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-06.23.25

Airborne-NextGen-06.24.25

AirborneUnlimited-06.25.25

Airborne-AffordableFlyers-06.26.25

AirborneUnlimited-06.27.25

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

NTSB Prelim: Piper PA-23

Pilot Also Reported That Due To A Fuel Leak, The Auxiliary Fuel Tanks Were Not Used On June 4, 2025, at 13:41 eastern daylight time, a Piper PA-23, N2109P, was substantially damage>[...]

ANN FAQ: Submit a News Story!

Have A Story That NEEDS To Be Featured On Aero-News? Here’s How To Submit A Story To Our Team Some of the greatest new stories ANN has ever covered have been submitted by our>[...]

Classic Aero-TV: One Man’s Vietnam

From 2023 (YouTube Edition): Reflections on War’s Collective Lessons and Cyclical Nature The exigencies of war ought be colorblind. Inane social-constructs the likes of racis>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (07.03.25)

Aero Linx: Colorado Pilots Association (CPA) Colorado Pilots Association was incorporated as a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation in 1972. It is a statewide organization with over 700 >[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (07.03.25): High Speed Taxiway

High Speed Taxiway A long radius taxiway designed and provided with lighting or marking to define the path of aircraft, traveling at high speed (up to 60 knots), from the runway ce>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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