A&P/IA shortage

[Dan Thomas]

The problem, people want what our friends up north have, junk aircraft they just want a cheap way out. They want to go back to the days before The Air Commerce Act of May 20, 1926. Aircraft free for all, pilots that have no idea of what they are doing and aircraft maintained or lack of, the good old days.

Canada has had Owner-Maintenance for 18 years, and as far as I can tell there has't been any drastically increased accident rate for them. Maybe it will take a while longer for the errors to pay off...

 

[Skyrys62]

So I got some questions, just out of curiosity..

1. Do most of you, whether AC owners or A&P, IA, etc., see more squawks on the engine or the airframe, or are the pretty much even(ish)?
2. Would it be prudent to school, take, pass the exams for one (either A or P), then work while getting the other cert?...or would you even get hired with only one?

 

[weilke]

2. Would it be prudent to school, take, pass the exams for one (either A or P), then work while getting the other cert?...or would you even get hired with only one?

Some programs do that. You can sit for either the A or the P and graduate from shop helper to 'half mechanic' 1/2 way through program.

 

[Bell206]

1. Do most of you, whether AC owners or A&P, IA, etc., see more squawks on the engine or the airframe, or are the pretty much even(ish)?

From my experience, it's more general in terms of if the aircraft is well maintained there are less discrepancies across the entire aircraft regardless the sub-group (airframe/engine).

2. Would it be prudent to school, take, pass the exams for one (either A or P), then work while getting the other cert?...or would you even get hired with only one?

Depends on the situation, school, and employer. But it could end up taking longer and costing more. Some schools teach all 3 disciplines concurrently. Or for example, if you were pursuing the straight experience route, it states 18 months per certificate or 30 months combined--so if did the one cert at a time it would take 36 mos vs 30 months. Also, when I took my oral/practicals it was $300 cheaper and 7 hours shorter if I took the General, A, and P exams together.

 

[Skyrys62]

it states 18 months per certificate or 30 months combined

True on the costs and time being a little more, but I guess if you're working and getting the experience at the same time, at least you're getting paid to learn instead of paying.
As you mentioned, probably have to be pretty lucky to find both a school/employer combination that works out just right. Yet with the thread title, who knows..

 

[Bell206]

Yet with the thread title, who knows..

I've found over the years and now, it is to a person's advantage to get the entire A&P instead of piece meal. Unless your intent is to stay exclusive to engine work, sheetmetal, or avionics. Any delay in pursuing the complete certificate will put you that much further behind in the overall seniority levels of your A&P certified peers.

 

[SkyDog58]

When I went to A&P school, I did three semesters of combined General and Airframe courses and then tested for and received my Airframe rating. Then I had two more semesters for my Powerplant. During those final two semesters, I worked part time at night for a small Part 135. I did both airframe and powerplant work but could only sign for my airframe work. So that option is there for some.

 

[Paulie]

why?

Why? Because airports require you to have insurance, in my case the absolutely lowest quote I could get is $6000 a year. There is no desire for me to work on airplanes and have to do at least 7 annuals to just pay for the insurance. Than and I have no desire to deal with cheap airplane owners that don't want to pay what they're willing to pay a car mechanic. Plus the why can't you look the other way guys. I have one now with a C-172 with firewall damage that must be repaired and thinks I should sign off the annual anyway. He got the airplane very cheap, from a flight school for guess what? The firewall damage. The repair costs more than the airplane is worth.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Why? Because airports require you to have insurance, in my case the absolutely lowest quote I could get is $6000 a year. There is no desire for me to work on airplanes and have to do at least 7 annuals to just pay for the insurance. Than and I have no desire to deal with cheap airplane owners that don't want to pay what they're willing to pay a car mechanic. Plus the why can't you look the other way guys. I have one now with a C-172 with firewall damage that must be repaired and thinks I should sign off the annual anyway. He got the airplane very cheap, from a flight school for guess what? The firewall damage. The repair costs more than the airplane is worth.

geez....even if you're working in the owner's hangar? I could see that running a bidness....but.

 

[tspear]

geez....even if you're working in the owner's hangar? I could see that running a bidness....but.

It's about liability. I have heard of this and seen it at a few airports. So far when I cared enough to look into it, either the city lawyers had a previous scare or the insurance company required it.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk

 

[weirdjim]

So far when I cared enough to look into it, either the city lawyers

Sure. The city (or county) lawyers aren't out a personal dime to require a million dollar liability policy. THe hangar may belong to the owner but the underlying land almost always belongs to the public entity. And what lawyer in his/her right mind would stick their neck out when it could be asked (when the fit hits the shan) why they didn't require liability insurance? No brainer.

Jim

 

[Tom-D]

Sure. The city (or county) lawyers aren't out a personal dime to require a million dollar liability policy. THe hangar may belong to the owner but the underlying land almost always belongs to the public entity. And what lawyer in his/her right mind would stick their neck out when it could be asked (when the fit hits the shan) why they didn't require liability insurance? No brainer.

Jim

Well actually Jim I've done some research on this.
When I am working for an owner that has rented a hangar from a municipality,, the municipality already has a policy on the owner, I work for the owner not the municipality, but the airport restricts who can be on their property.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

btw....as a hangar tenant, the local municipality requires "me" to carry liability insurance for my hangar. So, even though "maintenance" is forbidden in the lease.....if it happens in my hangar I can't believe the municipality to be liable anyways.

 

[Skyrys62]

as a hangar tenant, the local municipality requires "me" to carry liability insurance for my hangar.

So let's say someone has a million dollar 'Umbrella" policy.
Would this cover things like that if you were sued?

I know I should call my ins. agent, but thought it might be educational to ask here

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

So let's say someone has a million dollar 'Umbrella" policy.
Would this cover things like that if you were sued?

I know I should call my ins. agent, but thought it might be educational to ask here

I think it depends....if you were in the "bidness" of fixing planes the umbrella wouldn't work.

 

[Bell206]

So let's say someone has a million dollar 'Umbrella" policy. Would this cover things like that if you were sued?

Any non-aviation insurance policy like your umbrella example will have an exemptions clause which will exempt aviation related claims--unless the policy is a hybrid written to cover a specific entity. For example, I have 2 LLCs--1 aviation related and 1 non-aviation. Back when I had insurance on both I needed two separate policies--the aviation policy was $11K+ and the non-av was $2K for the same $1M liability coverage.

As to who needs insurance to perform aircraft maintenance it depends on a personal requirement and on any external requirements. For me, I carried insurance to protect myself regardless of any external requirements. My fixed wing mx work was a side job to my day job mx work on helicopters.

On the external requirement side it can run the gamut: from no requirements to needing approval from an airport commission or city council. No two airports or customers are the same. For example, if I showed up at an airport to work on an aircraft that was in transient, there were no requirements or hoops to jump through in order to work on it. However, if I showed up at the same airport to work on a 172 that was domiciled there, I had to register and present my insurance certificates 1 week prior to start of work. Some States and/or airports were a breeze and some were a goat f---.

 

[weirdjim]

Well actually Jim I've done some research on this.

Well, actually Tom, I didn't need to do any research on this. I spent 8 years of my life on an elected County board that set requirements like this. And the hell of it was I had to recuse myself from any discussion or action ("voting") to set these airport documents due to "conflict of interest". All I could do was grit my teeth and vote against OTHER stuff the county lawyer brought on other matters. Some I won. Some I lost. But I'm still peeved that I couldn't do more regarding stupid requirements that aren't necessary or could be done by other methods other than wasting money on ineffectual insurance policies.

Jim