A new report says the U.S. will be short 30,000 aircraft technicians in two years, almost double the shortfall of 17,000 now putting severe strain on the industry, from GA to airlines. A new report by consulting firm Oliver Wyman said a surge in retirement by baby boomers will see 45,000 skilled aviation mechanics leaving the profession over the next 10 years. There have also been gaps in filling the ranks of younger mechanics over the last 25 years caused by airline cost-cutting in response to geopolitical events and the COVID-19 pandemic. “It really is a perfect storm,” Oliver Wyman spokesman Brian Prentice told CNN. “Aircraft are flying longer, demand for travel is high, and we’re losing experienced technicians at the same time.”
GA has been feeling the pinch for several years as airlines and MROs poach techs at GA shops by offering higher wages and better benefits. That has resulted in long wait times for service and repairs at some shops. Meanwhile, those enrolled in mechanics programs are upbeat about their futures as the big shops roll out the red carpet. “There’s ample overtime opportunity, ample growth,” student Matthew Brown told CNN. “Companies will pay you to relocate and pay pretty high wages.”
Where I hang out in the summertime, the IA is 84 years old. I already have it in my ‘thinking’ that when he’s gone — for whatever reason — I’m “done.” This could be the final nail in the coffin for GA in many places. The cost of an annual will skyrocket and that’ll be that. Sadly. The tenets of MOSAIC will allow owner maintenance for light sport and E-AB but NOT for — often times, simpler — Part 23 airplanes. It’s time to DO SOMETHING about this before it’s too late. A Rainbow Aviation trained owner could do a condition inspection on a high performance whatever yet an A&P can’t do an annual on a no electrical system Cub or Airknocker … give me a break.
There’s no reason an “annual” could not be done on a Class I certificated owner flown airplane used recreationally under MOSAIC / Light Sport 2.0 by properly trained owners and supervised an A&P. Change the requirement for such airplanes to a ‘condition inspection.’ Want to go back to normal ops … do a survey and have an IA sign it off. That would help, some. This shortage didn’t happen overnight … it’s been coming for years. Small shops can’t pay the rates the airlines and large FBO’s can so … how the heck are they going to retain the caliber of employees currently required? GA is precisely where much of the problem is and the segment of aviation that will suffer most.
I was hoping you’d comment on this, Larry.
You’re making a strong GA survival argument, not just a labor squawk.
That hits the real problem. In a lot of places, this is becoming a single-point failure issue. When one older IA is the backbone of a local GA community, losing him can mean no annuals, long delays, or costs that push people out. Been there. For those who knew him, Johnny Johnson was my go to IA.
This is a MAJOR irritant to me, these days, Raf; you figured right. I’ve been an A&P for more than 50 years and — in fact – hold the Master Mechanic award along with the Master Pilot award. Not many people have both. I’m not bragging … I bring it up because I wanted to show I’ve been around the patch a few times and am no longer a ‘spring chicken.’ Like you, I’ve owned and maintained my 172 for over 40 years … why should I have to give it up because of its certification basis and loss of the IA I work with? I don’t have that many more years left before it’ll be prudent to become a ground pounder. I could go get my IA … but I don’t want to gain 100 new “friends.” 🙂 And, I don’t want to open a business in retirement. As it is, people chase me around looking for help and more. And I can’t justify the cost just to do my own airplane only.
I did a presentation for a major aviation organization over a year ago on this topic. During that presentation, I brought in a tripod chair to visually accentuate that the FAA, et al, are ignoring the ‘third leg’ of the GA conundrum — maintenance. MOSAIC / LS 2.0 (along with Basic Med) takes care of the pilot part and the upcoming ASTM F37 standards will take care of the NEW conforming E-AB airplane part but nothing whatever is being done to provide relief for those of us flying certificated airplanes. I labeled each leg of the tripod chair as ‘pilot’, ‘airplane’ and maintenance … slid it over to the edge of the table (read the subject of this article) whereupon it fell off. All one has to do is go to Airventure and note the huge and disproportionate number of ‘spam cans’ parked on that field vs. E-AB, LSA and others. Likewise, I got up and spoke to a large audience in a Mike Busch forum at EAA. They clapped when I finished … indicating that I was ‘on’ to something.
As far as I am concerned, I feel we are over inspecting while simultaneously under maintaining our airplanes. Lots of folks SAY they don’t pencil whip an inspection but is that really true? And can we expect mechanics to be magicians guessing the deficiencies of an airplane that can only be discerned by flying it? Owners need to get involved here, too. You don’t have to know the difference between a crescent wrench and a pair of pliers to get involved. And most owners don’t even know what items of maintenance they are allowed to perform.
IF the FAA accepted my idea of making only condition inspections suffice for any certificated Class I airplane being flown recreationally under MOSAIC (>70% of GA airplanes qualify), that would help immensely. Those that wanted to gain an education to sign it off or those with A&P’s could sign it off. If owners stepped in and made a more concerted effort to get involved, that’d help, too. I believe airplanes would ultimately be safer because airplanes would be getting more ‘TLC.’
