Currently, winding its way through the warrens of Congress, there is legislation that, if enacted, will enable independent auto repair shops to compete for business now guaranteed only to dealer-controlled establishments. This is professed to be important because currently car manufacturers severely limit the number of repair shops allowed to have the tools, diagnostic codes, and updated repair information essential for the repair of late model autos. It is stated that these conditions unfairly limit the consumers’ choice of places to maintain their autos. More to the point, the problem this law is, in fact, attempting to fix, is the direct result of the much more frequent use of computers and proprietary diagnostic tools in cars. This effort is in the face of DMCA, (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) which bans sidestepping or circumventing technological protection measures.
Why, do you ask, am I bringing this issue to the forefront in an aviation maintenance publication? Well, while I suspect there are several parallels between the concerns this legislation addresses for auto mechanics that would be applicable to aircraft technicians, there are some that just jump out at me.
For one, the use of computers as the primary systems drivers in automobiles is catching up to airplanes. Today’s auto mechanic is doing much the same as an aircraft technician has been doing for years. He is no longer opening the hood and checking the wires etc. He is plugging in a specialized computer that reads and interprets information generated by all the computer chips in the car, such as those for tire pressure, braking, hydraulic pressure, steering, etc. If the auto mechanic lacks the ability to “talk†to the car’s computers because he may not have the diagnostic codes, he will be unable to analyze, replace, and/or repair a part that is needed. This is the same for an aircraft technician. So the independent auto repair industry is seeking legislative redress so that it can stay in business and continue to offer work opportunities for its labor force. This provides auto mechanics with more job opportunities and, as a natural consequence, higher pay.
While there are significant differences between maintaining an auto and keeping an aircraft airworthy, I think there may be something here that will bring attention to the need to give greater recognition to what an aircraft mechanic deserves. Because there are so many limitations related to tools, training, manufacturer approvals, etc., for maintaining an aircraft, an aircraft technician is much more limited in his or her mobility and, as pointed out previously this limits earning power.
Think about it. Here is legislation designed to protect and enhance the opportunities of a needed but less skilled and educated part of the work force. Generally if an auto mechanic makes a mistake it will only result in inconvenience and expense, while a mistake by an aviation technician can result in lives lost.
And I have not even mentioned onerous disparities in pay, hours, and work environments.
My goal here is to continue to emphasize the need for aircraft technicians to have an organization to represent them so that their position in America’s labor force is respected and valued. Monitoring legislation like this demonstrates the lack of equivalent efforts for the aircraft technician. Not only should the Department of Labor recognize the special differences that exist between these two jobs it should consider efforts to redress the differences that will enable aircraft technicians greater mobility, recognize the years and expense of their training, and give ample consideration to the responsibilities aircraft technicians accept.