-of-aviation-advocacy-groups-have-requested-a-meeting-with-the-faa

Thank You Mike Bush and all the aviation groups that requested this stay.
My owner assisted annual may now get completed. !?

This is rare good news coming from the FAA. Hopefully it is the beginning of a clean-sheet rewrite of how maintenance training is done so that more owners can access more training and aircraft overall are better maintained.

This is not good news. Firstly, Mike Busch’s explanation is flawed. Yes, the rule has been in place for 60 years, but, it never was intended for - nor does the language mention - mechanics’ using their own judgment in the way they supervise a layman. The writers of the rule did not have cell phones and iPads with cameras, therefore the term “in person” could only mean physical presence. In fact, the plain definition of “in person” means to be in bodily presence. There is no ambiguity there.

Lastly, I can think of at least two GA aircraft incidents that occurred in my neck of the woods in the last 7 years - one a fatality - in which the airworthiness of the aircraft was found to be a contributing factor. One in which a non-mechanic was performing the required maintenance on the aircraft by himself and having an 80-something A&P/IA who lived 300 miles away make the logbook entries and mail them to the non-mechanic. The other aircraft was involved in an end of runway abort that result in significant damage. It was found that the aircraft had had shotty engine maintenance performed at a ‘part 65 shop’ and out of half a dozen employees, the only part 65 airman was the shop owner himself, who was rarely present when his employees’ performed maintenance but returned the aircraft to service nonetheless. Great ways to make a buck, right? Is that really how you want our industry to work?

At the end of the day, regardless of technology, there is absolutely no replacement for physical in person supervision.

The writers of the rule did not have cell phones and iPads with cameras, therefore the term “in person” could only mean physical presence. In fact, the plain definition of “in person” means to be in bodily presence. There is no ambiguity there.

Planeco, you’re ignoring half of the rule statement. It’s a two-part rule. It is “in person” and “to the extent necessary”. The problem with the Moss Interpretation isn’t that it clarifies what in-person means. The problem is that it goes beyond that clarification and also tosses out the extent-necessary part of the rule.

As an A&P/IA who does (or at least did) supervised maintenance for a handful of aircraft owners, I know fairly well the capabilities of the individuals I’m supervising. I know who needs more watching and who needs less. I know which owner has changed spark plugs a dozen times, and who hasn’t done it once.

You mention a shop that did poor work. Quality of work is its own problem, and to a large extent is unrelated to the supervision of aircraft owners by A&Ps.

1 Like

And in both cases, the A&P IA signing off those planes can and should be sued. I can pretty much guarantee that those types of shops don’t care about the regulations or legal interpretation of said regulations.

1 Like

As someone who does maintenance under supervision, I can state after many years, that having a licence does not guarantee good work or appropriate knowledge.
I spend a lot of time correcting things that had been done poorly or incorrectly by “Licenced” personnel or even the manufacturer.
The existing rule and practices have worked well.
In my long experience, those doing poor work (even though licenced) are the ones most likely to complain loud and long about “unqualified” persons.
Seek out the shops and persons doing poor work and correct that problem!

2 Likes

No sir, I am not ignoring the second part, because it is also unambiguous. The part of the rule you refer to “…to the extent necessary” refers to the level of physical in person supervision. For example, necessary supervision could mean actual over-the-shoulder observance. Or…it could mean in the area and within earshot. As you said, knowing the capabilities of your apprentice allows you make that assessment and apply your supervision “to the extent necessary” to ensure the work is being done properly. Either way, it allows the supervisor to step in immediately if needed.

But that is not what this drama over the legal interp is about. It is because for way too many years since the dawn of pocket phones and then smart phones with cameras, the industry has been allowed to deviate from the rule. At first the excuse was used that a supervisor and an apprentice were allowed to be physically separated by any distance because each had cell phone to communicate - not observe. And that was allowed to fly for a while. Then the excuse was that an apprentice could take pics and text his supervisor photos of the work in process. Then that method got smacked down after a while. Then finally, live video was (and still is) being used as a supervision tool. But yet, quality and safety is still being sacrificed. And there are dozens of data point examples that prove this. Everything from incorrect tool use to tech data reference and use errors. Which brings me back full circle…there is no replacement for in person supervision. None. Zero. And that is what Busch and his partners are all riled up about. Because it is much more lucrative for a mechanic or repair station to dispatch a fleet of work-away apprentice troops and provide virtual supervision than it is to physically supervise. This is why this issue keeps getting raised repeatedly with FAA legal counsel.

By that thinking we should ban digital torque wrenches, electronic engine analyzers, and digital scales, since none of those tools existed when the regs were written. The only acceptable pictures would be black-and-white film cameras.

Then we should ban electronic borescopes. If you can’t see the piston or valves with your naked eye, then it’s not an “in person” inspection.

But, if you do concede that an electronic borescope is acceptable, what difference does it make if the screen projecting the image is a foot away from the camera, or a mile?

PS - as far as your examples of shoddy maintenance due to inadequate supervision - I know of two airplanes that suffered at the hands A&P/IAs. One had a fuel nut that wasn’t fully tightened at the carb. Luckily the developing leak was discovered by the non-IA pilot after flying home. A different IA failed to properly torque the bolts on a propeller. It came off in flight. Sounds like the solution is to hire FAA inspectors to shadow the IA’s while the IA’s supervise the mechanics.

1 Like

I once had an IA, who is probably now deceased, offer me that - an annual by mail. I declined, because I wanted my airplane to actually be inspected. After all, it’s my ass in the air.