I’m making this issue MY cause célèbre. Before I hang up my Bose, I hope to make a difference.
Larry, that only works for a subset of owners who don’t mind getting their knuckles skinned and their hands oily. They already have a path – they can go Experimental. Just like many other people, I pay an airplane mechanic to do my annual, and have no real interest in doing it myself. So you are right, when the maintenance becomes unaffordable, it will be a nail in the coffin – I will give up, rather than learn how to be a mechanic.
As a former FAA Part 147 School Instructor, I would like to comment here…..that’s if Russ will not delete my comments as he did the last time I commented.
I taught young, aspiring mechanics, fresh out of Viet Nam and high schools across Michigan in the 1970s and early 1980s. I am still semi-active in aviation in spite of no longer being able to exercise the privileges of my PPL Certificate. Among other milestones, we facilitated the introduction of female A&Ps into the workforce.
Back then, people looked at working on airplanes and helicopters as a real step up from ordinary wrenching on automobiles. They would compete for openings in our classes (limited in size by the FAA) in spite of the heavy costs and daunting requirements. For example, we would require each applicant to “own” or purchase handtools IAW a minimal tool list that still cost close to a thousand dollars in 1970 value in order to qualify to pay our roughly $2,000 tuition (often paid by Veterans benefits) and attend class. If a student missed class for ANY reason, he was required to come in on Saturday to make it up. And in the end, all this time, money, and effort earned each student with passing grades an opportunity to sit for the lengthy FAA Written, Oral, and Practical exams.
Now, an automobile mechanic with just minimal ASE ratings, working at a dealership or transmission shop, earns significantly more money, enjoys a complete benefit package, and has less personal liability than most A&Ps. I am not saying that they are not worth it, but why is the A&P worth so much less?
When I worked as an airline wrench, we did have some benefits, but our wages were still below our automotive brothers and sisters wages. Our job security was subject to factors way outside our personal control, and seniority dictated where we could live and often how long we could stay there. And for those who think the airlines or large MROs shield a mechanic from liability, consider the Continental Airlines mechanics who performed a sheet metal repair on a DC-10, only to have the French Government attack them in USA Court over the crash of their Concord in July, 2000.
Under the current regulatory environment and economic conditions, this situation is only going to get worse. And GA will suffer first, more, and for a longer period of time than airlines, corporate, and MROs. For this reason, I must agree COMPLETELY with Mr. Larry S.
Both his predictions and his ideas hold water in my area of this desert. If the FAA does not change the “regs” real soon, your $5000 annual will disappear altogether and legal flying will become a luxury.
John Caulkins
It’s the same in the UK, Europe. There are fewer young people who like to get their hands dirty, those that do and go to college/ university come out with an engineering degree but little hands on time, they are being aimed at working for an airline as a box changer or the manufacturers working in design offices.
I’m not convinced that it is a case of young people not liking to get their hands dirty. I know plenty who have no problem with it, although perhaps that’s just the crowd that I interact with. I think that it’s more a question of the overall package; that’s working pressure, working conditions, liability, etc… and, very importantly, remuneration. Let’s face it; GA does not always offer a compelling proposition in comparison to the alternatives available to young professionals interested in technical or mechanical careers.
It’s not like the old days when aircraft were inherently cool. GA has lost that USP. Let me digress and think back to a distant era when locomotive drivers were the jet-pilots and astronauts of their time. Contrast this to a 1997 (thanks Google) ad for the Fiat Coupé with the tagline, “In Italy, no one grows up wanting to be a train driver.” Times change.
I was fortunate enough to have an older guy, an IA, available for my last 20 years of aircraft ownership. This time it was an Aeronca Chief. He had retired from an airline and initially didn’t have a clue about an Aeronca. I’ve been around them since high school. I showed him stuff. He would sign it off. Eventually, he let me just do all I wanted to, and he would follow up making sure I hade not broken too much, and it was still airworthy. I gave him $400 for his 2 or 3 hours of visiting with me. He died six years ago. My annual would have then increased to about $2500 a year at our local shop, after I could finally get in. I got out of aviation ownership at that point. Just one extra expense that didn’t justify my sixty or so hrs a year of aviating.
It’s getting about time to sell the C-180K and the hangar. Maybe the hangar buyer will let me continue to use it for my gyro plane for which I have the Repairman Certificate. The rent shouldn’t be too bad as I only need about 4-6 feet width of floor space.
Dan. Years ago, I used to fly my Dad’s Benson Gyro. He did have an N number on it. I had a Comm. ASEL. We would just take turns hoping in it and flying around the Mojave Desert like On Any Sunday, but for gyros. Usually a dozen of more out there. Never thought about needing an additional rating. Did I? And how would I have gotten one? Thanks. Roger
Roger, I got the itch for gyro flying after watching Youtube videos of a Brit flying one around the world. I bought an Airgyro AG-915 kit, went to a builder assist location, and in three weeks of non-stop work, had it ready for inspection.
