Achieving growth in the certificated aviation mechanic workforce will require efforts to attract more candidates into the pipeline, as well as creating a smoother path to certification, new research from the Aviation Technical Education Council (ATEC) finds.
The latest edition of the Pipeline Report, produced annually by ATEC to spotlight U.S. airframe and powerplant (A&P) mechanic workforce trends, shows workforce growth is not keeping up with demand.
FAA data show the number of certificated mechanics has grown an average of just 2.3% a year over the past five years.
Current estimates show that commercial aviation alone will be 31,000 mechanics short of its needs by 2031. More skilled technicians will be needed to satisfy demand in other industry segments, including general aviation, ATEC officials said.
One pathway primed to help meet demand is accredited aviation maintenance technician schools (AMTS) that prepare candidates for the FAA’s airframe & powerplant (A&P) tests. ATEC’s latest survey found that 67 out of every 100 new mechanics went through school. Fifteen came from military and 18 from civilian work experience.
New AMTS entrants increased by just 1.8% last year, the survey found.
Pre-pandemic, this figure was routinely in double digits.
The percentage of military veterans transitioning to civilian maintenance jobs grew by double digits for the second consecutive year. While encouraging, the pool of untapped veterans with maintenance experience remains large, according to ATEC officials, who estimate that less than 10% of veterans with maintenance backgrounds are transitioning to similar civilian roles.
Survey respondents cited a lack of awareness as the primary issue keeping enrollment growth down. Solving this will require both local, institution-by-institution efforts combined with broader regional and national campaigns that both raise awareness and link schools directly with employers, ATEC officials said.
One effort spearheaded by ATEC, Choose Aerospace, has created a computer-assisted hybrid program designed to provide easy access to aviation maintenance curriculum. The Choose Aerospace program is expanding into communities through partnerships with school districts, municipalities, employers, and community-based organizations, developing clear pipelines and career opportunities, ATEC officials said.
Boosting the completion rate of AMTS students is another focus area.
Survey respondents cited “fear of testing” as a common roadblock that prevents students from sitting for A&P exams.
ATEC is working with the FAA to get progressive testing integrated into the curriculum, rather than requiring candidates to wait until mandatory training is complete before taking exams.
“Getting more candidates into and through the mechanic training pipeline is the only way aerospace will have enough skilled technicians to keep aircraft flying safely and on schedule,” said James Hall, ATEC president and dean of the Aviation & Manufacturing Technologies program at WSU Tech. “The latest Pipeline Report spotlights the most pressing needs facing our schools and other training pathways.”
The latest Pipeline Report is the first to include a collaboration between ATEC and Oliver Wyman, a management consulting firm. The new partnership led to enhancements in calculations and methodologies, accounting for certain modifications in trends and findings compared to previous reports, according to ATEC officials.
“The result is a more thorough insight into the aviation technician landscape, enhancing ATEC’s ability to both understand and act on emerging trends,” officials said.
You can find previous pipeline reports and other aviation technical workforce reports on ATEC’s Workforce Data page.
Let’s consider the value proposition from the perspective of the high school student. The potential A&P school candidate, who by interests and skills, has a desire to pursue some kind of technical field in either maintenance or engineering. Low pay, irregular work hours and lack of career advancement potential are certainly deterrents when they consider aviation. They are more likely to choose a career in automotive, diesel repair, industrial equipment repair / mechatronics where they are valued the most. The aviation industry has created the problem for itself.
mid 1970’s. I was working for Ford, they paid for two years of A&P schooling. Got my tickets plus I had a First Class Radio Telephone License and a Pilot License. Went to work for an FBO with an Avionics Shop. Not great pay. Then it got worse, non A&P’s could do work and A&P’s were to sign it off. Plus we carried our own liability insurance. The guys at the Chevy dealership laughed at our pay and responsibility. I went into manufacturing maintenance and left aviation behind by 1980. General Aviation doesn’t pay and probably never will.
Graduated A&P school in 2015 on student visa; saw the low pay being offered at airline & started my own hydraulics shop for heavy equipment. I own 3 houses (1 back in Poland), have 3 kids, and raise horses, all before I hit 35. None of this would have been possible without the training I got and the confidence I received from my great instuctors at the part 147 school (all now retired). Paradox is, if you’re smart enough to graduate from A&P school, you are smart enough to know to maximize your potential in another vocation.
“Pilots and planes are a dime a dozen, but a good mechanic is hard to find.”
My dad (A&P and aeronautical engineer) had this stenciled on his toolbox…75 years ago.
Not much has changed.
If a homebuilder is permitted to do and approve inspections without an A&P and IA, then why can’t owners of certified aircraft do the same? If anything, the certified factory airplane is designed and built under stricter guidelines than a homebuilt, therefore providing a built-in margin of FAA approved quality and safety. It’s the same sky where homebuilt and certified airplanes are legally flying, yet the homebuilders are granted the privilege of self “annual” inspections while certified aircraft owners get zip. Has never made sense to me.
The condition inspection of an EAB aircraft must be performed by an A&P mechanic. The exception is the “Original Major Portion (51%)” builder my get a FAA repairman Certificate for that particular serial numbered aircraft. Experimental Homebuilt (EAB) owners are permitted to do any repairs and maintenance, they are not alowed to due the required condition inspection,what would be termed the “annual” in the standard catagory world.
My airline Captain daughter’s snowblower needed some minor maintenance. The shop gets $135 an hour for small engine mechanics. No 3 years of training, no FAA writtens (questions written in Faa-glish), no massive liability insurance costs.
As s as retired airline pilot (and AP), and 50 year aircraft owner – it is obvious that AP pay is ridiculously low.
Good doctors and APs need to have the same diagnostic mindset – you have to understand how it works to figure out what is causing the problem. Those analytical minds are going where the money is.
