[ultrarunner]

Counterintuitively, it's probably the unrealistically high maintenance standards that lead to 1) no available qualified mechanics, and 2) incredibly high prices, resulting in 3) deferring whatever is possible to defer. This is the situation in the US; I imagine costs are doubly impactful in a country like France.

[jmward01]

Aviation is in a huge rut. A major issue is that innovation is nearly dead. Want to bring a new aircraft to market? Got 5-10 years to get it certified while not being able to sell it to a market size of....? How about a new engine? In GA we fly 80yo designs around not because they are great, but because nobody can innovate to bring in the better stuff. I have a lot of hope for electric aviation because a new regulatory space and simpler designs may mean faster certification which could lead to real innovation in the space.

[MaKey]

Every now and then there are some people who try to innovate in this space. Example: The guys from corsairpower (https://corsairpower.com/) who put a marine engine in a Cessna 172. However, it seems like they get stuck because of small market size, regulations and incumbents who don't want the status quo to change.

[clarkmoody]

Don't forget that the incumbents will fight to keep regulatory barriers high.

[airstrike]

I'd read this blog post.

[adastra22]

You just did.

[NordSteve]

It's certainly possible to maintain GA aircraft to a high standard and not break the bank. For example, a flying club I'm in has Cessna 172s for $116/hr wet with no-compromises maintenance.

[ultrarunner]

If you're not directly involved in the maintenance, I am skeptical. For example, many flying clubs only exist because they have members who are A&Ps / IAs, who maintain the plane in consideration of membership. That's a workaround for the problem I'm presenting. I won't say it's impossible, but it's increasingly difficult and location-dependent.

[vwcx]

what's the club buy in and annual fee? I instruct out of a 150 and $125/hr is the cheapest I can justify charging.

[pixl97]

>unrealistically high maintenance standards

Na, no thank you. I prefer planes not falling out of the sky, especially personal aircraft that already have a very high crash rate due to pilot error alone.

>deferring whatever is possible to defer

Yea, I don't think so. I've seen too many important but non life or death maintenance deferred for reasons outside of money that lead to later disaster. People just kind of suck at it unless they are forced.

[ultrarunner]

Well, you'll probably get your wish in the US anyway. I just paid $50 for a 2 inch square vacuum pump cover that should have cost $5. I have oil hoses that I would like to replace, but the $750 price tag (up $200 in six months) is giving me pause— replace, hope for the best, or hang it up and stop flying?

Like it or not, more force will definitely raise costs, but it'll also push folks from category one to categories two and three. Or they'll just ignore the regs and begin a normalization of deviance.

[0] https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/superior08-11...

[pixl97]

>or hang it up and stop flying

Yes please. If you can't afford flying around a missle, DON'T.

[robcohen]

So right now, A&Ps make about 120-150 per hour, and they have the skills to get hired at dealerships where the hourly is above 200. There are not enough A&Ps.

I understand the logic you're using when you say you're happy that the standards are high. What you don't understand is how many A&Ps pencil whip annuals, or overlook corrosion or other safety issues all the time. They are overworked, and spend their time focused on a lot of box checking things that do not matter much and not enough time focusing on the things that do.

Let me make it clearer. If you used the same standards for your car, you'd have to get it fully reinspected every year and fix everything. A little corrosion on your hubcaps? Replace all of them (at 20x the cost you're used to). A chip in your windshield (replace the entire windshield at 10x the cost). Etc etc.

Source: I am studying for the A&P and I own a Cessna 182. The regs really do need to change for smaller certificated aircraft (such as changing annuals to semi-annuals). Look up Mike Busch and his videos on what reforms should look like.

I just had my plane in for an annual. No significant issues. Took 5 months. My plane was in the shop for 5 months. Remember, this is required ANNUALLY. That's how bad the shortage is right now. It's bad enough that I'm willing to take 6 months off work to go __become__ an A&P so I don't need to deal with them anymore.

[_jss]

Since you are also going for your A&P, would love to hear your assessment of build-assist planes and modern rotax powerplants!

[pixl97]

I mean, the moment my car starts going 200 miles per hour+ at 5,000 feet+ over peoples houses, yes you better ramp up the inspections.

There has been a massive increase in student/new pilots in the last 5 or so years. This will demand an increase in light aircraft technicians and engineers, just like any other industry that experiences growth in a sector.

[markus_zhang]

This sounds crazy. I wonder how it looks like in Canada. BTW A&P course only takes 6 months?

[echoangle]

Citation needed. Afaik they mostly crash from pilot error, not technical problems caused by too little maintenance.

[bombcar]

The vast majority of GA crashes are pilot error directly or indirectly (taking off without fuel is "technically" a mechanical issue but really pilot failure).

Equipment failure is pretty low on list.