Remote sign offs?

[GeorgeC]

Seems someone should ask the FAA to weigh in on this.

Childhood is learning to answer questions, adulthood is learning which questions should be asked, but true wisdom is knowing which questions not to ask.

 

[Katamarino]

Our local FAA Safety Team gave a presentation on owner-approved maintenance recently. The inspector from the FAA who was giving the presentation stated clearly that an A&P being available for consultation "by phone" (and presumably then also by video call) would meet the definition of available "in person".

He did not comment on sign-offs.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Our local FAA Safety Team gave a presentation on owner-approved maintenance recently. The inspector from the FAA who was giving the presentation stated clearly that an A&P being available for consultation "by phone" (and presumably then also by video call) would meet the definition of available "in person".

What does A&P availability have to do with owner-approved maintenance?

 

[Katamarino]

What does A&P availability have to do with owner-approved maintenance?

Maybe you've not been to one of these events. The speakers often also discuss closely related topics that they think will be of interest to the audience, rather than sticking religously to one narrow subject.

In this case there were questions pretty early on about "well, can I do something myself and have my A&P check it/sign off?"

 

[Bell206]

The inspector from the FAA who was giving the presentation stated clearly that an A&P being available for consultation "by phone" (and presumably then also by video call) would meet the definition of available "in person".

Interesting. And if the context of that comment was directly related to Part 43.3(d) then a prudent follow up question should have been to ask if you could get that in writing. Having been the actual A&P that "is readily available, in person," numerous times I have yet to get an official FAA reply that "by phone" is acceptable when the regulation states "in person." Not saying he didn't say that but context is everything.

Perhaps at your next FAA presentation you could request that? And yes I've been to many FAA seminars and presentations where this topic has been brought up along with other similar topics. Unfortunately, in the end the follow up written answer would always include the FAA definition of "readily" and "in person,"i.e., no phone calls when acting as a supervisor over a non-certified individuals work. It would have been a major improvement to my owner-assist side of the business if I could have supervised via phone or text.

 

[Magman]

Bell:

Phone and text are great and when you add FaceTime with sound and

video is awesome! You are there in real time. Smell missing though.

At one time a lot of long distance calls might allow some type of oral

description . Now you can get pix of manuals, run-up videos etc etc.


Guess I’ll never use unused minutes on “Calling Card” !

 

[Bell206]

Phone and text are great

Never said they were bad. Its just those pesky rules get in the way at times. Maybe talk to your local FSDO ASI and see if he can get a national policy memo out that defines the "in person" in Part 43.3(d) to include cell phone communications? I know I've tried.

 

[Magman]

Edited my response as I do agree phone/ text is a good thing.

A lot of things are “ local interpretation rather than regulatory .

Maybe ??

To the extent necessary would leave it up to the Tech.

 

[bbchien]

And it was a dismal failure.

That was part of the mighty effort to not allow their men to be exposed to the great unwashed public.
That's different than "normal inspections".
I would not be going there.

 

[John B Reed]

I can just imagine the call...

 

[Dana]

A lot of things are “ local interpretation rather than regulatory

A lot of things are "don't tell them anything they don't need to know."

 

[Magman]

A lot of things are "don't tell them anything they don't need to know."

“Better to beg forgiveness than ask permission” ?

Neither is really my focus.

I’ve seen instances of different opinions ?within and between FSDO’s on

several topics. Ie. 337 required? Qualification for A &P? Whether you can

call an overhaul,an Overhaul. Activity List of aircraft for IA renewal. Etc.

Regulations are in place but can be implemented in various ways.

At times it comes down to do you want spend time arguing your point

or fixing airplanes.


Many people replace brake linings on Cleveland brakes w/o an A & P

on site. This is not Preventative Maintenance. I know of times when

it was said the Owner cannot remove the 2 bolts in order to change a tire.

Use of FaceTime or Skype to supervise these tasks would still provide an

acceptable level of safety.


IMHO most Owners want to keep their aircraft in an Airworthy condition.

Can someone cheat and defeat the system? O course. But there are folks

that borrow a buds Propeller too!

 

[flyingron]

How does this square with


In practice neither an A&P nor IA does in person, real time supervision when I R&R inspection panels, cowlings, seats & carpet for the annual. Is that in violation of the spirt of the reg?

Anybody can make the plane unairworthy. It takes a mechanic usually to put it back into service. Don't forget that there are a whole slew of things the owner-pilot can do without supervision.

 

[pfarber]

Anybody can make the plane unairworthy. It takes a mechanic usually to put it back into service. Don't forget that there are a whole slew of things the owner-pilot can do without supervision.

really, how are you going to get the logs to make such an entry? i have yet to see these roving bands or anps that scour the flight line hungry to make airplanes unairworthy in Thier role as safety police. anointing airplanes as unairworthy is just not a real thing than people do.