They are. Experience didn't help a bit in this case. Slow reaction and imperceptibility almost skrewed us. I can picture you and all the other ole gray hairs hands clenched to the fence with your noses poking through as you watch the big shiny jet (737 in your case) take off. downsize your house, greet Walmarters, spend time with the grandkids or something man.
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Age 60/65 Compromise
- Thread starter Andy
- Start date
- Watchers 34
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
They are. Experience didn't help a bit in this case. Slow reaction and imperceptibility almost skrewed us. I can picture you and all the other ole gray hairs hands clenched to the fence with your noses poking through as you watch the big shiny jet (737 in your case) take off. downsize your house, greet Walmarters, spend time with the grandkids or something man.
Saabslime
Dysfunctional family
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2001
- Posts
- 509
I see you conveniently left out air traffic controllers. Their jobs aren't physically demanding either but they're forced out even earlier than airline pilots. WHY? Because cognitive ability declines as you get older. Would you really want someone who can't remember what they had for breakfast vectoring you around the terminal area?
I'm sure there are plenty of people over 60 who are sharp as a tack but you have to draw the line somewhere. It's impossible to tailor the law on a case by case basis. Deal with it and move on.....
Klako
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Posts
- 171
The federal law mandating that all airline pilots must retire at the arbitrary age of 60 was never intended to be a vehicle to enhance aviation safety. Safety is the ruse that the FAA has used to deflect criticism of it’s “Age 60 Rule” as being discriminatory and unfair to older pilots. The FAA defends the “Age 60 Rule” solely on the grounds that no one has come up with a study proving that pilots will be safer beyond their 60th birthday. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Marion Blakey, says that the available safety data and latest medical research are insufficient for the agency to begin the steps necessary to change the age 60 rule. Thus the FAA's official position is that, in spite of numerous scientific studies, it has insufficient evidence to prove that an airline pilot would be as safe or safer if allowed to fly beyond age 60 and therefore all airline pilots must be grounded on their 60th birthday. What a pitiful distortion of logic that the FAA uses to deprive otherwise qualified persons their right to perform in their lifelong career. If the Federal government wants a law that denies an otherwise qualified person to practice in their profession, then that government must prove that there are enough scientific reasons for such a law to exist. It is the federal government’s burden to prove that all airline pilots suffer an unacceptable decline in their ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public. This proof is something that Congress has repeatedly directed the FAA to come up with for over 20 years but the FAA has failed produce such proof. That proof simply does not exist.
Klako
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Posts
- 171
Age is not a safety a risk factor. There is no credible information available that supports the notion that airline pilots over age 60 pose more of a safety risk than younger pilots. There are, however, numerous credible reports supporting a ban on the FAA’s arbitrary age 60 mandatory retirement law. Now the FAA says that it is "NEUTRAL" as "safety" can no longer be used as a valid argument against changing the "Age 60 Rule Increasing the “Age 60 Rule” to age 65.
I would like to cite just a few of the numerous reports supporting a ban on the arbitrary age 60 mandatory retirement law, including:
1. A report published by Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002 Mar; 73(3): 194-202
Subject: The age 60 rule: Age discrimination in commercial aviation.
By: Wilkening R
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
CONCLUSION: There appears to be no medical, scientific, or safety justification for the Age 60 Rule. As such, perpetuation of the Age 60 Rule, where age alone is used as the single criterion of older pilot fitness, represents age discrimination in commercial aviation.
2. A prominent study of age and airline pilots, the Hilton Study. The study “supports the conclusion that an age 60 limit for pilots is not defensible…” and found “no hint of an increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers as they neared their 60th birthday.” The report concluded that the age for airline pilots could safely be raised.
3. Dr. Susan Baker, of Johns Hopkins University, wrote: “…there is no scientific evidence to support the Age 60 Rule. From 1991 until 1993, I served on a panel of experts appointed by the FAA to oversee the FAA-sponsored research by Hilton Systems. This research, at a cost of well over a million dollars, found no basis for the Age 60 Rule and recommended that the age limit be increased…I would rather fly with my life in the hands of a 64 year old captain than with a 29 year old pilot flying as captain.”
4. Dr. Stacy Vereen of the Civil Aviation Medical Association wrote that the association “supports the concept that pilots operating under FAR Part 121 [airline pilots] should not be forced to retire from piloting duties based solely on attaining age 60.”
