The idea of changing the interval between aircraft inspections is a hot button topic.
Some aircraft owners would love to see the FAA allow for a longer time between “annual” inspections. Others, not so much.
My March column on the topic, 50 Hours or Three Years, is where all this started. For me anyway.
“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.”
There are multiple factors at play in this discussion:
- A shortage of mechanics, in case you hadn’t heard
- Cost will always be a factor
- Insurance is never far away
- The risk introduced by opening up an airplane
- Other topics, not mentioned here, of course
A few thoughts from our readers:
Ethan Hausler, an A&P/IA with 35 years experience, believes, “the most important things on any annual are engine, propeller, landing gear, and 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 that would be the best.”
I’m not a mechanic, but Ethan makes an interesting observation.
Miami Mike believes 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.”
But a simpler, hangared aircraft with moderate use can “safely go longer between complete inspections,” he notes.
One size fits all isn’t a thing for Miami Mike. I tend to agree.
DA thinks “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.”
Meanwhile, Chris worries “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.”
Indeed. Inactivity is a problem. But I don’t see the incentive to fly less.
From my email, Paige Brittain believes a more conservative tweak to the interval calendar is the way to go. He “would propose that for Part 91 aircraft that have not reached 100 hours since the most recent annual, that the interval be extended from 12 to 18 months, or until the 100 hours (since the last annual) is reached.”
Regardless of any change, Paige believes “we in GA must do something to relieve this pending situation.”
Mike Busch at Savvy Aviation in his April 2026 column sees the situation as a Multifaceted Crisis. Both sides of the equation should be attacked, according to Mike. Increase the number of mechanics and improve the efficiency of how mechanics are used.
“NTSB accident data and other available evidence strongly suggest that extending the inspection interval to 24 months would not degrade safety and would likely improve it by reducing maintenance-induced failures,” Mike writes in his column.
We’ve written on the topic of post-maintenance flights being among the riskiest flights. Pulling apart an aircraft for an inspection is a very invasive procedure. Risk is introduced.
“The starting point on the supply side is an uncomfortable truth: Personal aviation mechanics are seriously underpaid relative to their skill, responsibility, and liability exposure,” notes Mike.
Not long after Mark Baker took over as President/CEO at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), I recall sitting in a forum he hosted when during the Q&A session a member asked Mark to comment on the “pilot shortage.” There is no pilot shortage, Mark responded. It was a compensation shortage. Raise pilot’s salaries and plenty of pilots will show up.
Mark wasn’t wrong then, and still isn’t. The airline industry has dramatically increased the pay for pilots, and the pilots have indeed shown up. I see no reason it wouldn’t work for mechanics as well. But are you ready to pay more for your maintenance?
What about resale value? For those who like the regulations as they are, is a less frequently, but still well-maintained aircraft worth less to you? Maybe. It’d certainly be a point of negotiation.
For many pilots, I believe the topic of maintenance intervals is akin to the high-wing/low-wing debate. Personal preference reigns supreme.
Questions!!!
How much damage and injury is caused by the failure of the 100 hr. or the Annual?
What part of the aircraft, engine or airframe, is responsible for the damage/injury?
What part of the aircraft maintenance did the failure have in the crash?
Would the quality of the maintenance be a factor in the cause of this problem?
Will the electrically motivated power and composite construction affect the outcome?
If the planet survives our politics and drones don’t replace flying, there’s a good chance that will no longer be a question. Until then, the good old mechanical wizards MUST pass down the secrets of success before passing the torch.
I think I’ve commented on this before but… I’m an A&P/IA with over 35 years experience. For most General Aviation airplanes the biggest thing to look at is engines, fuel systems, flight controls and landing gear. Not a lot can change inside of a wing in the course of a year. So if I have to do 100 hour inspection on an airplane that was annual 3 months ago I have to do the whole inspection again which is pretty ridiculous. Similarly if you have an airplane that sits out on the ramp that flew for 10 hours there’s probably not a whole lot that went wrong with the airframe but you do need to look hard at the engine and the other incidentals. Common sense is what’s needed, but then again none of the FAA regulations dictate anything about common sense.
