← Risk register SOC 49-2093 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Electrical and Electronics Installers and Repairers, Transportation Equipment

6,940 US workers · median $84,890/yr · Trades

EXPOSED

This work is pulling harnesses, tracing intermittent shorts, soldering connectors, and rewiring control systems inside buses, locomotives, ships, and heavy trucks — cramped, dirty, one-off physical environments no robot handles today. AI does compress the diagnostic and documentation layer: fault-code interpretation, wiring-diagram lookup, repair-history summaries, and parts identification are increasingly software tasks. The real exposure is not replacement but thinning — fewer hours spent reasoning through diagnostics, more hours as the hands executing an AI-narrowed repair, and no licensure requirement to anchor the role the way electricians have.

10-year outlook: Employment stays roughly flat through the 2030s as vehicle electrification and sensor density add wiring work faster than AI diagnostics remove troubleshooting hours, but the diagnostic-reasoning premium shifts toward those who hold high-voltage and avionics credentials.

US employment, 2019–2025-29.1%
9,7906,940 workers

Most of this decline happened after 2021 — it is not the pandemic dip.

Median pay $62,530 → $84,890 +8.6% in real terms (nominal +35.8%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

+6.1% 7,000 → 7,400 on the projections basis

Growing, and only partly exposed

The BLS expects +6.1% more of these jobs by 2034, and at 62/100 the work is only partly exposed — some tasks are automatable, the core of the job is not. Nothing here is in tension.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~600 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

WirerBody WirerReel RepairerTubing TesterElectronic TesterMobile TechnicianElectronic MechanicMetrology TechnicianControl TroubleshooterLocomotive ElectricianCritical Power TechnicianDiagnostic TroubleshooterElectrical TroubleshooterElectronic TroubleshooterProduction TroubleshooterCritical Systems TechnicianElectronic Bench TechnicianMarine Electronics RepairerShip Yard Electrical PersonMobile Electronics InstallerMarine Electronics TechnicianPower Technician (Power Tech)Electronic Repair TroubleshooterCritical Power Install Technician

Score — 62/100 resistance

Holding it up: embodiment (18/20). Weakest point: liability shield (7/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 16 + 18 + 7 + 8 + 13 = 62. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 16/20

Tasks largely resist digitisation Chasing an intermittent short in a locomotive's control cabinet means wiggle-testing connectors, pulling terminal blocks, and reading a meter while a helper cycles the system — nothing in that loop can be done by a model, which is why this sits at 16 rather than mid-band, and the 4 points come off because fault-code translation, diagram retrieval, and repair-order write-up already migrate to software.

Embodiment 18/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments You work inside the vehicle — under bus dashboards, in ship engine-room voids, on a truck chassis with a drop light — soldering, crimping, and heat-shrinking in positions no fixture can be built around, and the vehicles come to you in every state of corrosion and prior bad repair, which is what separates an 18 from a bench technician at 10.

Liability shield 7/20

Certification preferred, not legally required There is no state licence for transportation electrical work the way there is for a journeyman electrician; you may hold ASE, FAA A&P for some airframe-adjacent shops, or a shop's internal certification, and the carrier's or shipyard's DOT/FRA/Coast Guard compliance obligation sits with the employer, not your signature — hence 7 and not 14.

Trust premium 8/20

Some relationship component Fleet maintenance managers and shipyard leads know which tech they hand the persistent electrical gremlin to, and that reputation follows you between shops, but the work order comes from a dispatcher on a schedule and the vehicle owner never learns your name, so this lands at 8 rather than in the relationship-is-the-product range.

Judgment & accountability 13/20

Meaningful discretion Deciding whether a corroded harness gets a splice or full replacement, or whether an intermittent fault is safe to release into service on a passenger bus, is your call with real consequence and no procedure that resolves it, but a supervisor signs off on out-of-scope repairs and OEM service manuals bound much of the decision — 13 rather than 17.