5. A scholarly treatise by Dr. Robin Wilkening. The publication Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine ran her paper one year ago. It remains the single best and most comprehensive document pertaining to the Age 60 Rule. It does, by the way, conclude that the Age 60 Rule is blatant age discrimination.
6. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 2002, pp. 194-202.
Report No.: R0340302. “The Age 60 Rule remains a most contentious and politically sensitive topic, with challenges to the Rule currently mounted in both legislative and legal arenas. Methods: An extensive review of the medical literature was accomplished using MEDLINE. Pertinent Federal Regulations were examined. Legal proceedings and public domain documents were noted. Letters and personal communication were solicited where necessary information could not be ascertained by other means. Results: The Age 60 Rule was not based on any scientific data showing that airline pilots aged 60 and older were any less safe than younger pilots, and there is evidence to indicate that the choice of age 60 was actually based on economic rather than safety considerations. Airline pilots consistently exceed general population norms for longevity, physical health, and mental abilities. Fear of an adverse pilot health event causing a crash in standard multi-crew operations is not justified. For decades, airline pilots under age 60 have been granted the means to demonstrate their fitness for flying by taking medical, cognitive, and performance evaluations that are denied to airline pi1ots when they reach age 60. Actual flight experience demonstrates that older pilots are as safe as younger pilots. International aviation experience indicates that abolishing the Age 60 Rule will not compromise aviation safety. Conclusion: There appears to be no medical, scientific, or safety justification for the Age 60 Rule. As such, perpetuation of the Age 60 Rule, where age alone is used as the single criterion of older pilot fitness, represents age discrimination in commercial aviation.”
7. After 2-plus years of study, the Aerospace Medical Association's Civil Aviation Safety Subcommittee found last year (2004) that there is insufficient medical evidence and/or accident record to support airline pilot restrictions based on age alone, published in the Association's scientific journal Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 75, No.8, August 2004. The Subcommittee thus suggests that the Association abandon its 20-plus year prior policy of support, and recommends that the FAA abandon the Age 60 Rule altogether, change the cutoff criteria, or raise the age limit. Note: This was one of the sources cited by ICAO in justifying it increase of the age limit for airline pilots.
We continue to find increasing evidence that this age 60 issue for pilots is certainly not one of safety. Safety is an exaggerated smokescreen that opponents of amending the rule use to subvert the truth. Opponents of a change have routinely waived the red flag of ‘safety’ in order to score debate points. Who, after all, can be against safety? Interestingly, the FAA grants exemptions for pilots who have had head injuries, seizures, alcohol and drug dependency, heart attacks and bypass surgery. All of these can be and are forgiven after cognitive testing but NEVER has there been an exemption for the simple fact of being one day older than 59, that magic age of 60 that somehow means a seasoned pilot no is longer fit to perform in a lifelong skill.
The rest of the world does not see piloting an airliner past the age of 60 as a safety issue. Most of the world is moving to a retirement age of 65 for airline pilots. Japan and the Netherlands, to name but two, have done extensive studies which showed raising an airline pilot’s age is not a risk. Countries such as Japan, Australia, those of the Joint Aviation Authority in Europe...all have raised their pilots’ retirement age. Some 45 nations now allow their airline pilots to fly past the age of 60. Some of these pilots do so in United States airspace. The International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, Secretariat has now recommended a new upper age limit, with restriction to multi-crew, of 65 years. This recommendation is based on extensive studies, global experience (data compiled from 63 States) with older pilots, totaling 25,500 pilot-years, and the expressed wish of 93 States. The International Civil Aviation Organization—ICAO, now recognizes the harm done by the age 60 rule standard and will amend the international standard to age 65, which should become applicable on 23 November 2006.
I would like to cite just a few of the numerous reports supporting a ban on the arbitrary age 60 mandatory retirement law, including:
1. A report published by Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002 Mar; 73(3): 194-202
Subject: The age 60 rule: Age discrimination in commercial aviation.
By: Wilkening R
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
CONCLUSION: There appears to be no medical, scientific, or safety justification for the Age 60 Rule. As such, perpetuation of the Age 60 Rule, where age alone is used as the single criterion of older pilot fitness, represents age discrimination in commercial aviation.
