Moss Interpretation

[PeterNSteinmetz]

It seems like typically asking for an LOI will get you an answer you don’t like.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media.../17/faa-puts-disruptive-determination-on-hold

 

[rotorwrench]

It seems like typically asking for an LOI will get you an answer you don’t like.

You’ll note the LOI request was internal from a FSDO manager. And the individuals who are complaining the loudest have limited experience with actually supervising others performing mx tasks. There’s more to this than just the LOI.

If you read the 1st two and last paragraphs of the LOI you’ll see that it is in reference to external electronic supervision and electronics records. However, those complaining have cherry-picked one supporting reference and made turned it into the main issue. Plus the fact 2 of the 3 people who challenged this LOI also represent 2 large aviation trade associations is the only reason its become an issue to the “industry”, ie., their specific part of the industry.

If you look back to CAR 18 it was defined as “a person who works under the direct supervision.” Then under Part 43 it was changed to its current definition, “the supervisor is readily available, in person." To argue the current verbiage still means the same as the previous verbiage, is BS. I think all 3 complainers need to brush up on their regulatory history before they dig themselves a deeper hole.

 

[Jim Logajan]

You’ll note the LOI request was internal from a FSDO manager. And the individuals who are complaining the loudest have limited experience with actually supervising others performing mx tasks. There’s more to this than just the LOI.

If you read the 1st two and last paragraphs of the LOI you’ll see that it is in reference to external electronic supervision and electronics records. However, those complaining have cherry-picked one supporting reference and made turned it into the main issue. Plus the fact 2 of the 3 people who challenged this LOI also represent 2 large aviation trade associations is the only reason its become an issue to the “industry”, ie., their specific part of the industry.

If you look back to CAR 18 it was defined as “a person who works under the direct supervision.” Then under Part 43 it was changed to its current definition, “the supervisor is readily available, in person." To argue the current verbiage still means the same as the previous verbiage, is BS. I think all 3 complainers need to brush up on their regulatory history before they dig themselves a deeper hole.

After I parse out the attacks on the personal character of the "complainers" I'm uncertain what you are saying about the Moss interpretation. It doesn't affect supervised owner assisted annuals or it does?

The complaint seems to be that the interpretation removes the discretion the supervisor may take in how closely to monitor the task being performed.

 

[rotorwrench]

I'm uncertain what you are saying about the Moss interpretation. It doesn't affect supervised owner assisted annuals or it does?

It does not. However, if you believe those responding against the LOI, it does. But if you read the LOI in proper context it merely reiterates long established guidance and that remote supervision via Facetime, video, phone call, etc. is not permitted.

If you were to read the 3 complaints/responses sent to the FAA about the LOI, you’ll find their concern centers more around their inability to use remote supervision with one stating even how great cameras are today.

Bottomline, those who actually supervise maintenance by non-certified individuals see no issue with the LOI as it reaffirms Part 43.3 the supervisor must be readily available and in person.

As to personal character, to simply state the 3 response signatories have limited to no experience on the topic and bring up issues out of context is not an attack but merely an observation of their character.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

You’ll note the LOI request was internal from a FSDO manager.

Interesting, I did not realize that an FAA employee would use this process. I thought they would use some sort of internal channel.

I think all 3 complainers need to brush up on their regulatory history before they dig themselves a deeper hole.

Personally, I will rooting for the complainers.

As to personal character, to simply state the 3 response signatories have limited to no experience on the topic and bring up issues out of context is not an attack but merely an observation of their character.

Technically, any introduction of the personal characteristics of speaker is an ad hominem fallacy from a logical perspective. That is because even fools can sometimes make a valid argument. But I get it, you don’t like them !

 

[rotorwrench]

Interesting, I did not realize that an FAA employee would use this process. I thought they would use some sort of internal channel.

This is the “internal” channel. The general public simply uses the same channel as well.

Personally, I will rooting for the complainers.