I flew it locally in Central Texas for 40 hours of experimental time and then flew it home to New Mexico in 6.6 hours of flight time. My wife and I now fly it often just to observe the desert wild life, mostly pronghorn antelope, coyotes, eagles, etc. I just completed the 350 hour inspection. It’s also a lot cheaper than flying the Cessna!
Thanks Dan. My Benson time was far removed from the higher tech modern gyros now available. We had a super gyro guy at one of our local airports. Unfortunately he died a couple of years ago. He was Wayne Hubbs. I watched him progress from the Bensons through the very modern two place ones now available. He was a perfectionist in building and maintaining. His later ones could easily out perform my Aeronca. I can see the need for a rating add on for them, and the ability to have an examination ride in them. But the old basic Bensons, we just assumed it was a climb in and go after a verbal checkout. Still permitted, or do they come under type rating now? I guess my previous time in them years might be a “done did it and lived to tell about it” rating. But I’m afraid I’m now long past doing it. Was just curious. Thanks again. Roger
I fly the gyro as a Sport Pilot even though I hold an ATP rating. The gyro is licensed as Experimental Amateur Built since the FAA did not have a rating for it as a Light Sport Aircraft.
It’s all pretty silly, if you ask me. I don’t have endorsements for High Performance, Complex, Conventional Gear as I had done all of those things 50+ years ago and there weren’t any such requirements. Likewise, my Commercial Glider certificate does not limit me to any particular launch method.
This is the kind of crap we endure due to the poor training these days. And “pilots” like TNFlygirl. I spun aircraft during initial training…
Me too. All of the above. Glad I experienced aviation during those days.
That’s the whole point of MY position, Dan. WHY should you have to give up a fine airplane — that you’ve likely owned a long time? — in order to be able to afford the maintenance on a fliver?
I CAN afford the maintenance on the Cessna-180 and I do my own on my gyroplane since I built it.
I truly don’t know how to even begin this post; 50 years of GA maintenance will do that. But it’s worth considering that if new generations are avoiding vocational careers “because they don’t want to get their hands dirty,” it might prove beneficial to provide other incentives.
1. Relax regulatory requirements around Part 43 and Part 65 airmen performance measures. They are archaic, punitive, and often irrelevant to the assignment.
2. Encourage mentoring through remote-expert association. If a surgeon can remove a tumor using a robotic program, an airplane can be inspected, repaired, and returned to service with remote assistance from an aging group of life-long maintenance airmen.
3. Give small GA shops and their personnel a chance to thrive in a market chronically hampered by expensive regulatory requirements and low pay. Eliminate the need for personal and professional Product Liability Insurance. Remove local airport insurance limitations. Eliminate income taxes for aircraft maintenance employees or provide a minimal flat tax as an alternative. Make all maintenance training tax deductible as well as tool and equipment purchases.
4. Rework FAA acceptance of PMA, TSO, and STC’d parts for all aircraft, not just aging airplanes. Prioritize form-fit-function in the use of alternative parts.
5. Remove the FAA from all regulatory enforcement of airmen regulations and assign the job to those who know more about why a regulation was ignored: The NTSB and/or Federal Air Surgeon. Mechanics and pilots break regulations every single day. It’s the reason why an A&P can have the best day on the shop floor and the worst day all in the same 10-hr shift.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
This has been a growing issue in the industry for years, and has been making GA much less of a reality for people. This shortage is what we are trying to help alleviate with a strong team that can dispatch anywhere. If you need Aircraft Maintenance support, don’t hesitate to reach out. Visit our website at aircraftmd.com
I’m suspicious. How come you don’t ID your home base or give anything but a glowing resume’ and a first name? And your ‘stories’ page is “down for maintenance.” Sumtingwonghere?
If you look on the website under the about tab, you’ll see that we are based out of KONA. As you may be aware with the A&P shortage, everyone is backed up with work. We currently have a month and a half long backlog, and clients come first along with many other things above a ‘stories’ page on a website.
So why cannot Part 91 certificated pilot-owners take an abbreviated course like the Light Sport people can so as to perform maintenance & sign off their own work? This would help the shortage & keep the GA fleet flying. I don’t think turning a certificated aircraft into ‘experimental’ is an option. Insurance might preclude that.
I propose that the Primary Non-Commercial Category be brought into play. It had a working group several years ago and somehow got left out of the MOSAIC. It functioned similar to Canada’s owners maintenance program, basically suspended the certification and the aircraft could operate like an EXPERIMENTAL but could be recertified by having an annual inspection by an IA confirm that it conforms to it original type certificate.
Another option to ease the maintenance would be if the FAA would allow A & P certificates for just piston engines and unpressurized airframes under 12,000 pounds and allow the class to be of a correspondence type just like many of us did with King Schools or Sporty’s or Glem for our pilots license and additional ratings ground school .
That’s my idea stated above, Ed. I, too, thought P-NC might be a way to go but that seems “too hard” for the FAA. It would work though.