Opinion: Drone Inspections Illustrate Faults Of “Moss Interpretation”

On Sept. 3, the Office of FAA Chief Counsel issued a legal interpretation to Little Rock Flight Standards District Office Manager Jonathan Moss. The interpretation distinguished physical presence from “mere virtual or remote” oversight as the determination for meeting the “in person” standard in the regulations.

The analysis of § 43.3(d), which authorizes a person working under supervision of a mechanic or repairman to perform maintenance, reversed years of well-established policy and contravened recognized legal precedent. It sent the entire aviation community into a fury over the broader implication of the agency’s newly strict requirement for physical presence in all cases.

The industry responded quickly. First, certificated mechanics led by consultant Savvy Aviation and then a collection of industry associations organized by ARSA sought reconsideration. Official letters and offline discussions led to an Oct. 15 suspension, when the assistant chief counsel for regulations reported an abeyance of the Moss Interpretation pending further consideration.

While the “Moss” drama played out, Delta Air Lines announced the FAA’s acceptance last February of drone inspections for its entire fleet. The airline incorporated the practice into its Aircraft Maintenance Manual in June.

“TechOps has been hard at work finding ways Delta can use technology to innovate in the aviation maintenance space,” Airline COO and TechOps President John Laughter told Aviation Week Network. “Our two drones take hundreds of photos that our technicians use to aid in analyzing potential aircraft damage, which … ensures we return the aircraft to service safely and more efficiently.”

Those “hundreds of photos” likely produce better visual acuity and more angles of view than would be available to a harnessed technician on top of an airframe. ARSA and its allies have long highlighted the effectiveness of remote tools—the borescope being first—where human eyes are supported by moving or still images taken for inspection or oversight of work.

In addition to practical applications like Delta’s, ARSA and its allies reminded the FAA of its documentary history: The group’s letter included multiple citations to regulatory and rulemaking documents as well as existing case law. It highlighted the agency’s responsiveness during the 2020 pandemic in utilizing permissive performance-based rules to allow the use of remote technology. Overall, the group’s submission urged the chief counsel’s office to focus on the plain language of the regulations.

“The only time a mechanic or repairman should be subject to enforcement is if the supervision was insufficient to determine the work was performed correctly. To presume that result before the work is approved for return to service is beyond the plain language of the regulations that allows the certificated person to determine the amount and extent of supervision required,” the letter noted.

The work related to “in person” is not done. The industry will make good on its request for interaction—on premises or online—to help the agency realign its understanding with both regulatory history and practical reality. The situation displays the agency’s own internal confusion about the plain language of the performance-based maintenance rules and the plainer effectiveness of industry practices utilizing remote technology and tools.

Brett Levanto is vice president of operations of Obadal, Filler, MacLeod & Klein, P.L.C. managing firm and client communications in conjunction with regulatory and legislative policy initiatives. He provides strategic and logistical support for the Aeronautical Repair Station Association.