Older brains become less coordinated: U.S. study

[Secret Squirrel]

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Forgot where you put your keys? Or your car? (OR HOW TO DO A V1 Cut?

if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['Zb_4m0LEYuM-']='&U=13bivil5c%2fN%3dZb_4m0LEYuM-%2fC%3d625546.11685676.12249147.1414694%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d5036625';

If you are over 60, it may just be a normal part of aging, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday in a study that suggests brain structures deteriorate with age in otherwise healthy people.
The study, published in the journal Neuron, is part of an effort by researchers at Harvard University to understand the difference between normal, age-related declines and clinical impairment.
"We're trying to understand the edge of that boundary between normal aging and Alzheimer's disease," said Randy Buckner, a Harvard professor and Howard Hughes Medical Institute researcher who worked on the study.
Buckner and colleagues took brain scans of 55 adults ages 60 and over, and 38 younger adults ages 35 and younger. They used an imaging technique called PET to detect the presence of amyloid, a chemical typically associated with Alzheimer's disease, to rule out those whose memory declines were disease-related.
What they found is that some brain systems become less coordinated with age. "It looks like it is an effect of normal aging independent of Alzheimer's disease," Buckner said in a telephone interview.
They found brain structures called white matter tracks, which carry information between different regions of the brain, were deteriorating only in the older group.
"In young adults, the front of the brain was pretty well in sync with the back of the brain," Jessica Andrews-Hanna, a graduate student in Buckner's lab, said in a statement. "In older adults this was not the case. The regions became out of sync and they were less correlated with each other."
Buckner said the study suggests the cognitive decline in aging may be linked to communication problems between regions of the brain.
"We are talking about an effect that is progressing in the late decades of our lives," he said.
Not everyone was impaired to the same degree. This may help explain why some people who develop Alzheimer's disease succumb quickly and others decline more slowly.
"Some brains may be better prepared for the assault of Alzheimer's disease," Buckner said, adding that changes related to normal aging are mild compared with those associated with the progressive, degenerative disease that robs people of memory, reasoning and the ability to communicate.
"While it may mean our 80-year-old selves are not like when we were 20, it doesn't mean we are not doing extremely well compared to (the) disease," Buckner said.

 

[PCL_128]

If you are over 60, it may just be a normal part of aging, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday in a study that suggests brain structures deteriorate with age in otherwise healthy people.

But I thought the rabid age-65 d0uches said that there was no scientific basis for an age limit?

 

[BLUE BAYOU]

Just remember, these are the baby boomers approaching 60 now-- their brains were fried on drugs maaaannn!!!!

 

[vetrider]

The British version of Mens Health magazine would put that in the "ministry of the bleedin obvious" section.

 

[becket]

No sh*t...who cares about pax safety when the pbgc can hold onto a little more cash.

 

[Rook]

Just remember, these are the baby boomers approaching 60 now-- their brains were fried on drugs maaaannn!!!!

You are freaking out...Maaannn!!!:beer:

Great movie dude.

 

[Jonny Sacko]

What's this mean? I don't understand.



Where am I?

 

[dooork]

Then we should make doctors and truck drivers...just make that drivers..and....etc retire at 60!

 

[BLUE BAYOU]

Then we should make doctors and truck drivers...just make that drivers..and....etc retire at 60!

Are you kidding? Who'd be left to drive in Florida?

 

[whymeworry?]

Somebody needs to send this to John Mica

 

[Nindiri]

But I thought the rabid age-65 d0uches said that there was no scientific basis for an age limit?

Hmmm. That would explain the hundreds of fractional and corporate jets piloted by 65 year olds falling out of the sky every year.

 

[pilotyip]

Lets test to see if age is a factor

But I thought the rabid age-65 d0uches said that there was no scientific basis for an age limit?

We should igore age all together, and come up with a test that determines if you are capable of doing your job reguardless of age. This program would be administered by the FAA or its designated representatives. The test woud consist of flying an airplane or simulator while being observed. If all the manuvers were completed in accordance with guidlines published in a book then the pilot could continue to fly as a pilot. Some would be removed from the cockpit at age 46 and others at age 82

 

[splatt]

That test is already in place. It's called a check ride and it's done about every six months... Oh that's probably what you meant.

 

[pilotyip]

You got it, we already do that

That test is already in place. It's called a check ride and it's done about every six months... Oh that's probably what you meant.

Let some kind of test be given and make age a non-issue. I know many pilots past age 60 that are in better shape, have better mental capacity and have better skills than many pilots I have met that have not yet reached age 60.

 

[PCL_128]

Yeah, because those checkrides are so thorough and will give real insight into someone's cognitive abilities.

 

[mooney flier]

Hmmm. That would explain the hundreds of fractional and corporate jets piloted by 65 year olds falling out of the sky every year.

Nindiri has a valid point. The corporate and fractionals have many over age 60 pilots, flying glass cockpit airplanes at higher altitudes and mach numbers than the holier-than-thou 121 guys. In my NJA Indoc class of 29, we had 5 retired airline pilots.

 

[Flopgut]

Yup. But you got to pick the ones you wanted through an interview. Real big difference between that and being forced keep the ones barely hanging on.

 

[scarface]

I dno't bileave a wrod of tihs.

 

[mooney flier]

Yup. But you got to pick the ones you wanted through an interview. Real big difference between that and being forced keep the ones barely hanging on.

Good point.

 

[Spooky 2]

Yeah, because those checkrides are so thorough and will give real insight into someone's cognitive abilities.

Perhaps you can describe a checkride that would measure ones cognitive abilities. Would we do these every year or so, or simply build them into the training/checking cycle at the typical 121 airline? What if a thirty year old pilot failed or did poorly and if so should he/she be removed from the schedule for further evaluation. I assume you would not be able to train for these events otherwise this process would seem to be meaningless.

