The FAA has issued a stay of the “Moss Interpretation” of 14 CFR § 43.3(d), following significant opposition from aviation industry leaders.
This controversial legal interpretation, issued on Sept. 3, 2024, redefined supervision requirements for uncertificated mechanics, mandating the physical presence of certificated supervisors throughout all work — a move that critics argued was impractical and disruptive.
Industry Pushback
A coalition of 16 aviation organizations, including the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), led a unified effort to oppose the interpretation. They argued that the new mandate:
- Harmed Workforce Development: Training uncertificated mechanics would become unfeasible, stalling their path to obtaining A&P certification.
- Disrupted Maintenance Practices: It would eliminate owner-assisted annual inspections, a practice valued by aircraft owners for its educational and cost-saving benefits.
- Economically Unsustainable: Repair stations would face prohibitive costs in maintaining constant on-site supervision.
A separate effort, spearheaded by Savvy Aviation, included a detailed letter signed by industry professionals, asserting that the interpretation misread existing regulations and ignored established practices.
FAA’s Stay
The FAA’s stay provides temporary relief to repair stations, mechanics, and aircraft owners while the agency reviews the policy.
Industry groups have committed to working with the FAA to develop a more practical interpretation that balances safety with modern technological and workforce realities.
It seems that this manager “Moss” is looking to advance his career in the FAA by reinterpreting a 60 year old regulation and making waves?!
FAA did the same thing with homebuilt aircraft by not allowing a CFI to gives instruction in one…..
This should get straightened out, after causing trouble and aggravating everyone.
A new Secretary of Transportation that over sees the FAA, will soon replace /the incompetent one now in office and this should help too
Hopefully the FAA will be inspected by the new Department of Government Efficiency DOGE, that will be looking at all government agencies, that seem to not be helping the American people and wasting taxpayer dollars……
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE
Thank you
I fly an experimental RV. I want to know and understand everything I can about all aspects of flying and maintenance. I have developed a very good relationship with my mechanic. I go to him for guidance and opinion on all issues. Over the years he seems to trust that I will get assistance at the correct times.
A much wider argument exists here and “owner assisted annuals” is just one of the concerns to be considered. The lack of depth at the shop level has resulted in an abdication of responsibility with the insertion of “internet specialists” who advise and direct, but have no authority to return to service. The Office of the Chief Counsel does not change regulatory language, they comment on the legal interpretation of what exists. But before they do, they may wish to better understand an industry lacking the experience and expertise of those who have come before and who, attempting to find a way forward in the very charter they direct, only wish to flourish.
From the Office of the Chief Counsel:
2024 Moss Legal Interpretation Stay of 14 CFR Part 43, § 43.3(d)
Letter can be downloaded from Dynamic Regulatory System, Legal Interpretations, 43.3(d)
“Stay” is the correct wording. Also, nothing was changed with the original rule, the interpretation presented by Chief Counsel is a legal interpretation of how the FAA views the rule as it is written.
Sorry, but Jim H above is absolutely incorrect. Despite the link he posted to the AIN article, the FAA has definitely not “rescinded” the “Moss Interpretation”. Information stating that it has been “rescinded” will not be found anywhere else because it is absolutely an error on their part. All that the FAA did was to stay any enforcement or other action related to that interpretation while they determine if changes to it need to be made. Let’s hope that someone other than the individual in the FAA’s legal department who wrote the interpretation will use far greater intelligence in assessing that interpretation, and then go ahead and actually rescind it!
I have emailed the author of the AIN article, and asked for any reference to support the statements rescinding the determination…
I’ll reply what I get from them.
Matt at AIN replied that the decision was ‘stayed’ and sent a link to the stay letter.
So, their article was misleading, mentioning that the decision was ‘rescinded’.
Now we wait for a final decision on Moss.!?
– – – – Jonathan Moss and – – – – the FAA
The aircraft owner needs to know his own limitations regarding self maintenance. I’ve have friends who I wouldn’t trust to change the oil on an airplane. Personally I feel more comfortable maintaining my own bird as I am knowledgeable of most aspects and seek qualified help when starting something new.
As an A&P and IA when it comes to owner-assisted annual inspections, as a general rule I only allow owners to assist to the extent of removing cowlings, panels, and seats and then to reinstall after I am finished. Anything more involved than that and they only interfere with the inspection process and tend to disagree with many findings. They tend to argue about many things and delay the inspection process. And then finally complain about the already pre-agreed costs. There are some owners that are quite knowledgeable and super helpful and for those I make exceptions. But most I have come across are not helpful. I prefer to have my own paid assistant.
I went experimental and will never go back. I conduct my own maintenance and condition inspection. I would recommend this route to anyone with mechanical aptitude. I have a certified airplane with the wings OFF! Perhaps someday we can have the same privileges as Canadians do regarding maintenance on their certified aircraft. If that happens, the wings will go back on.
Jay,
What do you mean by “wings off”?
As a licensed A&P and 40 + years in the USAF working on big jet aircraft.
I still find it hard to find an AI at a maintenance facility that Will allow owner assisted annuals???
I’ve seen them at my local area and I wouldn’t trust them to even work on my Aircraft. Some how they get an IA is questionable????
The FAA is old and out dated. It needs to be dismantled and completely revamp from the ground up. And made into a Corporate business that answers to the Aviation community. They should not be allowed to make or change regulations with out the Aviation communities approval. The Aviation community are the one’s out here getting the work done so they know what changes and updates need done.
I’ve been doing owner-assisted annuals on my 150 for decades – 42 years so far. At this point, I know every nut, bolt, rivet and blob of bondo on the airplane on a first name basis. I’m safer because I *know* my aircraft. Every couple of years I have to “break in” a new A&P or IA because while they (may) know generic 150s, they don’t know mine. (Sometimes I wind up teaching them stuff – politely.)
An owner-assisted annual (assuming the owner is competent), is the very first line of defense against maintenance related issues or accidents.
This is old news.
The FAA rescinded the ‘Moss Decision’ on Nov. 04…!!! So, back to the original wording.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2024-11-03/faa-rescinds-burdensome-maintenance-interpretation.
AIN is the only aviation news that has reported this important revision.!!!
So, A&Ps in training and owner assisted annuals again.!!!
As a practical matter, when the FAA gets so far out in left field with a regulation, it is generally ignored everywhere except where the FAA is close by to watch. But the reality is, that if enforced with the Moss interpretation, the dire circumstances outlined by the alphabet soup organizations are correct. They were right to point out to the FAA that they were cutting their own throats.
I have both apprentices and owners working with me in the shop. I have been actively working on aircraft for over 50 years now and have a wealth of knowledge, tips and techniques to pass on to younger people that will be doing this work when I am gone. Some owners need to have their hands held every step of the way. Others I could leave in the shop and know they would do as thorough of an inspection as me. Those that know how to read and interpret the maintenance manuals and can turn a wrench without causing damage can save a lot on their maintenance. Let me gauge the quality of my help. I know who needs to have their hand held and ho doesn’t. The Moss interpretation would have made owner assisted maintenance impractical driving up prices and causing even further backlogs at the overcrowded shops. It would have also been a roadblock to AMTs gaining their A&P licensing through practical experience rather than attending an AMT school.
While the previous reply seemed to be unhappy that this story wasn’t posted sooner, it is still an important piece of news that needs to be reported to the wider audience reached by “G A News”. Thank you for putting this out there.
Given that’s the only report of “rescinding” the Moss interpretation, do you have a link to the FAA document? I’ve not been able to locate anything since the stay of October 15.