Average Annual Cost?

[MikeOH]

Your and my read are clearly different!

I contend the language used DOES broaden the meaning beyond "in person" (which is unchanged in that remote is not allowed) by now requiring CONSTANT supervision rather than the historical "to the extent necessary".

I will say I hope I'm wrong about this and you can later say, "I told you so!"

[Fly Boomer]

17 hours ago, EricJ said:

It doesn't greatly broaden it, it takes pains to say it's the same as it's always been.

I have not spent as much time on this as many others have, but EricJ's one-liner nicely summarizes what I gleaned.  Mike Busch is usually the voice of reason, but the Moss letter has really triggered a lot of people.

[KLRDMD]

On 9/25/2024 at 5:34 PM, Fly Boomer said:

General anesthesia is usually two drugs -- one to knock you out and the other wipes your short-term memory in case you start to wake up, or you hear what the doc and the OR staff are discussing.  

This is overly simplistic and not even remotely true, but it is off-topic so I will not comment further.

[PT20J]

Sounds like we need a legal interpretation of the legal interpretation .

[N201MKTurbo]

35 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

This is overly simplistic and not even remotely true, but it is off-topic so I will not comment further.

I had a procedure once and remembered the whole thing about a year later. My wife just had her thyroid removed. She described part of the procedure two days after it happened.

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

I have not spent as much time on this as many others have, but EricJ's one-liner nicely summarizes what I gleaned.  Mike Busch is usually the voice of reason, but the Moss letter has really triggered a lot of people.

As of today, AVWEB has joined the ranks of “triggered people”

[Fly Boomer]

48 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

As of today, AVWEB has joined the ranks of “triggered people”

I guess I need to go back and read it again [sigh].

[Shadrach]

On 9/26/2024 at 11:05 AM, Andy95W said:

Like @EricJ said, the “first” part IS the Moss interpretation.  The “second” part is simply the supporting rationale for why an in-person A&P is needed, and NOT a remote supervisor.  Mike Busch’s reaction is an emotional knee-jerk to the “second” part that simply isn’t there.  Again, it’s just the rationale for the in-person supervisor.

I appreciate Mike Busch because he does a great job of providing good, common sense advice and information to owners and A&Ps.  But he isn’t always correct.

So let's say you're at a field with no maintenance facility. A very straight forward AD is issued regarding elevator counter weights.  Your IA is two hours away by car but is available by zoom/FT to view the tail weights in 4K with magnification as well as see the magnet not sticking to the weight.  What utility/safety is added by the four hour round trip drive?

Mr. Busch's point in the live stream seemed to be that when the rule was written, no one could have envisioned the technological advances we would have available to us 60 years later to shrink the world.  His point is that the person conducting the supervision/inspection should be tasked with determining to what degree their direct and/or in person supervision is needed to ensure airworthiness. 

[Andy95W]

19 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

His point is that the person conducting the supervision/inspection should be tasked with determining to what degree their supervision is needed to ensure airworthiness. 

So what if an A&P somewhere determines that he can supervise a complete engine overhaul by Zoom?  And the intention is to sell the airplane immediately afterwards?

The FAA’s job is to codify exact standards to remove “wiggle room” for unscrupulous people.  It makes you wonder what egregious example came up that prompted this Moss letter after decades of it not being an issue.

Sure, an engine overhaul is an extreme example, but so is yours.  Speaking for the guys at my FSDO, I doubt any of them would (off the record) have an issue with the elevator weight AD inspection.  They just wouldn’t want to hear anyone say it out loud.

[EricJ]

34 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

So let's say you're at a field with no maintenance facility. A very straight forward AD is issued regarding elevator counter weights.  Your IA is two hours away by car but is available by zoom/FT to view the tail weights in 4K with magnification as well as see the magnet sticking to the weight.  What utility/safety is added by the four hour round trip drive?

Mr. Busch's point in the live stream seemed to be that when the rule was written, no one could have envisioned the technological advances we would have available to us 60 years later to shrink the world.  His point is that the person conducting the supervision/inspection should be tasked with determining to what degree their direct and/or in person supervision is needed to ensure airworthiness. 