I think I’ve commented on this before but… I’m an A&P/IA with over 35 years experience. For most General Aviation airplanes the biggest thing to look at is engines, fuel systems, flight controls and landing gear. Not a lot can change inside of a wing in the course of a year. So if I have to do 100 hour inspection on an airplane that was annual 3 months ago I have to do the whole inspection again which is pretty ridiculous. Similarly if you have an airplane that sits out on the ramp that flew for 10 hours there’s probably not a whole lot that went wrong with the airframe but you do need to look hard at the engine and the other incidentals. Common sense is what’s needed, but then again none of the FAA regulations dictate anything about common sense.
This is a topic sure to generate some differing opinions. I don’t think you can make different rules for hangared vs. tied down, although it logically makes some sense to. Then you would have to separate coastal airplanes from those living in Arizona or New Mexico where corrosion is not an issue. The shortage of A&Ps is critical issue that isn’t going away on its own. Owning a 60 year old airplane with many equally old, tired systems , I wouldn’t feel comfortable flying it three years between annuals – maybe a brand new plane for the first 5 years. What scares me the most is not so much missing out on what gets discovered in the annual as not knowing what got missed for years. We recently had cause to try a different shop just four months out of annual and found several important issues that weren’t spotted by our regular trusted, overworked A&P (the fatigue factor is another topic entirely). Sometimes a fresh set of eyes is needed no matter how qualified your A&P is. Re. the argument that it increases the risk to open up an airplane that flies only a few hours a year just for the sake of satisfying the annual; I would take the opposite view – these are the airplanes the most at risk from just sitting around. If we get to the point where our plane isn’t airborne on a weekly basis, it’s time to quit for safety sake – the plane and ours. This is a thorny issue with no easy solution – over the long term more trainees is the answer, but that will take a long time to ease the current shortfall. In the meantime, just make sure to book your annual 4-6 months out!
One of the reasons the FAA instituted the IA program is because of a high accident rate pertaining to maintnenance…..Now 75% of the accidents are pilot related…!?
So cutting back on the IA program would bring its all back to a higher accident rate due to maintenance…..
What is the answer then?…….Do what the FAA is doing now….Kick the can down the road!!
I know one thing, If the FAA ever approves lead less aviation fuel, engine problems will decrease…..Stuck valves and fouled plugs will go away …..or be reduced greatly…
Oil changes could even be extended……and plugs will last longer.
Thanks
Annuals are primarily to find out what was done wrong on the last annual, assuming it made it to the next annual.
Having read the accident stories presented on this news service for several years now, it’s clear to me that neglect of the airplane’s condition contributes to many a fatal crash followed by pilot incompetence and surprise WX. Increasing the length of time between inspections will only increase equipment failure crash incidents. What really upsets me is the probability of incompetent repairs in which ‘the cure is worse than the disease.’ The pilot friends I have are scrupulous about maintaining their airplanes and performing a very thorough walk-around before taking off for any reason. They haven’t been featured in the crash stories presented on this news service.
Regards/J
So, 50 year IA here. Working from a small airport, to reduce the frequency for annual inspections will result in IA’s not being able to conduct the documented, required maintenance actions or annual inspections required by the FAA to maintain currency. In my case I would call that a 50 to 75% reduction in the number of annuals that I’ll get contracted to do in a year. You know just an unforeseen circumstance Unintended consequence. “What do you mean the only IA on this field doesn’t have his IA anymore”.
If you come up short on hours to renew your IA, you can do 8 hrs of refresher training on line, or attend a 1 day refresher seminar.
So maybe it’s time to ask the FAA to lower the currency requirements for IAs along with the request to lower the annual inspection intervals. Both actions could be approached as a packaged request.
I let my IA lapse last year, I have been working in GA since 1982. I just got tired of dealing with owners that would argue over any repairs that didn’t make the airplane prettier. Spend money on gadgets sure, pay for replacing inner tubes when changing a tire absolutely not. I just got sick of the posing of people that are all about the image at the expense of safety and performance.