Be careful what you wish for. I believe there are several requests out for copies of the documents behind the original FSDO LOI inquiry. Who would you be rooting for if it turns out one of the anti-LOI responders was actually the instigator behind the initial LOI request and they didn’t get the answer they thought they would get?

Technically, any introduction of the personal characteristics of speaker is an ad hominem fallacy from a logical perspective. That is because even fools can sometimes make a valid argument. But I get it, you don’t like them !

Not in this case. I made my argument based on merit that the responders position took the LOI out of context. I then substantiated my point with the reasons behind it: the verbiage in the LOI and lack of subjective experience of the responders.

Whether I like them or not is moot as I’ve personally met and interacted with 2 of the 3 response signatories. Pleasant people who are successful in the industry in their own unique way. So if it really were an ad hominem argument on my part, my reply would have been much more specific then just “a lack of experience.”

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Be careful what you wish for. I believe there are several requests out for copies of the documents behind the original FSDO LOI inquiry. Who would you be rooting for if it turns out one of the anti-LOI responders was actually the instigator behind the initial LOI request and they didn’t get the answer they thought they would get?

I don’t care about their motivations (a personal characteristic). I will always root for reducing the extent of government aggressive use of force. But I don’t expect that discussion would go much of anywhere since we don’t agree even on what constitutes a use of force.

I imagine not getting the answer you want is a rather frequent occurrence.

Whether I like them or not is moot as I’ve personally met and interacted with 2 of the 3 response signatories. Pleasant people who are successful in the industry in their own unique way. So if it really were an ad hominem argument on my part, my reply would have been much more specific then just “a lack of experience.”

I agree your comment was not particularly abusive. However, you can see here how whether they had experience or not has nothing logically to do with the their argument was correct. An inexperienced person can make a valid point and an experienced person can be mistaken. Thus commenting on their experience was a superfluous point in a technical logical sense. I suppose it might serve as an explanation for their alleged error, but that does not prove or disprove whether there was an error.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Rhetoric aside, as I understand the main issue it is that some mechanics want to be able to supervise remotely using things like Zoom. I personally don’t know that I would want that on my aircraft on most things but maybe would think it ok on some items.

So let’s consider the motivations and politics on this. It seems to me that most established mechanics would be against this - it brings in new competition. Regulators should be against it because it decreases their power. Perhaps some well known mechanics who can serve more people because of their reputations would stand to gain. And then I suppose there is a small fraction who are actually motivated by increasing freedom.

 

[rotorwrench]

I imagine not getting the answer you want is a rather frequent occurrence.

I don’t know. I recall from researching LOIs over the years that more seemed to have a positive result. However, I think the question topic played more into whether you got a positive answer or not. But what is not frequent is for a FSDO manager to request clarification at the top legal level.

Rhetoric aside, as I understand the main issue it is that some mechanics want to be able to supervise remotely using things like Zoom.

That’s an unknown at the moment. I extremely doubt “some mechanics” could get a FSDO manager to send in such a request. It will be interesting to see the “who” and “why” for the original 2022 LOI request once it is posted.

But keep in mind, the LOI request addressed two parts: remote supervision AND remote electronic approval for return to service of that supervision. Given no mechanic could ever afford an FAA approved electronic records system, it speaks volumes that the original LOI request probably was driven by a higher-level vs “some mechanics.” This angle would also be more in line for a FSDO manager to initiate the request and better explain the response the LOI has received.

I personally don’t know that I would want that on my aircraft on most things but maybe would think it ok on some items.

Curious. Why would you not want that on your aircraft?

So let’s consider the motivations and politics on this. It seems to me that most established mechanics would be against this - it brings in new competition.

Not really as there’s no direct connection between the LOI interpretation and your average independent mechanic. I wouldn’t feel threatened by it. What additional competition do you see that is different than today? But who does have a direct connection with the LOI are CRSs and MROs who use a number of un-certified individuals.

Regulators should be against it because it decreases their power.

How? It would merely rearrange the accountability method at the task level. The FAA oversight remains the same.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Curious. Why would you not want that on your aircraft?

