Doesn't Canada recognize an "owner maintained" status for an airplane? If I remember rightly, and I may not, I thought there was some monkey business about that status "branding" and airplane and it can never go back to standard certification afterwards?
The current question, is there any industry or career field overwhelmed with applicants at the moment?
It can be brought back to certified, but it's not economically viable. It's basically overhauling every last little thing and certifying conformity to the TC. As the owner maintenance CoA is not recognized anywhere else, it drastically restricts selling it. If things are so tough in the US, maybe more reciprocity is needed between the FAA and Transport Canada. Can't swing a cat without hitting at least a few unemployed mechanics, and students have to move to the middle of nowhere to fight for a job. Without opening up the immigration can of worms, at least allowing maintenance and annuals cross border could help.
Canadian Owner Maintenance, according to the regs: CAR 507.03 (e) An aircraft type and model may be included in Appendix H of this Standard, Aircraft eligible for a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Owner-maintenance”, where: (amended 2002/03/01) (i) the aircraft is of a type certified in accordance with Chapters 522 or 523 of the Airworthiness Manual, or an equivalent foreign standard; (ii) the aircraft type certificate does not authorize more than four occupants; (iii) the maximum certificated take-off weight (MCTOW) of the aircraft does not exceed 1,814 kg (4,000 pounds); (iv) the aircraft is of a type and model that has not been manufactured during the 60 months preceding the date of application; (v) fewer than 10% of Canadian aircraft of the type and model concerned are operating in Canadian commercial air service at the time of application; (vi) the aircraft type and model is powered by a single, normally aspirated, piston engine, and is unpressurized; and (vii) except for gliders, powered gliders or aircraft with airframes of wooden construction, the aircraft type and model has a fixed landing gear and a fixed pitch propeller. The list of eligible aircraft is here: https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-s...ance-canadian-aviation-regulations-cars#App-h Lots of airplanes listed, including some many of you will never have heard of. The intent was to allow simple old airplanes to keep flying, airplanes that have no factory support anymore. One can use alternate parts such as electrical components like alternators, generators or regulators that come from auto parts suppliers. Certain modifications are permitted if there is STC or other acceptable data for them. No, you cannot install a V-8 in your old 172. The airplane has to be certified by an AME as meeting Type Design for the application for O-M. It has to meet its type certificate at the time of OM certification. No cobbled-together affairs or basket cases. Once it's in OM, some owners will install non-certified engine instruments or engine monitors intended for homebuilts. That stuff is far better than 70-year-old mechanical stuff anyway. They will install shoulder harnesses. Acceptable data for that is in AC43.13. The airplane basically becomes a homebuilt. Some OM owners will take their airplane to a mechanic for its annual, recognizing that they don't have the knowledge or skills to know what they're looking at or what defects to look for. Others are more familiar with the stuff and can do it easily enough. Yes, it can hurt the resale value, but there is a certain segment of the market that wants that airplane. The only way they can afford to fly is to avoid the shop rates. The people that put their airplanes in OM are the ones that have done the math; they anticipate keeping the airplane for another ten or 20 years, and they add up the cost of annuals and other stuff for that period and find that it will far outweigh the loss in resale value. There was concern early on (2002) that there would be plenty of accidents with OM airplanes that people weren't maintaining properly. It hasn't happened.
Canada seems to have taken a rather sensible approach to the aging fleet, then, and the US should consider following suit. It seems to tick all of the relevant boxes. The imposed difficulty of getting a plane out of "status" seems somewhat strict, but really, how else can anyone be satisfied that the plane wasn't mucked with? I'd think it similar to the DAR process here already.
I can only imagine, given the variability in owner ability and motivation. You can see that even now in the experimental world. Some are real show pieces and expertly maintained, others are treated like a tractor, full of bits and pieces from the lumber yard.
Except that with OM, you're starting with a type-certified airplane that has been verified as meeting type design. It doesn't have Home Depot wing spars in it, or sketchy Chinese hardware. Its welding and riveting will be at least acceptable. It would take a lot longer for it to become a mess like a sloppy, corner-cut, cheaped-out plans-built. No doubt we will hear of one someday, but we also hear of ratty homebuilts crashing. It comes down to the attitude of the owner, and that's where the laws place the responsibility for airworthiness on all aircraft. I know of an OM airplane that had a major power loss when the carb heat flapper plate detached from it shaft and blocked the carb's air inlet. It had been poorly repaired at some time in the past, quite possibly even while it was still registered as a certified airplane. There is no shortage of lousy repairs in the certified world, and I and my co-workers spent way too much time repairing the messes left behind by other licensed mechanics. It's not just homebuilts that have maintenance-quality issues.
What do you consider entry level? An A&P has either 30 months of experience or 24 months in a full time curriculum before they can take the A&P exam. Oh and the A&P has to purchase and provide their own tools. This about another $10-12k in expenses. Personally, I think $40k is not enough for the 30 months of experience A&P. I think it should be over $100k because most that use the 30 month avenue are military. Most military have a minimum of 4-6 years of experience before getting the A&P. Just like pilots, there’s not a shortage of A&P’s. Just a shortage of A&Ps willing to work for peanuts.
What's the difference between 24 or 30 months of training/ experience vs 4 years going to college? I know a few younger teachers with 2-3 years at their district and they're sub 45k a year. One has a masters. And our county is one of the highest in the country with 78% going to school districts. Now, according to the Internet where everything is to be taken as fact...always. the average Jet a/p makes between 89k and 96k a year. Is the teacher shortage as bad as the mechanic shortage? Average teacher salary is 63k. What would you rather be? Ok, probably the wrong crowd to ask that question to.
I consider entry level to be the first job a person can get with just "credentials". So an A&P job that just requires an A&P certificate, not ten years of working with certain models or otherwise requiring extra experience. Or a job that someone who just graduated with a degree from college but doesn't have five to twenty years in their field could land.
Flexjet Graduates its first class of Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) Technicians from their FAA-Accepted Apprentice Program | Business Wire Flexjet A&P apprentices must first pass an aptitude test and go through an in-depth interview process. Once selected, they begin their training while earning $50,000 per year during the 30-month apprenticeship. On successful completion of the program, they earn their A&P license and receive an offer of employment that includes a base compensation of $80,000 plus an industry leading benefit package. Additional benefits associated with an A&P position at Flexjet include: All new A&Ps are given a Snap-On Tools box and a starter set of tools valued at nearly $30,000. The technicians own this equipment following three years of successful service. Deferred compensation Cost-of-living adjustments for different regions and shift differentials as high as 12 percent for overnight shifts Relocation assistance program Robust bonus programs Company-paid, aircraft-specific schooling plus training Industry leading medical plan options (including vision) and dental plan Company-paid benefits include short- and long-term disability, life insurance, accidental death and dismemberment insurance 401(k) retirement savings plan with 100 percent matching up to 6 percent of income Medical and childcare flexible spending programs Generous paid time off
So a tool box, 10 screwdrivers, 10 metric and 10 SAE wrenches, and 3 pliers? Or maybe just the tool box is Snap-On, and all the tools are HF/Pittsburg.
The ones I've seen are quite nice. Snap-on partners with various schools and offers student tools kits at a substantial discount to the schools. Marketing genius in my opinion.
Are there actual examples of A&P's being sued successfully due to a signature? Honest question, I would think there are deeper pockets to go after if a bottom feeder gets involved.
And its getting worse. Snap-on is pimping out to certain governmental agencies and private operators who require tool control programs and are taking your addiction to the next level. Level 5 that is. The kicker is all the money a mechanic spent on their tools is moot and they have to take their tools home and use the company provided Level 5 boxes. Glad I don't need to play that dog and pony show anymore. A mechanic and their tools...... In what specific manner? If talking independent mechanics, yes provided they have insurance. However, from what I've seen it usually ends the mechanic's provider offering a settlement then upping the mechanics rates or dropping their coverage if the loss was substantial. After GARA passed and took the OEM pockets out of the picture per se, individual mechanics were moved up in the food chain to pursue from a plaintiffs standpoint. It also caused our insurance rates to skyrocket or for underwriters to stop writing mechanic freelance policies.
The trouble is, the mechanic has to defend himself from that initial suit, as everyone "possibly involved" gets named first, then they figure out who has the pockets. With joint and several liability, you'll need a strong attorney to get yourself out of the noose at all, even with shallow pockets. That takes insurance, and a filed claim, which will teabag your shop rates for the coming decade. (or a willingness to just throw 5-10 grand out the window to get out of a nonsense lawsuit) I wonder if plane owners would accept a strong "hold harmless" agreement in exchange with a more sensible shop rate (let's use $75/hr which is about half of my local going rate, adjust for your locale ) -- I assume only the bottom third of the flying public or so would take that deal, and I suspect those are the clients every shop wants no part of. I don't think it's solvable. :/ I think this is going to continue becoming an odd boutique industry and the talent will continue age-ing out with prices continuing upward. I also think the E-AB folks are clever and saw this coming from miles away.
It isn't possible to sign one meaningfully strong enough, because the plane owner can't sign away the legal rights of third parties (i.e., passengers).
My thinking is to bind the owner's assets/estate in the mechanic's defense if his passengers decide they were wronged somehow. ie steal another pocket in exchange for lower shop rates.
^^^^This. Or only large CRS shops will be left. There are some exceptions but they're more region specific. One solution that has become a bit more popular on the standalone side is dropping all insurance and take the target off their back while being very selective of the work they perform. I know a one-man turbine shop who carries no insurance and when he gets swept up in a plaintiffs net hires a guy to attend the first couple meetings just find out the details. Then he's done with it. Hasn't failed him yet. Same with a few others I know and they're all booked solid for work. So it appears to be a solution for some people.
Yeah, judgment-proof is a certain sort of defense against society. So is living in a box. Do these people you know live in windowless dodge vans? Making it tactically/legally unworkable for A&Ps to acquire assets isn't a great recipe for this problem going away either. It bums me out.
Ha. No. They have assets and live good. It helps when the state protects your homestead and certain retirements accounts from debt. And as you said, the standalone side is becoming a boutique industry especially for the mechanics that are on top of their game. Charge a monthly fee to join the club and the basics are covered. If I was still in the hunt its what I would have done as it was very similar to my owner-assist process without the monthly secret squirrel fee. But there are still a number of owners out there that accept a 20 minute annual sign off so it becomes harder for a legit shop to make a decent go at it. Go back to the FSDO directly managing the IAs and this, IMHO, will self correct itself... but at what cost to the GA community I don't know at this point.
I’m guessing an uninsured A&P IA (of which I know several) does OK negotiating with customers threatening lawsuits when he explains that he is single, doesn’t own a house in the US and holds citizenship overseas. I know at least one like that and he’s very busy, but I guarantee you he and his domestic money would be long gone if circumstances required it. When people learn what they can get and it’s nothing or close, they find another victim.
Sounds like we need an A&P tort limitation law similar to what they did that allowed Cessna and others to restart airplane production.
There is an opportunity for more specialized training and certification IMO. That would reduce the time and cost. The A&P curriculum, as I understand it, is very broad. If you could focus on say Piston Engines only, or composite vs. fabric, etc. it could help out the situation. The shortage could shift the scales more towards experimentals given the ability for builder maintenance.
The problem is that the airplane is a unit. Everything in it has something to do with the rest of it. Yes, there are mechanics that specialize in engines or fabric or airframe structures, but the typical A&P has to know something about everything, much like the MD who is a general practitioner, the one that sees the patient first and sorts out 98% of the problems, referring the tougher stuff to the specialists. We need a lot of GPs, not so many specialists. The Canadian AME is the equivalent of the US A&P-IA. Here's the stuff we have to be ready to answer on the exams, and we don't have question-and-answer books like the FAA issues. We actually have to be able to cover this stuff. https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/pu...ference-guide-m-rating-technical-examinations
“Specialties “ can be addressed as a Repair Station. There are “ Magnetic Compass Overhaul Repair Stations” that do exactly that. It consists of a small card table with the Part 147 Manual , Technical Data & all tools and equipment for that one task in that one place. Others only do Sheet Metal, Fabric or magnetos. There have been proposals to change A & P Certification. One was splitting Airframe into Pressurized and Non- Pressurized. Powerplant would have been Piston & Turbine. This could have paralleled Airline vs General Aviation. It went nowhere.
There's no requirement to get both an A and P. A number of people have only one certificate. So its available right now. However, when you get outside working in the specific areas under an A or P you then start needing a second A&P to sign off the approve for return to service. Same issue with any further "specializing" of each certificate. But you must also keep in mind the A&P requirements are also driven by international agreements which have bearing on how we manage the FAA mechanic certifications. As it stands now the FAA Airframe or Powerplant or A&P certificates are the most flexible and easiest maintenance certifications to obtain of any CAA in the world by far. However, the issue isn't so much the certification process but the general lack of interest in becoming an A&P. The same issues are happening in every country and there is talk to reduce the overbearing EASA mechanic requirements due to the mechanic shortage or allow an FAA A&P to count as credit toward an EASA Part 66 license. There was an NPRM for a new Part 66 around the 90s that was started as a means of making the FAA certifications more inline with the JAA/EASA Part 66 requirements. It was to create 3 mechanic certification categories based on aircraft weight and type operation. I believe for aircraft above 12,500lbs it also required the mechanic to be typed in the aircraft model series. It failed miserably for the simple reason the entire US aviation industry joined togather and defeated it before it got out the gate. The only thing that I think survived was they dropped the term "mechanic" and adopted the term Aircraft Maintenance Technician or AMT. Be thankful that didn't happen as it would have been the end of GA as few mechanics would have stayed in the lower category.
Canada has four categories M1 (non-turbojet airplanes and helicopters under 12,566 lb, which is 5700 kg), M2, which covers all aircraft of 12,566 and over, and turbojets. Then there's the E license, which is avionics. And the S ticket covers structures. These four categories were created to simplify the complex system that evolved earlier and ended up with at least 17 categories. When I wrote the exams for my license, they hadn't consolidated the exams yet, to match the category consolidations, and I wrote ten of them. Lots of fun, about $750 worth of it.
Does it still require to get OJT/typed in two different aircraft models before you can work on any other models? About 25 years ago I looked into getting an AME for helicopters and I seem to recall one requirement was I needed to document work under another AME for two different model series before I could work alone. It was this requirement that I didn't pursue it as I couldn't get that experience in the time frame needed for the job.
When I was in A&P school in the mid 90s one my instructors told us in the US licensed A&Ps are not considered skilled labor. The airlines keep politicians from passing any laws, regulations or what ever it is, so they don't have to pay higher wages. Just what he said. I never researched it my self. Maybe someone here knows more about it.
I’ve been told the same thing by a guy who started out doing Sheet metal for United. Outside of our discussions I haven’t heard much about it. I’m guessing it is more of an airline thing than a GA one.
Back when I 1st got into aviation in the early 80s, the Dept of Labor classified all occupations as unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled. Within the same timeframe those classifications were dropped and a different system was used where an A&P became a "skilled" position. I don't know about the politician angle but I seem to recall it had more a "union" angle that singled out trades without a formal union type apprenticeship program. But who knows. Regardless, there were a number of articles written about it and I also seem to recall every time (3x) they tried to unionize my day job shop this was brought up and subsequently thrown back into their face as no longer correct. The shop is still not unionized.
Come on, you know most of these precious little 20 something’s aren’t looking to get grease on their hands. They would rather work at Starbucks and complain about greedy corporations.
So you seem to imply the “20 something’s” are worse than the Senile Citizens that refuse to text or manage a smartphone? My belief is that many of the younger folks ( nearly everyone is younger than me) want to pursue technical careers and are willing to get dirty if needed. Way too many of the older folks harass kids due to their lack or knowledge or experience. I absolutely despise people that will not encourage and nurture the upcoming Techs. It must be they are very insecure in their status in life. It’s not easy for many kids to get their first exposure to aviation. It was common to take kids to the airport for flying or just washing an airplane. In the world today though; you would be exposing yourself to a great deal of liability. Not from the airplanes but just having kids in the car with you. After seeing what has happened with the Boy Scouts many adults will refuse to get involved. Programs such as “ Young Eagles” introduce kids to aviation . We need more activities that will do the same.
That's part of the AMO regulations. Approved Maintenance Organizations, like the FAA Repair Stations, working on Commercially-registered aircraft. But the regs are a bit looser than that, with TC requiring the AMO to approve its mechanics. The regulations were rewritten about 25 years ago. They were supposed to be simplified and better-organized. They just ended up being complicated in a different way. Now they're talking about consolidating the CARs (the actual regulations) and the CARs Standards (how you comply with the regulations. The stuff I posted above is from the Standards.
As long as it takes ~2 years and a not insignificant financial investment and A&P's are paid less than automotive techs the issue will get worse. As pilots we may not like the idea of maintenance getting more expensive but the choice will likely come down to more expensive maintenance or no maintenance (and thus flying) at all.
If A&Ps aren't being paid that much and that's why no one is willing to do the work, why is maintenance so expensive?
