It is no secret there is a shortage of aircraft mechanics.
“Several years ago at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh there was a discussion on changing the time of annual inspections,” wrote Richard Dorman in an email to me. “Many antique aircraft fly only a few hours a year and more damage is caused by tearing apart the aircraft each year for an annual. Airlines do maintenance based upon flight time and years. Due to the increasing lack of A&Ps and IAs, why not use 50 hours or three years instead. Continue to require the ADs to be complied with.”
That’s an interesting idea Richard.
Of course, the idea itself raises many questions.
Should a rule change be limited to just antique aircraft or should we include classics? What about opening it up to all non-commercial aircraft, regardless of their vintage?
Economically, lower demand should drive the price of an inspection down, but I bet mechanics won’t love the idea of reduced income.
And even if the price of an inspection doesn’t drop, revenue is likely to drop because fewer aircraft will be inspected each year.
There are many other questions that are worth thinking though, including all the unintended consequences of such a change.
And that is before the FAA even takes up the idea, if it will.
Do you think the FAA would seriously take up this idea?
I’m not so sure. They seem quite focused on inserting Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) aircraft into the airspace at the moment.
And even if the FAA did elect to alter the inspection rules, would the insurance companies go along? Or would they still require annual inspections before issuing a policy?
I do like this idea. I see it as low-hanging fruit. For just the reasons Richard outlined in his email.
The idea of reducing the maintenance burden for aircraft that don’t fly much seems like a nice first step.
Not to mention the risk involved of flying an aircraft right after maintenance and inspections.
Of course, just because an aircraft wouldn’t need to be inspected as often doesn’t mean some owners won’t stick with annual inspections.
This could add flexibility to the system.
And that would be helpful.
As a A&P/ IA with 35 years of experience and commercial pilot, the most important things on any annual are engine, propeller, landing gear & flight controls. So if the regs were modified where they would be inspected on an annual basis and the rest of the airframe on a three-year basis would be the best. Let’s face it there’s not a whole lot that can go wrong on the inside of a wing or a fuselage in a 3-year period no matter the hours as long as it’s been properly maintained in the past.
Two years or 100 hours which ever comes first would be a good compromise specially if the airplane is inside.
Inspection intervals can depend on location as well as usage and calendar time. Worst case is an unloved, rarely used complex aircraft tied down on a ramp 100 feet from the ocean, getting salt air breeze all the time, and exposed to rain, sun, and homeless critters. I think I’d want an annual on that before each flight.
Best case is a simpler (fixed gear piston single) hangared aircraft, flown 100 or so hours a year, owned by someone who doesn’t let squawks accumulate and is willing to spend the money to fix things right. That can safely go longer between complete inspections.
There ought to be a database of common problems for owners, A&Ps and IAs to refer to. “On this aircraft, the following items need special attention” or similar. Type clubs usually have this, but not every owner is in a type club (why not?)
We get spoiled – our cars can go a zillion miles with no attention, if we turn the key and if it starts, that’s the preflight. Our airplanes, however, take a bit more than that.
Best Regards,
M/M
What we have now isn’t “bad” (try EASA if you want “bad”), but we should always be open for ways to improve things.
I think all aircraft should be inspected annually. There is much more at stake in the air than on the ground, and ground vehicles in most cases get an annual inspection. Lack of use can be worse, especially with the possibility of rodents, birds, or environmental factors that can take a toll on a plane’s airworthiness.
I really worry that this would just incentivize people to fly their aircraft less, and every book or article or podcast I have read or listened to about aircraft maintenance has indicated that inactivity is the worse thing for the mechanical systems. The 50 hour threshold would just incentivize people to fly their airplanes less than 50 hours every three years to delay the inspection. It sets up a perverse incentive.
I would rather see the United States adopt something along the lines of the Primary Non-Commercial category that would allow for more owner maintenance and use of non-TSO parts for aircraft not operated in a commercial manner.
My thoughts as a pilot and aircraft owner who has done owner assisted annuals for the last 18 years.
– engines need to be inspected annually, regardless of hours flown. As was mentioned, engines flown few hours and in the humid SE, need to be inspected for rust/corrosion; cylinders, cam, [ hard to inspect]. Engine flown 100+ hrs a year need to be inspected for wear and adjustments.
– the airframe could wait for 2-3 years, with the exception of an annual lube for the flight controls
– retractable landing gear also should be inspected annually.
– I would like to have a limited A&P certificate , that would allow me to do the A&P work on my aircraft. Maybe 10 years experience doing work under the supervision of an A&P [ annual inspections]. , and a subset of the 3 A&P tests.
This would free up A&Ps to do serious repair work and annuals.
As an A&P some things I see too frequently are issues on aircraft that fly few or even very few hours. Issues throughout the aircraft – but most concerning are the issue identified on aircraft with minimal run hours on their powerplants.
Lack of use is often more problematic on the aircraft than regularly exercised aircraft – from simple control lubrication and possible adjustments to corrosion (on airframe components and engine) and even hose and tire wear/failure/conditions.
Corrosion on little used engines is especially concerning.
There are a LOT of things that are looked at and considered during inspections. Some simple and some that may very well make the next flight enjoyable and uneventful as opposed to annoying, terrifying or sadly, even tragic.
If there is a change, the 2yrs or 50hrs. sounds good to me
Mike M.
I also think that a lot depends on the competency and thoroughness of the previous inspections. During my brief stint as an A&P, I saw more than a few things that past inspections had missed. It can be good to get a different set of ‘eyes’ on your aircraft
regardless of time.
Perhaps progressive inspections on condition are another way of addressing the issues. Set up a schedule based on use. I do agree that dismantling aircraft once a year for naught can cause problems. There have been studies that have proven this.
As to owner maintenance/inspections – I am sure there are many owners who are capable of doing good work on their aircraft. But unless you are one of those rare people who know what you don’t know (your limits of understanding and mechanical aptitude)… leave to the A&Ps and IAs.
I would say it should be 100 hours or 2 years, whichever comes first.
This would be great for lightly used aircraft, but what about those that fly more? Would they be required to get 50 hour inspections or stay with the current 100 hour requirement? Many aircraft fly 200 or more hours a year and this would double their inspection expense and double their non-revenue down time.
Those should already be getting 50 hr inspection, which for most aircraft is mostly just an oil change..
I fly about 100 hours per year. Would 50 hours or 3 years mean I end up paying for 2 annuals per year?
There is already a time requirement, 100 hours for aircraft used commercially, so the idea is accepted. A good start might be 2 years or 50 hours, and I think that coincides with the amount of use of many GA aircraft.
Three year / 50 hour mandatory inspections sounds like a darned good idea. Certainly very worthy of serious debate.
One exception that I would like to see is continued ANNUAL inspection of certain critical to flight items that are subject to degradation, corrosion & jamming like FLIGHT CONTROL CABLES and PULLEYS.
Jerry King
If these items are jamming and corroding, they arent being properly inspected anyways regardless of the time frame. Those things take years to develope, they dont happen since last actual annual
Part 147 was overhauled recently to make it easier and faster to get students through A&P training. That was suppose to alleviate the AMT shortage. How’s that working out?
Yeah, that’s what I thought…