I assume you have heard of or taken the Staynine test. It was a popular tool for evaluating potential pilot applicants both in the military and for many airlines here in the US during the 60' and 70's. If you happened to fail that once you were pretty much eliminated from a number airlines that used the test. In other words if you failed it at UAL, you were out of luck anywhere else as the test was administered by the same organization for all applicants. While it was mostly personaility and knowledge driven it did have a part that was pure cognitive related. I'm sure that there are many excellent pilots flying around today that failed that test. A couple of airlines that used it as I recall were UAL and PAA. Proably others but I don't recall at this time. Old age creeping up on me.

Curious?

 

[PCL_128]

Perhaps you can describe a checkride that would measure ones cognitive abilities.

No I can't, which is exactly my point. Trying to test for this is absurd, which is exactly why an age cutoff at a reasonable age is necessary. Letting people continue to fly simply because they can pass a joke of a medical and a checkride given by their buddies that they've known for 30 years isn't a good way to keep things safe.

 

[Spooky 2]

No I can't, which is exactly my point. Trying to test for this is absurd, which is exactly why an age cutoff at a reasonable age is necessary. Letting people continue to fly simply because they can pass a joke of a medical and a checkride given by their buddies that they've known for 30 years isn't a good way to keep things safe.

Not sure of how to respond but you are implying that your airline's training and checking department is somehow fixed? If so I suggest you go directly to your POI and report this situation.

In my past life our training department was typically made up of pilots who could not hold the respective airplane and in many cases could not hold Captain period. The APD's were fair and thorough in their application of performance standards and I was never aware of anyone getting a pass because of a buddy doing the checking. It was typical for the FAA Program Manager to observe all checks done for the respective equipment LCA's and I know for a fact that there were no gimmes during these events. So what gives with your 717 airline? Hmm... makes me wonder if there is much more to this than meets the eye?

The only training organization that consistantly bends over backwards to make sure the student or rated pilot gets through the program regardless, is FSI. I guess being a customer as opposed to a employee speaks to the difference.

At this point in my aviation career I could care less about another oceanic crossing or some ten day around the world trip. You are right in that they are brutal and very little fun is found along the way. If someone could doucument aging in Part 121 ops as a definitve factor in the accidents over the last twenty plus years perhaps your arguments would be weighted towards your beliefs but I'm not aware of any studies that did not have an associated agenda regardless of either position that would lend serious credence to this argument.

 

[PCL_128]

Not sure of how to respond but you are implying that your airline's training and checking department is somehow fixed? If so I suggest you go directly to your POI and report this situation.

I don't even care if you think that the system never favors anyone because of a "good 'ole boys network" or anything else, it's still not a good system of evaluating people's cognitive abilities. Checkrides are largely jokes, just as medicals are. Trying to claim that these are valid ways to determine whether someone is safe to continue flying at an advanced age is asinine.

 

[Spooky 2]

I don't even care if you think that the system never favors anyone because of a "good 'ole boys network" or anything else, it's still not a good system of evaluating people's cognitive abilities. Checkrides are largely jokes, just as medicals are. Trying to claim that these are valid ways to determine whether someone is safe to continue flying at an advanced age is asinine.

I wish you would just answer the original question. Is your airline training and checking bogus because of a "buddy system". The airline I worked for was not and I would be surpised if yours was, but then I've never been there. I mean is this a bunch of old guys taking care of old guys. If so, you do have some real problems over there.

 

[PCL_128]

I wish you would just answer the original question. Is your airline training and checking bogus because of a "buddy system". The airline I worked for was not and I would be surpised if yours was, but then I've never been there. I mean is this a bunch of old guys taking care of old guys. If so, you do have some real problems over there.

I'm not one of the "old guys," so I don't know how their buddies are handling their rides, and I really don't care. I'm not naive enough to think it doesn't happen, however, like you seem to be.

But, like I said, the checkrides are largely a joke anyway, so it doesn't really make much of a difference. Even a ride from a hard-ass examiner giving you no breaks still doesn't demonstrate jack sh^% about cognitive abilities and how you're able to handle things during a long, difficult day on the line.

 

[Spooky 2]

You win...I give up. I'll have to avoid your operation.

 

[PCL_128]

You win...I give up. I'll have to avoid your operation.

You'll have to avoid every operation, then, because they're all held to the exact same standards.

 

[Spooky 2]

You'll have to avoid every operation, then, because they're all held to the exact same standards.

Not so. You have told me that your operation uses a buddy system to let weak pilots get by. I told you the one I worked for and I supect is just accross the field from your operation does not do that. End of argument.

 

[PCL_128]

Not so. You have told me that your operation uses a buddy system to let weak pilots get by.

Actually, no, I didn't say that in the slightest.

I told you the one I worked for and I supect is just accross the field from your operation does not do that.

Are you really naive enough to believe that no one slips through the system at your airline? That no checkairmen has ever given a buddy of his an easier time on a ride than he might give someone else? Give me a break. No one is buying it. Not even the almighty widget is perfect.

 

[Spooky 2]

Actually, no, I didn't say that in the slightest. Are you really naive enough to believe that no one slips through the system at your airline? That no checkairmen has ever given a buddy of his an easier time on a ride than he might give someone else? Give me a break. No one is buying it. Not even the almighty widget is perfect.

That is excatly what you said about your airline. And I'm going to tell you that no Delta pilot has been passed simply because he had a buddy in the sim or at least not since the summer of 87. The almighty Widget is far from perfect and their sim check failure rates proves it. They don't pass out favors to my knowledge.