2. A prominent study of age and airline pilots, the Hilton Study. The study “supports the conclusion that an age 60 limit for pilots is not defensible…” and found “no hint of an increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers as they neared their 60th birthday.” The report concluded that the age for airline pilots could safely be raised.
3. Dr. Susan Baker, of Johns Hopkins University, wrote: “…there is no scientific evidence to support the Age 60 Rule. From 1991 until 1993, I served on a panel of experts appointed by the FAA to oversee the FAA-sponsored research by Hilton Systems. This research, at a cost of well over a million dollars, found no basis for the Age 60 Rule and recommended that the age limit be increased…I would rather fly with my life in the hands of a 64 year old captain than with a 29 year old pilot flying as captain.”
4. Dr. Stacy Vereen of the Civil Aviation Medical Association wrote that the association “supports the concept that pilots operating under FAR Part 121 [airline pilots] should not be forced to retire from piloting duties based solely on attaining age 60.”
5. A scholarly treatise by Dr. Robin Wilkening. The publication Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine ran her paper one year ago. It remains the single best and most comprehensive document pertaining to the Age 60 Rule. It does, by the way, conclude that the Age 60 Rule is blatant age discrimination.
6. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 2002, pp. 194-202.
Report No.: R0340302. “The Age 60 Rule remains a most contentious and politically sensitive topic, with challenges to the Rule currently mounted in both legislative and legal arenas. Methods: An extensive review of the medical literature was accomplished using MEDLINE. Pertinent Federal Regulations were examined. Legal proceedings and public domain documents were noted. Letters and personal communication were solicited where necessary information could not be ascertained by other means. Results: The Age 60 Rule was not based on any scientific data showing that airline pilots aged 60 and older were any less safe than younger pilots, and there is evidence to indicate that the choice of age 60 was actually based on economic rather than safety considerations. Airline pilots consistently exceed general population norms for longevity, physical health, and mental abilities. Fear of an adverse pilot health event causing a crash in standard multi-crew operations is not justified. For decades, airline pilots under age 60 have been granted the means to demonstrate their fitness for flying by taking medical, cognitive, and performance evaluations that are denied to airline pi1ots when they reach age 60. Actual flight experience demonstrates that older pilots are as safe as younger pilots. International aviation experience indicates that abolishing the Age 60 Rule will not compromise aviation safety. Conclusion: There appears to be no medical, scientific, or safety justification for the Age 60 Rule. As such, perpetuation of the Age 60 Rule, where age alone is used as the single criterion of older pilot fitness, represents age discrimination in commercial aviation.”
7. After 2-plus years of study, the Aerospace Medical Association's Civil Aviation Safety Subcommittee found last year (2004) that there is insufficient medical evidence and/or accident record to support airline pilot restrictions based on age alone, published in the Association's scientific journal Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 75, No.8, August 2004. The Subcommittee thus suggests that the Association abandon its 20-plus year prior policy of support, and recommends that the FAA abandon the Age 60 Rule altogether, change the cutoff criteria, or raise the age limit. Note: This was one of the sources cited by ICAO in justifying it increase of the age limit for airline pilots.
We continue to find increasing evidence that this age 60 issue for pilots is certainly not one of safety. Safety is an exaggerated smokescreen that opponents of amending the rule use to subvert the truth. Opponents of a change have routinely waived the red flag of ‘safety’ in order to score debate points. Who, after all, can be against safety? Interestingly, the FAA grants exemptions for pilots who have had head injuries, seizures, alcohol and drug dependency, heart attacks and bypass surgery. All of these can be and are forgiven after cognitive testing but NEVER has there been an exemption for the simple fact of being one day older than 59, that magic age of 60 that somehow means a seasoned pilot no is longer fit to perform in a lifelong skill.
The rest of the world does not see piloting an airliner past the age of 60 as a safety issue. Most of the world is moving to a retirement age of 65 for airline pilots. Japan and the Netherlands, to name but two, have done extensive studies which showed raising an airline pilot’s age is not a risk. Countries such as Japan, Australia, those of the Joint Aviation Authority in Europe...all have raised their pilots’ retirement age. Some 45 nations now allow their airline pilots to fly past the age of 60. Some of these pilots do so in United States airspace. The International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, Secretariat has now recommended a new upper age limit, with restriction to multi-crew, of 65 years. This recommendation is based on extensive studies, global experience (data compiled from 63 States) with older pilots, totaling 25,500 pilot-years, and the expressed wish of 93 States. The International Civil Aviation Organization—ICAO, now recognizes the harm done by the age 60 rule standard and will amend the international standard to age 65, which should become applicable on 23 November 2006.