I personally have one customer who has no problem taking his Jaguar in for $350 an hour maintenance but needs to make payments on his annual airplane that I charge 1300 for and $125 an hour for any extra work and he needs to make payments.
I’m now in my 9th decade & have been flying for nearly 70 of them & in order to own an aircraft l got my AME. This enabled me to do my own maintenance. Why not establish a course whereby an owner can do say an annual AIRFRAME inspection and require an A&P to do engine & avionics ? This would enable competent owners to reduce their costs and A&P’s to concentrate on areas that require a greater depth of technological expertise.
Why not attend to sub-specialties instead, so those more comfortable with diagnosing and dissecting engines and/or avionics can do those and leave the contortionist required airframe inspections to the certificated IAs? Not all airframes have simplistic or comfortable access to their parts and pieces — especially for those of us of the octogenarian species.
As a very long time A&P, this is a subject who’s time HAS come. I’m too old and retired so I don’t want to get my IA so I always work with an IA and do a 100hr inspection prior to the annual and then present the writeups / status to the IA who comes in behind me when the airplane is open and ready for him. Fine and dandy for me but the IA is 85 years old. I already have it in my thoughts that when he goes away, so does our airport unless something is done.
Like many, my airplane flies maybe 25 hrs / year and is hangared in a dry climate. I take extraordinary care to ‘pickle’ is for the 6 months / year that it sits and it works for me. Further, I’ve owned my airplane for >40 years now so I’m doing something right.
I feel — and I discussed it with Earl Lawrence when he was running the FAA Small Aircraft Directorate in KC — that A&P’s should be able to ‘relicense’ an airplane selectively for a period of up to 5 calendar years and 100 flying hours whereupon an IA would come in and provide one higher level of oversight. With MOSAIC now allowing the LSR-I and LSR-M conditional inspections on appropriate airplanes, WHY are we treating normally certificated airplanes flown by private individuals recreationally SO different? I ‘get’ it for a flight school airplane or one in a commercial operation but the great bulk of airplanes are flown privately and recreationally. I can sign off a high performance homebuilt as an A&P — and soon, a MOSAIC compliant light sport airplane but cannot sign off a no electrical 1946 Cub. That is NUTS! Earl thought an 8 hour training session to allow A&P’s to do this would be satisfactory but he left before anything changed.
They say that if you put 5 people in a room you will get 10 opinions. True!
So here is mine: I don’t agree with reducing requirements on annuals or 100 hour inspections. I have flown enough airplanes to know that many people have an annual and then don’t open the cowling to take a peek for a year. Airplanes are not cars that have reached a level of perfection that you rarely open the hood anymore (and they do have computers monitoring every function of the engine). And then, when you to change the oil, most places will do an XX point inspection. Maybe for some technically savvy people it is OK to not need an inspection every 12 months but there are many that don’t even care at understanding if their airplane is airworthy or not.
I open the cowlings in my three airplanes (experimental) on a regular basis and sometimes do find something amiss. Same with the airframe. They get addressed and never had an issue in 40+ years of aircraft ownership.
Now, deciding whether the right course of action, if you have a low compression cylinder, is to remove it is a different subject. But I like to know that we have to keep an eye on it.
As an experienced pilot that decided to go into flight instructing I have found that the dismal pay in that field is slowly reducing the quality of the pilots we have out there (my opinion). I used to teach CFIs candidates and the FAA recently changed the rule to eliminate the experience requirement because of the lack of experienced CFIs excuse. Not so. There are plenty of older CFIs that would be glad to teach young aspiring CFIs but getting paid next to nothing is not fun given the work and risk taken (have you read all the articles blaming CFIs for everything lately?).
I am also a mechanic so I agree that paying more would solve the shortage if any. It’s a tough job and the liability is high.
BTW, if people start to argue that the issue would be increased cost in aircraft ownership then take advantage of the new MOSAIC rules. How much better can it get?
Chris