Aviation Industry Groups Request Suspension Of New Maintenance Interpretation | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-05.12.25

Airborne-NextGen-05.13.25

AirborneUnlimited-05.14.25

Airborne-FlightTraining-05.15.25

AirborneUnlimited-05.16.25

Sat, Oct 12, 2024

Aviation Industry Groups Request Suspension Of New Maintenance Interpretation

AEA And ARSA Request Meeting To Discuss and Vet  Language In FAR 43.3(d)

The Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA), the Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA), and other aviation industry groups have requested a suspension of the FAA’s interpretation of the requirement for a maintenance supervisor to be “in-person” until a meeting can be arranged to resolve the discrepancies in the ruling.

The legal interpretation was issued in response to a question from Little Rock Flight Standards District Office Manager Jonathan Moss. He had asked for clarification of the agency’s meaning of the term “in person.”

In a joint letter to Laura J. Megan-Posch, FAA Assistant Chief Counsel for regulations, the groups stated, in part:

"Although the above referenced legal interpretation was directed at the obligation of mechanic or repairman certificate holders when supervising maintenance activities, its application to the term 'in person' has had an immediate detrimental impact on all persons subject to 14 CFR, and the agency that oversees or enforces those regulations.”

"The interpretation goes beyond the simple questions asked and is replete with errors and inconsistencies. Most troubling is the fact that the case cited to support the memorandum had nothing to do with § 43.3(d). While the agency attempted to claim § 43.3(d) was violated, the court disagreed and dismissed the charge. In addition, the interpretation’s conclusion is contrary to the plain language of the regulation at issue and numerous agency policies regarding use of remote technology."

The letter goes on to request an in-person meeting:

“Since the Office of Chief Counsel’s memorandum does not evaluate all applicable requirements in part 43 and is not based upon facts, we believe the best course of action is to suspend the opinion until the issues can be fully vetted. We request an in-person meeting by remote technology or on your premises at your earliest convenience."

Nothing like using their own confusing language to help clarify the situation. Gotta love it.

FMI:  aea.net/

Advertisement

More News

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (05.20.25)

“From the beginning, the RV-15X’s performance has been very good, as reported and demonstrated in videos. However, we’ve continued to work hard to achieve the con>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.20.25): Handoff

Handoff An action taken to transfer the radar identification of an aircraft from one controller to another if the aircraft will enter the receiving controller's airspace and radio >[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (05.20.25)

Aero Linx: The de Havilland Moth Club Ltd The de Havilland Moth Club evolved from a belief that an association of owners and operators of Moth aeroplanes should be formed to create>[...]

Airborne-NextGen 05.20.25: Drone Regs, Zero-Emission Cargo, Door-Dash Drone

Also: Blackhawk’s Replacement, Supersonic Flight, Archer 1Q/25, Long-Range VTOL Program U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean P. Duffy released an update on progress being ma>[...]

Airborne 05.19.25: Kolb v Tornados, Philippine Mars, Blackhawk Antler Theft

Also: Tentative AirVenture Airshow Lineup, Supersonic Flight Regs, Private Pilot Oral Exam Guide, Boeing Deal The sport aircraft business can be a tough one... especially when Moth>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2025 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC