The FAA wants to eliminate a significant amount of paperwork for aircraft mechanics who now have inspection authorization by turning that authorization into a rating, like an airframe or powerplant rating. “The inspection rating would carry the same privileges and limitations as the inspection authorization but would not require renewal or have an expiration date, consistent with the other mechanic ratings,” the agency says in the preamble of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued Tuesday.
To maintain the rating, mechanics would have to keep records similar to those required for keeping the other ratings rather than providing the evidence to renew inspection authorization every other year to maintain it. “These proposed changes would be deregulatory since they would reduce the paperwork and resource burdens linked to complying with the existing regulations for both industry and FAA,” the NPRM says. Comments are being accepted until Aug. 31. So far there are only two comments but both raise interesting issues in the maintenance industry.
Now they need to make it possible for an A&P to relicense an airplane for up to 100 hrs since last IA conducted ‘annual.’ If I can sign off a 100 hr for a commercially used airplane why shouldn’t I be able to do it for airplanes flown low hours since last annual? I can sign off a turbine powered E-AB but I can’t sign off a non electrical 1938 Cub … that is NUTS !
There’s a shortage of A&P’s and IA’s (except for the airlines) so … numerous changes need to be done to help GA out.
There’s considerable evidence that annual inspections are too frequent, and may induce more failures than they prevent. Going to a biennial inspection model seems to be optimal. This helps address the AMT manning issue also.
With great respect to the thought that you put behind your comment, I absolutely disagree, based on what I have encountered over the past forty years,
I am convinced that the greatest problem that we have in Part 91 operations is the mechanics and gross incompetence. Pencil whipping, not knowing how to do stuff, doing incompetent repairs, I’ve seen shocking things and while A and Ps can do interim things but having an IA with data and experience on the make and type do an inspection is critical.
90% of the maintenance is caused by 90%of the maintenance.
Agree blue dude, perhaps biennial for a condition report, and records kept of that. But should be inspected by an IA.
There is clear statistical evidence that the first 31 hours since an annual inspection produce the highest number of maintenance induced issues.
I got up during one of Mike Busch’s AirVenure forums and spoke about this for 5 minutes. At the end, there was rousing applause / approval. The FAA is likely making the IA a certificate because they don’t have the manpower to keep redoing the IA certificates every two years. In like manner, there aren’t enough IA’s out in the field doing GA airplanes; why not make it simpler, too.
I did a presentation for EAA and suggested the following. That an A&P (perhaps with an 8 hour training webinar) could do an annual condition inspection on a certificated airplane for up to 100 hours total time since IA conducted annual. I could live with saying that an IA has to conduct an annual every five years irregardless but I’d rather have it a simple 100 hour time period. This way, both A&P’s and IA’s are still looking at the airplanes on an annual basis.
Under MOSAIC, people can now take a 2 week course and do condition inspections not only on THEIR airplane but for others. TWO WEEKS! And I can’t do a 1938 non-electrical Cub inspection as an A&P with years of experience.
I’m all for this proposal and will support it. Keeping records, just like we to to maintain flying skills is more than adequate
The airlines have a huge shortage. You never know what’s the Special of the Day at MELs Diner!
Here’s the link to the already-submitted comments:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2026-6671-0001/comment
Bad idea. Going in the wrong direction. All A&Ps should have to undergo regular reviews of their competency, both with regulation and a hands on demonstration, just like a Flight Review. A&Ps are human like everyone and they can develop a “normalization of deviance” ( aka bad habits) that they may not even recognize they have. Some of the recent off-airport accidents could be traced back to a mechanics error and they may have been sure they were doing it right. A review lets someone else “check your work” and with the shortage of A&Ps and the pressure they’re under, this would definitely help. It could even help with liability insurance rates if insurers recognize it.
Bad idea back at ya, StinsonMan. At SOME point, maintenance requirements will become SO onerous and expensive that recreational flyers will throw in the towel. Most IA’s find the two year requirement a burden just like (apparently) the FAA now does, too?
As it is, the cost of an annual is a major part of the problem of maintaining an airplane IF you can find someone to do it. If there was a plethora of IA’s floating around and the cost was decent, no one would object. The FAA can make GA 100% safe by killing it … and that’s exactly what they’re doing one rule after another. As all maintainers age out, insufficient numbers of new ones aren’t coming online to replace them and discretionary funds for aviation purposes wane, I think the end may already BE here save for someone to flip the light switch off as they close the door on GA. Your idea would make it worse.
A good example might be the 12 year OEM recommendation / requirement to rebuild an engine. I had a O-320 I flew that was original to 1967 and it was 50 years old when I sold it (and had never been opened up). It flew for 6 more years before the next owner finally chose voluntarily to rebuilt it. I’m flying behind another O-320 that I installed new in 1993 and is likewise in good shape and never apart (although appliances have been rebuilt). Too much maintenance is just as bad as too little maintenance. A third party looking at your airplane can size it up within an hour (sans for AD’s). That’s the whole idea. A third party with maintenance experience looking things over. A biannual flight reviewed pilot can go out on the next flight and have an issue. The same can happen with maintenance. NOTHING is 100% safe and no amount of onerous rules will make it so.
For myself, I became an A&P (mostly by hobby) to be a better pilot AND to reduce my maintenance costs. In the old days, I’d find an IA to work with me and we’d keep my machines in good condition and safe. Nowadays, the last IA in the shadow of Oshkosh is 85 years old and I’ve got it on my planning that when he goes away, I’m done UNLESS someone gets real and makes it possible for me to sign off my own airplane.
It’s no damn wonder that most of the new airplanes being registered are E-AB’s. With the MOSAIC maintenance rules, it’s gonna now be easier to maintain them. My 172 — that I’ve owned and maintained for 41 years — is a much safer designed airplane but the maintenance requirements are pushing me to sell it and buy something I can maintain by myself. There’s no reason for it UNLESS it’s flown commercially. THAT should be the distinction … flown recreationally … easier maintenance rules.
If there weren’t a flurry of GA aircraft landing on roads or in fields, due to mechanical issues, I’d probably agree with maintaining the status quo. But as they say, “neglect is expensive” whether it be in maintaining an aircraft or in maintaining skills.
“At SOME point, maintenance requirements will become SO onerous and expensive that recreational flyers will throw in the towel.”
Sad to say that Ship has already sailed …some time ago! (for the ever shrinking cadre of all but extinct ‘Recreational-Flyers’ that remain!)
ALL industries are suffering from a shortage of labor:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-most-vulnerable-we-ve-ever-been-ford-ceo-warns-america-s-blue-collar-worker-shortage-could-hit-your-wallet-next/ar-AA27fQsY
I like turtles