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 A&Ps still need to be in person when non certified mechanics are working under their certificate, as it has been for 60 years and what the letter of the law says?? Yay...
Then you should have addressed it with the shop. You're still the PIC and safe for flight is a PIC responsibility. All the mechanic does is return the A/C to service. Next, you should stop using that shop or report them. This is government overreach and is going to cost GA billions of dollars and months of time. Plus, it should have been an NPR, not a letter/interpretation. Like they said, "what problem is requiring a solution"?
In my maintenance shop, we always have an A&P mentoring and working along side of the non-certificated apprentice mechanic. IMO, this has become a gripe by aircraft owners who want to do their own maintenance without an A&P/IA except just to sign it off. I’ve seen countless examples of illegal maintenance or inspections being performed by non A&P certificated aircraft owners. I never understood how an IA would risk their license by signing off these illegal inspections, but many do and we all know it. Personally, I support this interpretation and think it’s long over due. Maybe now, maintenance shops will get more of the business they should have had all the time.
Several years ago Southwest would fly their AC to Central America for more extensive checks. I know the comment at the time was how many non A&Ps were being supervised and how often did the FAA inspect the facility.
Apprenticeship in the US perhaps could be improved by adopting some of the European examples, where the program generally have more established and respected apprenticeship systems, with stronger ties to industry with a broader and more viable career path.
Re 50:50. I don't know how to service or repair an aircraft, so it's strictly hypothetical. If Brian asked me, "Hey, I am going to do a functional test flight on the flight controls, do you want to tag along?", well h... yes! My point is the, the ones that would decline are probably those that know what they are doing, where someone clueless like me would happily accept a ride-along. (yes, I know, Brian was referring to certificated folks, so the clueless wasn't in the mix to begin with).
This kills apprenticeship shops. The whole idea is to allow shops to hire and train people. This is another example of "knee jerk" government reaction. This is more over control.
Its really simple Jeff. If you want to change a law, go thru the process of changing the law.. Not changing the definition of the words in the law by un elected bureaucrats... In person means in person... Just like male means male and female means female...
There are no "new rules" about mechanics and supervision.. Just more pearl clutching click bait from aviation you tubers... The FAA sent a memo to one of the FISDO's clarifying what "in person" meant in regards to CFR 43.3(d).. It means that the A&P must be "in person" and "not in person" when there are non certified mechanics working in the hanger or shop, just like the regulation states, and just like shops have been doing for the 60 years this rule has been in effect. All the shops I know have always made it a point that there must be an A&P in the shop when non certified people were working on certified aircraft.... If they had sent the memo stating that "in person" means " not in person", then that would have been a change in the regulation... Education in this country certainly has gone downhill, replaced by conspiracy theories lurking in every corner... Sad..
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/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 A&Ps still need to be in person when non certified mechanics are working under their certificate, as it has been for 60 years and what the letter of the law says?? Yay...
I got my Cardinal back one time from annual with the cowl flaps not hooked up. and the seat out of the track.
Then you should have addressed it with the shop. You're still the PIC and safe for flight is a PIC responsibility. All the mechanic does is return the A/C to service. Next, you should stop using that shop or report them. This is government overreach and is going to cost GA billions of dollars and months of time. Plus, it should have been an NPR, not a letter/interpretation. Like they said, "what problem is requiring a solution"?
In my maintenance shop, we always have an A&P mentoring and working along side of the non-certificated apprentice mechanic. IMO, this has become a gripe by aircraft owners who want to do their own maintenance without an A&P/IA except just to sign it off. I’ve seen countless examples of illegal maintenance or inspections being performed by non A&P certificated aircraft owners. I never understood how an IA would risk their license by signing off these illegal inspections, but many do and we all know it. Personally, I support this interpretation and think it’s long over due. Maybe now, maintenance shops will get more of the business they should have had all the time.
Several years ago Southwest would fly their AC to Central America for more extensive checks. I know the comment at the time was how many non A&Ps were being supervised and how often did the FAA inspect the facility.
Apprenticeship in the US perhaps could be improved by adopting some of the European examples, where the program generally have more established and respected apprenticeship systems, with stronger ties to industry with a broader and more viable career path.
Re 50:50. I don't know how to service or repair an aircraft, so it's strictly hypothetical. If Brian asked me, "Hey, I am going to do a functional test flight on the flight controls, do you want to tag along?", well h... yes! My point is the, the ones that would decline are probably those that know what they are doing, where someone clueless like me would happily accept a ride-along.
(yes, I know, Brian was referring to certificated folks, so the clueless wasn't in the mix to begin with).
This kills apprenticeship shops. The whole idea is to allow shops to hire and train people.
This is another example of "knee jerk" government reaction. This is more over control.
Really?? Requiring A&Ps to be in the shop while non certified mechanics are working is going to kill apprenticeships?? Good grief...
Its really simple Jeff. If you want to change a law, go thru the process of changing the law.. Not changing the definition of the words in the law by un elected bureaucrats... In person means in person... Just like male means male and female means female...
There are no "new rules" about mechanics and supervision.. Just more pearl clutching click bait from aviation you tubers... The FAA sent a memo to one of the FISDO's clarifying what "in person" meant in regards to CFR 43.3(d).. It means that the A&P must be "in person" and "not in person" when there are non certified mechanics working in the hanger or shop, just like the regulation states, and just like shops have been doing for the 60 years this rule has been in effect. All the shops I know have always made it a point that there must be an A&P in the shop when non certified people were working on certified aircraft.... If they had sent the memo stating that "in person" means " not in person", then that would have been a change in the regulation... Education in this country certainly has gone downhill, replaced by conspiracy theories lurking in every corner... Sad..