The problem with that seems to be, as explained in the Moss letter, that the regs and various previous guidance and interpretation have consistently used the words "in person" for the last five or six decades.    It is difficult to just sweep that away and say "not in person" is suddently okay because now we have Zoom.   "Remote" inspection has been possible since photography was invented, which actually predates aviation, so I don't think it's strictly an issue that's suddenly come up due to new technology.   I think the interpretation that remote inspection is not a good idea is a practical one, for the reasons stated in the letter.    If someone bothers to take the time to overcome the hurdle of changing the regs and coming up with remote inspection procedures, then that could potentially change things, but that's a pretty high hurdle imho.

[Ragsf15e]

46 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

So let's say you're at a field with no maintenance facility. A very straight forward AD is issued regarding elevator counter weights.  Your IA is two hours away by car but is available by zoom/FT to view the tail weights in 4K with magnification as well as see the magnet sticking to the weight.  What utility/safety is added by the four hour round trip drive?

Mr. Busch's point in the live stream seemed to be that when the rule was written, no one could have envisioned the technological advances we would have available to us 60 years later to shrink the world.  His point is that the person conducting the supervision/inspection should be tasked with determining to what degree their direct and/or in person supervision is needed to ensure airworthiness. 

Well if the magnet sticks, it’s moot, no?  It has the bad weights and it’s grounded.   Now if the magnet doesn’t stick and the weight looks ok, could he remotely sign it off?  That might be nice.

[Shadrach]

5 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

Well if the magnet sticks, it’s moot, no?  It has the bad weights and it’s grounded.   Now if the magnet doesn’t stick and the weight looks ok, could he remotely sign it off?  That might be nice.

 

No stick = non ferrous = weights OK

[Ragsf15e]

2 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

 

No stick = non ferrous = weights OK

Agreed.  I was messing with you, but your initial post says “see the magnet sticking to the weight”.  That would make them the bad weights and I think the IA doesn’t need to sign off anything…

[Shadrach]

1 minute ago, Ragsf15e said:

Agreed.  I was messing with you, but your initial post says “see the magnet sticking to the weight”.  That would make them the bad weights and I think the IA doesn’t need to sign off anything…

Opps. good catch. will edit.

[Shadrach]

18 minutes ago, EricJ said:

  "Remote" inspection has been possible since photography was invented, which actually predates aviation, so I don't think it's strictly an issue that's suddenly come up due to new technology.   

Not in real time with the level of detail we have today. There is no comparison.  The whole world has changed in the last 5 years because of this.  Surgeons were not doing remote surgeries in 1960. Nor were Australian Radiologists analyzing images sent electronically from American during the early morning hours.

[EricJ]

2 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Not in real time with the level of detail we have today. There is no comparison.  The whole world has changed in the last 5 years because of this.  Surgeons were not doing remote surgeries in 1960. Nor were Australian Radiologists analyzing images sent electronically from American during the early morning hours.

So, as I mentioned, it just requires changing the regs, which specifically say "in person", and procedures.    It's definitely do-able, it's just not allowed by the current regulatory language, as explained in the Moss letter.

[Shadrach]

33 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

So what if an A&P somewhere determines that he can supervise a complete engine overhaul by Zoom?  And the intention is to sell the airplane immediately afterwards?

The FAA’s job is to codify exact standards to remove “wiggle room” for unscrupulous people.  It makes you wonder what egregious example came up that prompted this Moss letter after decades of it not being an issue.

Sure, an engine overhaul is an extreme example, but so is yours.  Speaking for the guys at my FSDO, I doubt any of them would (off the record) have an issue with the elevator weight AD inspection.  They just wouldn’t want to hear anyone say it out loud.

Mine is not an extreme example at all. Indeed I was trying to pic the most practical and most familiar example that I could.  I have no dog in the fight.  If it's the job of the FAA to eliminate "wiggle room", then folks should not complain when 60 year old regulations are interpreted through a 60 year old lens. It's not the sort of thing that promotes much progress, but it does provide a clear pathway to compliance.

[Shadrach]

3 minutes ago, EricJ said:

So, as I mentioned, it just requires changing the regs, which specifically say "in person", and procedures.    It's definitely do-able, it's just not allowed by the current regulatory language, as explained in the Moss letter.

I totally agree that it's doable but I think it's unlikely. 

[A64Pilot]

27 minutes ago, EricJ said:

So, as I mentioned, it just requires changing the regs, which specifically say "in person", and procedures.    It's definitely do-able, it's just not allowed by the current regulatory language, as explained in the Moss letter.