I guess it represents mostly a feeling about it more than any real data (which I could be persuaded by, as always). It just seems to me that there are some things and connections you are more likely to notice if you are there in front of the aircraft, rather than having to request a camera being moved around.

This likely reflects something we were told long ago in medical school, which was that it never hurts to go and actually look at the patient. Sure you can sit around reading consultant notes and lab values, but sometimes you need to see the patient. Having occasionally helped a patient by doing exactly that, it made an impression on me.

 

[Bob Noel]

So let’s consider the motivations and politics on this. It seems to me that most established mechanics would be against this - it brings in new competition. Regulators should be against it because it decreases their power. Perhaps some well known mechanics who can serve more people because of their reputations would stand to gain. And then I suppose there is a small fraction who are actually motivated by increasing freedom.

just imagine a world where people would be for (or against something) because it's the right thing to do.

Maybe some are against remote supervision because of the difficulty of being able to see ALL of the aspects activity, and they recognize how some things can be missed. Maybe they don't care about competition or not.

It's not always about power and politics.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

just imagine a world where people would be for (or against something) because it's the right thing to do.

Yes, it would be nice. And indeed some of us do try and do the right thing regardless.

Sadly I think those inclined to go into politics and high level government jobs today are not those kind of people generally.

As I mentioned above. I personally prefer to have my aircraft worked on by people who can see the whole situation first hand. At the same time, I think the risks to innocent others of not having that done are so small that the government should not be involved.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Not really as there’s no direct connection between the LOI interpretation and your average independent mechanic. I wouldn’t feel threatened by it. What additional competition do you see that is different than today? But who does have a direct connection with the LOI are CRSs and MROs who use a number of un-certified individuals.

You know, it might just be the opposite. In general, regulations favor large established players, not the small independent person.

How? It would merely rearrange the accountability method at the task level. The FAA oversight remains the same.

If you move the supervision downward, you have more people to be supervised. That increases your staff and as a bureaucrat that is a very good thing. It increases your power, prestige, salary and pension.

 

[rotorwrench]

You know, it might just be the opposite. In general, regulations favor large established players, not the small independent person.

Actually with aviation regulations they do favor the small independent person. When a person moves up in the industry, the number and restrictive nature of those regulations increases proportionally to the level they attain.

What the big players would love to see is the same rules applied to all which I believe is part of the issues they have with MOSAIC.

If you move the supervision downward, you have more people to be supervised. That increases your staff and as a bureaucrat that is a very good thing. It increases your power, prestige, salary and pension.

Except the LOI only deals with individual A&P or repairman supervision/sign-off of work performed by an un-certified individual. It has zero to do with direct FAA oversight or with their bureaucracy.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Except the LOI only deals with individual A&P or repairman supervision/sign-off of work performed by an un-certified individual. It has zero to do with direct FAA oversight or with their bureaucracy.

I don’t know. If people can’t indirectly certify the work of these others, doesn’t that mean there needs to be more certified mechanics to perform the work or certify others? And then more FAA people to certify and check those certified mechanics?

 

[rotorwrench]

I don’t know. If people can’t indirectly certify the work of these others, doesn’t that mean there needs to be more certified mechanics to perform the work or certify others?

Not really. First, this would have only affected a limited portion of the industry where un-certified people were performing work on aircraft or their components like a CRS or something similar. And if it was a CRS they have the ability to increase the number of certified repairmen in-house to cover it if needed.

And then more FAA people to certify and check those certified mechanics?

Except the FAA has basically been out of the mechanic certifying business for a number of years with 99.9% of mechanics being certified by private designated maintenance examiners (DMEs). For example, I was issued my A&P by 2 separate DMEs in the 80s. No different than using DPEs for pilots.

Plus FAA oversight is at a higher level. For a CRS its at the company level and not the mechanic level. At the private Part 91 level of the industry, oversight is regional with only one or two airworthiness ASIs usually covering a whole state.