Confidence: medium · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: embodiment, physical-presence, judgment

How to future-proof this job

Training paths for your skill gaps: MIT OpenCourseWare — full course materials across every department, free free · MIT OpenCourseWare — systems analysis and engineering free · OSHA Outreach Training — the 10- and 30-hour cards most employers ask for low · Apprenticeship.gov — industrial maintenance and millwright programs paid to train

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

Where this experience transfers — occupations you could move toward

Computed from U.S. Dept. of Labor O*NET skill and knowledge profiles: high overlap with what you already do, a materially higher resistance score, no large jump in required training, and no licence you would have to start a new pipeline to get. Targets that pay meaningfully less, that are themselves COOKED, or whose own headcount is falling are excluded — a move into a shrinking trade is not an escape.

Ship Engineers SAFE · 73/100 · you already have ~71% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Active Learning, Systems Analysis, Operation and Control, Equipment Maintenance

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 80/100 — SAFE.

5 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening liability shield +3

    Marine side: USCG or insurer requirement that vessel electrical repairs be signed by an ABYC Certified Marine Electrical technician for insurability — marine insurers (e.g. survey-triggered requirements after fire claims) already demand ABYC-compliant work on some hulls; a hard underwriting condition naming a certified individual would anchor the role.

  • already happening task resistance +2

    Task-mix shift as fault-code lookup and diagram retrieval fully automate: the residual job concentrates in intermittent, vibration- and corrosion-induced faults that produce no reproducible code — chafed harnesses, ground-path resistance, connector fretting on one-off retrofit vehicles. This tier rises as a share of hours without any law changing, but only sustains the score if apprentice pipelines survive the loss of the routine tier.

  • plausible liability shield +5

    A named-individual sign-off requirement for high-voltage EV/hybrid work on transit buses and trucks — e.g. a state OSHA or FTA rule tying NFPA 70E-qualified-person status to a specific certified technician who documents de-energization and lockout on 600V+ traction systems, with personal certification at risk. Transit agencies and OEM HV certification schemes (Cummins, BAE, Proterra-lineage programs) already gate who may open a battery box; converting agency policy into a licensure/countersign requirement is the step.

  • plausible liability shield +4

    Federal Railroad Administration rules under 49 CFR Part 229/238 requiring an identified qualified person to certify electrical and event-recorder/PTC wiring work after repair, in the way brake-system inspections already require a named qualified inspector. Extension of existing FRA qualified-person language to electrical control circuits is a recognizable rule change.

  • plausible judgment accountability +4

    Formal fit-for-service release authority: a union or agency contract making the technician the person who authorizes a bus or locomotive back into revenue service after electrical repair (door interlocks, wheelchair lift, propulsion isolation), with that release logged under their name. Some transit agencies already log releasing mechanic ID; making it an accountable, auditable sign-off rather than a data field is the change.

The limit. Trust premium has no realistic route: the buyers are fleet operators, transit agencies, and shipyards purchasing on downtime and cost, not on the identity of the technician. Only the small yacht/custom-coach niche pays for a named human, and it is too small to move the occupation. Also note liability gains here attach to high-voltage and rail-safety subsegments; a technician on ordinary heavy-truck accessory wiring picks up none of them.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 16 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 360 $122,590 +44%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 330 $93,760 +10%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 270 $98,850 +16%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 220 $80,200 -6%
Virginia Beach-Chesapeake-Norfolk, VA-NC 190 $87,860 +3%
Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN 140 $59,210 -30%
Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA 140 $81,920 -3%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 130 $122,140 +44%

Best paid

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 360 $122,590 +44%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 130 $122,140 +44%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 90 $116,810 +38%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $84,890. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this — nobody, on the record

We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.

That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 62. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.

Read that as a gap in the reporting we can see, not proof of absence — the dispatch runs on English-language feeds and misses plenty. If you know of a case, tell us, or add a field report from inside the job.

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.