The FAA has become allergic to changing the law, it’s work after all, much easier to issue AC’s and interpretations that have no force of law behind them. Changing the Law is hard apparently but any one can publish an opinion, which is what an interpretation is isn’t it?

I know I’ll get argument but they can’t hold you to an AC or interpretation anymore than they can hold you to a SB. They CAN however roast you if you violate an FAR, that’s Federal LAW. Which is not to say go do something stupid but don’t let them scare you into not doing something you know is correct and safe, like for example me watching someone show me their tail number with their phone, demonstrating they had the correct magnet and then showing me it didn’t stick to the balance weight. That was I think a good example.

I have argued during Certifications with the FAA regarding AC’s they published to clarify Cert requirements and won, in that case it’s always an agreement, they give on something and you do something they want but can’t make you because the FAR doesn’t require it, an AC does. In fact I became suspicious that they threw out things just to get what they wanted at times, they didn’t really want you to comply, but brought it up as a strategy.

[A64Pilot]

To clarify if an SB or interpretation increases the level of safety. Then as Certificated mechanics and or pilots we are honor bound to comply, but if it doesn’t and if it causes a hard ship financially or otherwise I won’t. I will however if it doesn’t, why fight just to fight? 

[wombat]

@A64Pilot I think the problem is that if some person in the FAA has written an opinion (A.K.A. interpretation) of a federal law, when it comes time to determine if a specific person's action has violated the law, the interpretation authored by the FAA, even if it was written by just a single person, will be used to determine if that person's actions were within the law or not.  In that way, the opinions have the force of law.

 

Let's take the definition of 'congested area'....   Right now there is no clear definition of it, and if the FAA wants to take action against a pilot for violating this, they have to determine both the other facts (the flight path that violated the regulation, etc) as well as making an individual determination of if that area was 'congested'.  But if some random FSDO lawyer writes an opinion that "congested area" means any location with more than 50 houses per square mile, regardless of if the houses have any people in them at the moment, well......   Any further flights over areas with more than 1 house per 12.8 acres will need to be above the 'congested area' altitude minimums.

[Pinecone]

19 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

The FAA has become allergic to changing the law, it’s work after all, much easier to issue AC’s and interpretations that have no force of law behind them. Changing the Law is hard apparently but any one can publish an opinion, which is what an interpretation is isn’t it?

I know I’ll get argument but they can’t hold you to an AC or interpretation anymore than they can hold you to a SB. They CAN however roast you if you violate an FAR, that’s Federal LAW.

To be a bit pedantic.  FAA cannot change a LAW.  Congress passes bills that when signed by the President (or override of veto by Congress) and becomes a LAW.

FAA promulgates REGULATIONS based on the LAWS in effect.  So Congress says something broadly, and the agency writes regulations how that will be done day to day.  Like the LAW that created states that each employer will provide a safe and healthy workplace.  From the statement you get the myriad of OSHA regulations.

In the past, instead of changing the regulations, agencies would "interpret" the regulations instead of actually changing the regs.   But a recent Supreme Court decision may change that process.

In many cases, regulations were written somewhat vaguely to allow then to interpret them later.  

To change a regulation, the agency must publish the proposed changes and allow a comment period.  Then they must address all comments and then publish the changed regulation.  This does not include all the internal process to get to the proposed rule change.

At times, agencies do promulgate regulations that are not in accordance with the overriding law.  These end up in court and get changed, evenutally.

[Pinecone]

2 hours ago, wombat said:

@A64Pilot I think the problem is that if some person in the FAA has written an opinion (A.K.A. interpretation) of a federal law, when it comes time to determine if a specific person's action has violated the law, the interpretation authored by the FAA, even if it was written by just a single person, will be used to determine if that person's actions were within the law or not.  In that way, the opinions have the force of law.

This is now changed based on a recent Supreme Court decision.  In the past, if the action ended up in court, the court was required to defer to the agency's interpretion.

No longer, the court can now go against the agency interpretation.

[Will.iam]

30 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

This is now changed based on a recent Supreme Court decision.  In the past, if the action ended up in court, the court was required to defer to the agency's interpretion.

No longer, the court can now go against the agency interpretation.

So is that a good thing or bad?

[Pinecone]

I think it is a good thing.  It stops agencies from making up things.  Some agencies are known for making regulation via interpretations that do not agree with the law or the regulations.