On annuals – I believe they should be based on calendar time and/or flight time.
No point greasing the wheel bearings every 5 hours just because the calendar has turned 12 pages. If an airplane can go 100 hours in commercial service- it should be able to go 100 hours in private use – even if that takes up to 5 years.
Non hangared aircraft, fabric covered aircraft after a specific period of time should get a shorter time period between inspections. Aircraft with currently acceptable but noted corrosion conditions should get a shortened time period between inspections.
We are doing a great deal of damage opening up aircraft for inspections that they do mot need.
All the cost leads to people just buying a boat or a motor home.
Pay a fair wage for the talent – require the FAA inspectors to be experienced mechanics (the best are incredibly useful, but many are inexperienced and clueless.)
It will take time to raise the pay for APs, but our airliners could not launch for halfway around the world flights without the maintenance talent.
It will take time and experienced maintenance technicians and operators to coordinate with the FAA on reasonable inspection times.
The current rules were written for 1930s and 1940s type construction.
“ Fear of testing”. What a nation of pantywaists we have become. Electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics, medical pros, lawyers, chefs, investment pros, pilots…all tested before being qualified.
Nothing worth doing is easy.
Time to start letting owners of certified planes be more involved in their own maintenace. Many frustrated owners are looking for another avenue of keeping their plane airworthy, without being gouged for substandard work. We need an owner maintained catagory.
The problem is real. My airplane is entering its 6th week of Annual with only two repairs necessary. Everything else was routine. The shop does not have enough mechanics. But liability concerns are also a problem. Ripping the airplane open every year and checking everything is not needed for GA airplanes. In some cases it makes things worse. I’ve had many problems crop up after Annuals due to all the invasive inspections. The FARs are archaic in this regard. I favor some sort of reliability-centered maintenance model as promoted by Mike Busch.
The real impact of this problem is you now have a very expensive machine that you cannot use for 10% of the year. GA will never grow as long as this is the case. How can we get the FAA’s attention on this? They don’t care about the growth of GA much anymore, but safety may get their attention.
Quite literally in the shadow of Oshkosh to the W, there’s a shortage of IA’s and shops for the GA airplanes there. The requirement for annuals being performed by IA’s for airplanes being flown recreationally — and often few hours/year — needs to be revisited.
MY idea is that airplanes recreationally by private owners only would need an annual performed by an IA every five calendar years for up to 100 hours of flight time. In between, an annual could be performed as a “condition inspection” up to 100 hours … then an IA would have to do a normal annual. This would reduce the need for IA’s. Perhaps some additional requirements for A&P training via webinars would be required as well as a minimum time as an A&P (say, 3 years) but that’s it.
This is a train wreck that has been coming for a long time. Not like we didn’t see it coming. When I was instructing at a 147 school in Arkansas, not a single grad went to work in GA. Every single one went to the airlines or an airline level MRO. Quite simply, that’s where the money is. GA? Show me the money!
Mobile Mechanic Operators at KMYF & KSDM requires $5,000,000 each occurrence liability insurance. A&P IA $2,000,000 liability insurance is $9,480 per year!
AOPA’s Recommended Minimum Standards recommends that Airport’s require Operations and Completion Insurance which is very expensive. In my opinion, it shouldn’t be an Airport requirement, but Owner’s should be very wary of the liability and risk they take on by using an A&P without Ops and Completion Insurance.
Our Airport pointed to the AOPA recommendations as their reason for keeping the requirement.
This sounds like an advertorial for A&P schools. I recall similar ones from 20 years ago, which encouraged both of my sons to become A&Ps after high school. After they got their tickets, they found the market was terrible. One went into motorsports and later vehicle design. The other was about to quit aviation altogether as his FBO employer could not pay him for 40 hours a week, they had so little to do. Both eventually landed jobs at GE Aerospace building jet engines, but the career has not been anywhere as rosy as portrayed by industry reports like this one. My advice is for young people to go this routs if they are passionate about maintenance sort of work, but to gain as many skills as possible in order to make lateral moves during inevitable downturns. And don’t waste time on a college degree in aviation, which is of very little value compared to hand/head skills. The greatest opportunity is perhaps to start your own MRO as we have lost so many GA shops in the past 20 years. But you will need to be an IA for that, the Catch-22. Try perhaps getting Rotax certification and working on LSA and experimental aircraft, where government requirements (meddling) are less onerous.
When “industry” is searching high and low for individuals with strong and broad technical knowledge [as you get when going through an A&P program], and willing to pay for this prowess, supplying the aviation pipeline with dedicated mechanics takes a backseat. As mentioned, product completion liability insurance costs along with the never ending concern for being sued by “ambulance chasers” (representing the families of pilots who made poor decisions), trying to get any new blood in the business is an uphill battle. Trust me, I get the whole “love of aviation” thing (my wife reminds me of it every day!), but it’s real hard to pay the bills and plan for your future in the aircraft maintenance field. The technical information found in “65 and 43” goes a long way to alternative “non-aviation” career paths.
Everyday we hear more and more about Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotics advancements. The best training for the personnel that will maintain the future McDonald restaurants and eVTOLs will be “A&P Trained Mechanics”. Non-aviation industries that need knowledgeable mechanics are usually paying much better then aviation. So, this article is shooting way low on the demand for knowledgeable educated A&P Mechanics.
Another thing for a young person to consider while all the factory, cubical and office personnel are being replaced by AI is that Mechanics are not replaced by AI robots, they fix ’em. It will be a long, long time before a robot is going to be able to repair machinery. Highly recommend A&P training to anyone on the fence looking for a career choice. Start reading ‘The Mechanic’s Bible’ – Advisory Circular 43.13-1B/2B . It’s FREE:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_43.13-1B_w-chg1.pdf