The rules mean what the rules say — or maybe not

Anyone who has ever delved into the labyrinth of rules outlined in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) is familiar with the sense of confusion that can result. It’s ironic that the regulations we are required to comply with are often somewhat less than crystal clear.

There is no doubt the FARs, more accurately known as Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, aren’t as easily understandable as they might be. This is a problem that doesn’t just vex the average A&P or pilot. There are instances that arise from time to time where the feds themselves find the rules to be unclear or inaccurate.

Stick with me on this. These things can get a little messy now and then.

The process of interpretation may seem simple. Yet, it is not. Lawyers get involved. Teams of federal employees are brought to bear. Every word in the regulation is evaluated and reevaluated to be sure their meanings are accurate and appropriate to the specific issue at hand. When deemed necessary, a rule can be modified during the interpretation process.

This is a topic worth understanding for at least two very important reasons.

The FAA doesn’t just recommend we follow the rules. It requires it.

Many, if not most, pilots, CFIs, and A&Ps are unaware of the interpretation process. In short, you can’t amend your behavior if you’re not aware the rules have changed.

And since we’re all mandated to follow the rules and their FAA interpretation or reinterpretation, life can get a little weird for that large swath of the general aviation community who are unaware they’re doing it wrong. That’s especially true when they can whip out their tattered copy of the FARs, turn to the appropriate part, and read the regulation that may or may not be accurate anymore.

Gulp.

Let’s consider a few relatively recent examples that have had a profound impact on how we are expected to conduct ourselves.

The Moss Interpretation

14 CFR 43.3 (d) reads as follows: “A person working under the supervision of a holder of a mechanic or repairman certificate may perform the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations that his supervisor is authorized to perform, if the supervisor personally observes the work being done to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly and if the supervisor is readily available, in person, for consultation.”

The crux of the matter in this case is the term “in person.”

On Sept. 3, 2024, in the FAA’s response to a request for clarification on the rule, the FAA specified the individual training the non-certificated mechanic must be available throughout the entire operation. The response indicated the physical presence of the supervising mechanic was required at all times.

This presented a problem — a big problem.

A&Ps and IAs have traditionally provided direction and were available for questions when training mechanics. In a busy shop, or an active training program, it is common for one A&P or IA to be supervising multiple trainees simultaneously. Each performing a separate function under the watchful, but not always physically present, supervisor.

As one might imagine, there was significant pushback on this interpretation from many in the industry. Certainly, no malice was intended on the part of the FAA. But, this change would effectively make it impractical — if not impossible — to train mechanics at scale.

Fortunately, on Oct. 15, 2024, just weeks after the Moss Interpretation made waves throughout the industry, the FAA issued a stay. Essentially saying “hold on. We’re not going to stand behind that opinion. Let’s go back to how we were working before all this hubbub started.”

Sometimes, we win one.

The Coleal Interpretation

On the topic of preventive maintenance the owner or operator of an aircraft can perform legally, 14 CFR 43, Appendix A, Paragraph (c) lists 31 specific tasks that are permitted. This regulation is backed up by AC 43-12A which states explicitly that any task not specifically included in that listing is not considered preventive maintenance.

In February 2009 the FAA issued a letter that took an entirely different approach to the topic.

The salient passage in that letter reads, “As with the other paragraphs of Appendix A (i.e., on major repairs and major alterations), the lists are better viewed as examples of the tasks in each category — they cannot be considered all inclusive. There are, no doubt, many ‘simple or minor preservation operations [tasks]’ and many ‘replacements of small standard parts not involving complex assembly operations’ performed daily, especially on small general aviation aircraft, that the agency would consider to be preventive maintenance, though they are not included in the 32 listed items.”

Another big win. Yay! If you own or operate an aircraft under Part 91, you can change your own oil, replace a landing light, or change a tire. So says the FAA in the Coleal Interpretation.

The Hartzell Interpretation

Earning an instrument rating is a proud thing. Earning a commercial certificate is an equally impressive feat.

It may come as a surprise to many, certainly enough applicants that the Hartzell Interpretation came to be, that the requirements for earning your instrument rating and the requirements to qualify for your commercial pilot practical test are not the same.

Uh oh. You might want to get with your CFI to be sure you’re on solid ground with this one.

The sticking point can be found in 14 CFR 61.129 (a)(4) which specifies the applicant for a commercial pilot certificate in a single engine airplane must have logged “10 hours of solo flight time in a single engine airplane or 10 hours of flight time performing the duties of pilot in command in a single engine airplane with an authorized instructor on board.”

Pay special attention to the word “or.” The applicant must complete the first task or the second. This is not a mix and match situation.

If your logbook doesn’t reflect the hours required by this regulation, you may find your practical test ends before it begins, although you will more than likely be expected to pay for the time you’ve booked with the designated pilot examiner.

The devil is in the details, they say. That’s certainly true of anything that falls under the watchful eye of the FAA and the many regulations, interpretations, and reinterpretations they publish.

I am not the devil by any means, but I have made the point many times that everything we’re expected to comply with is written down. The question is do you know where to find it?

Word of mouth is great for marketing. However, it’s severely lacking when it comes to compliance with the FARs. Find a reference, read it, know it, love it. Right up until it changes, as it most surely will.