Did you actually read their full response, and the full legal interpretation? They specifically said they weren’t happy with the first part of the interpretation (the “in person” part), but if it was left at that, they wouldn’t have objected.

It was the second part, which actually went beyond the original question, that effectively required in-person supervision for the entire maintenance procedure being performed. It wouldn’t matter if the person doing the work was basically doing it for the last time before becoming certified themselves; they had to be treated as though it was their very first time turning a wrench on a plane. So you’d have the shop paying for two man hours of work for every one hour of actual work.

1 Like

The assumption so many seem to embrace, that the primary guarantor of good work would be, in effect, the hovering presence of a piece of government-approved paper, calls for the words of Mencken: “For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.”

You are seeking, I think, a sense of security that is false. You seem to believe that oversite, in the way you deem proper, will solve more problems than it creates. The contention of many is exactly that later - the number of problems that would be created by this rule change would far outweigh the number it solved.

It would be great if each and every person learning to do maintenance could have an “angel on their shoulders” watching over them. It’s just not something that will work in the real world. That’s what we are saying.

1 Like

Kirk, I do not believe I have ever heard a more apples and oranges false comparison before. Not to mention completely ignoring the human factor piece of this discussion which is what part 43.3(d) is all about.

We are not talking about routine servicing here or any other type of preventive maintenance. We are talking about the performance of maintenance in order to return an unairworthy aircraft to an airworthy condition. This includes such tasks as component replacement, adjustments, ops checks etc. with different levels of complexity. Not to mention judgement calls that can only be made by an experienced mechanic who is on site.

I have yet to see a mobile device with a video camera that can capture in enough detail all of the intricacies that aircraft maintenance throws at us. Or one that can feel the detent of a torque wrench. But if you know of one, let me know and I’ll buy it. And your borescope example is ludicrous. Borescopes are used to detect anomalies, not to make stand alone airworthiness determinations. Borescopes, like all mechanical tools, are used - in person - as a step in the process by a person trained on that tool. Your distance comment is unrealistically irrelevant.

P.S. There is always going to be shoddy A&Ps just like there will always be shoddy carpenters, plumbers, auto mechanics, or any other trade you can think of. But why make it easier for them to be shoddy by nullifying a rule that was created for a valid safety reason and has been on the books, unchanged, since 1964? There have been many FAA rules that been changed through various means including the most effective…political pressure. So if you think 43.3(d) is outdated, then by all means join Busch and the others and lobby the Hill to get it changed.

What rule change? There is no rule change. The only contention is the interpretation of the rule, which by plain language is really no contention at all. The problem is that the FAA has been so lax on historically enforcing the rule that it has become the norm to deviate from it. And no one that I know of, including myself, is expecting angelic perfection because as you mentioned, that is something that is impossible and worldly unrealistic. But ignoring the fact that there are measures, including adherence to part 43.3(d), that can be put in place to mitigate the human factor error piece of aircraft maintenance is just plain ignorant.

Yes I have read the interp and the Busch response. I have many current and former FAA acquaintances and I do not know a single one that would chase down a violation because an apprentice was working on an aircraft while his supervisor stepped away for a bathroom break or to take a phone call for example. That doesn’t pass the common sense test. And I also know that due to the FAA’s lax and ununiform enforcement of 43.3, the use of remote tech as a supervision tool has become the norm in some areas. That is where the problem lies. Busch and his partners want to do more with less understandably, but until the rule changes, the cost of doing business sometimes means paying two men for one hour of work. And when you consider the human factor error potential, that’s the way it should be.

To be ignorant is to not know the facts. In this case I’m going to bet that Mike Bush holds a significantly greater knowledge of the subject than you or I. And - a bureaucrat is rare indeed who has even a decent working knowledge of the subject they are supposed to manage. I’ve meet a few in the last half century, but not many. I’m going to side with the guys who actually do the work on this.

Perhaps naivety, as in trust of government oversight, is the issue here.

1 Like

Based on the discussion, it sounds as if what is really needed is an interpretation of the interpretation.

Given the position that the FAA finds itself in re: Boeing, and the fact that I’ve spent the last 5+ years as a government contractor writing training for the FAA, my first “gut” reaction to the FAA’s new interpretation was that, at all times, in all circumstances, the supervisor must not only be present, but literally side-by-side with anyone performing any level of maintenance. And yes, that means routine maintenance as well. This, in fact, is how Air Traffic Controllers receive training. A trainee cannot do ANYTHING without someone being plugged-in, on frequency, at all times. If there is a phone call to the certified trainer, then the trainee stops, period, end of conversation, and the frequency is handed off to a different certified controller until such time as both the trainee and certified trainer are BOTH 100% available to continue.

Yes, I realize that the immediacy of air traffic control is different than maintenance, yet I see no reason to think that the FAA didn’t mean to copy this exact one-on-one model. Especially when you consider that in most cases, the rules and their interpretation were not written by aviators, but by lawyers. My cadre of retired controllers told me this all the time – remember that it was lawyers who wrote the rules.

Right now, if I were a maintenance house, I would be looking for every certified maintenance person I could find, because I’d be worried that very soon, I’m going to have to cover every apprentice I have, and that is going to slow things down and get very costly to the customer.

Negligent mechanics are not the beneficiaries of the stay. The owners who can now and in the future access training and experience either in person or remotely will result if far safer operations than those who cannot access any maintenance due to a lack of AMTs. To pretend that there is no AMT shortage and that it has no impact on safety is naieve.