Guitar Guy
Charvel - San Dimas
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Posts
- 1,770
How about bringing up the fact that air traffic controllers must retire at 56, four years earlier than 121 pilots. Is Klako working to get the mandatory age for ATC retirement extended?
Deerkiller
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2003
- Posts
- 245
Allow me to play devil's advocate Klako.
If they changed the rule after you retired, would you re-apply to Horizon and come back as an FO?
If they changed the rule before you retired but mandated that the over 60 pilot be SIC, would you still fly?
Are you not interested in taking your skills and experience to a cush Pt.91 op?
dk
If they changed the rule after you retired, would you re-apply to Horizon and come back as an FO?
If they changed the rule before you retired but mandated that the over 60 pilot be SIC, would you still fly?
Are you not interested in taking your skills and experience to a cush Pt.91 op?
dk
Klako
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Posts
- 171
The FAA's own modification of its air traffic controller retirement age demonstrates that the FAA no longer considers age as a safety issue. The agency has long held that 56 was a required age due to safety but this year granted age-waivers to the age of 61. At the latest Senate hearing on the Age 60 Rule, the FAA's Dr. Jordan could not construct a valid response when asked by Senator Stevens why pilots were not granted waivers based on proficiency if controllers were. When FAA Administrator Blakey was asked at a news conference if waivers would be granted pilots, she commented there was no need as there "is no pilot shortage", mentioning nothing about safety. With those words she turned the Age 60 Rule into a jobs program.
AA767AV8TOR
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2006
- Posts
- 258
Deerkiller,
If Klako misses the deadline you can count on him and many more like him joining in on a class action lawsuit to get back on the property. That’s why we must prepare for guys like him.
It’s all about the money for Klako though he claims otherwise. He’s looking out for number one and could care less about commercial aviation safety or your career. He wants the windfall and he wants to keep it all to himself.
Follow the money trail and you will find the real reason for Klako’s motives.
AA767AV8TOR
Guitar Guy
Charvel - San Dimas
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Posts
- 1,770
In light of the controllers being allowed to get a waiver to age 61, would you support the same limit for pilots?
Klako
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Posts
- 171
So, how are you planing to prepare for guys like me?
General Lee
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Posts
- 20,442
The Supreme Court ruled AGAINST a group of Southwest pilots who wanted to change the rule. One reason they sited was they would have to raise the age limit on other professions too, like policemen and firemen, and they must have thought that was dangerous. Again, who ruled on this? The SUPREME COURT.
Bye Bye--General Lee
Klako
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Posts
- 171
Yes to both questions.
Please show me a good part 91 or 135 job, I am looking.
I do have an App in with the FAA.
Klako
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Posts
- 171
The case that you refer to was against the FAA' insurmountable obstacles imposed upon individuals petitioning for an exemption to Part 121.383 (c).
The court refused to rule on the constitutionality of the age 60 restriction in Part 121.383 (c) itself. That would have to be challenged in a separate case.
satpak77
Marriott Platinum Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2003
- Posts
- 3,015
Klako refuses to address my points. He sure likes to blab about the FAA this and that. He refuses to look inward at the serious emotional health and psychological issues that drive him to wear 4 stripes past age 60 and/or continue working in some authoritative role (FAA Inspector)
I highly doubt Klako would take a left-seat King Air 90 job, even tho he is "looking" for work.
I highly doubt Klako would take a left-seat King Air 90 job, even tho he is "looking" for work.
Last edited:
Deerkiller
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2003
- Posts
- 245
That lawsuit would be dead in the water anyway. The language in the current legislation addresses the fact that those above 60 would have no claim to seniority if they turned 60 prior to the effective date of the change.
Deerkiller
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2003
- Posts
- 245
This was your stance on flying the right seat earlier in this discussion. Are you now changing your stance?
Klako
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Posts
- 171
Wrong, You are really some sick dude to make such statements.
I have addressed all of your points in my previous posts.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
