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 65

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
Register   Log in
J3guy

J3guy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2004
Posts
86
Is age 65 coming to the fracs? I haven't heard much about it lately, but was under the impression that it is on the agenda. Anyone's guess?
 
J3guy said:
Is age 65 coming to the fracs? I haven't heard much about it lately, but was under the impression that it is on the agenda. Anyone's guess?
Click to expand...

Although I can't guess if it's true, I sure hope it is. Some "retired" guys use the fracs as a "get-out-of-the-house" entertainment after their 30 year career flying 777 across the pond. It's quite annoying for the furloughed guys and FO's that will never upgrade when you have a "retired" guy that flys for fun and wont leave until they lose their medical or die....which has happened.

I really hope when I hit 65 I can enjoy the fruits of my labor and relax in a country home.

And before anyone throws in the statement that "the retirees lost their pension or 401k and have to work until they die"; I will tell you that I have flown with enough of them to know that the bulk of them have summer homes, and winter homes, and luxury cars, and toys and more. I get to hear all about it at 41,000 feet.
 
Age 65 rule across the board IS a great idea.
 
If someone aged 65 can't be allowed to fly passengers on a 737, why should they be allowed to fly passengers on a Gulfstream?
 
Okay, keep going...why should they be allowed to fly their own Cessna?


I'm not trying to put anyone out to pasture here, but here is how the FAA protects people. They do it by assumed risk.

People on the ground get the most protection. They have done NOTHING to assume ANY risk. The FAA really hates it when airplanes kill or hurt people on the ground.

Next is passengers (part 121). They have assumed some risk, but are most protected of all those airborne. The FAA hates it when passengers are killed.

Last is pilots. They have assumed the most risk. They know the consequences of their actions and are held to a higher standard. The FAA dislikes it when pilots are killed.


So, where are fractional pax? Well, they own the plane and assume the risk. Before 91K they owned all the risk and were equal with "pilot" on the FAA concern chart above. Now they are between 121 pax and pilot. A nice little niche that the powers that be have lumped in with charter pax (part 135).

My guess is age 65 is not going to make it to fractional operators. Our pax know the risk. Now, that's not to say that enough owners at a particular company won't get together and protect themselves and demand an age cap.

Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
Just wondering, has there ever been an accident caused by the incapitation of an over-65 pilot flying a transport category airplane? I haven't heard of any. If there haven't been any this makes the subject a little lame from a safety standpoint.
 
transpac said:
Just wondering, has there ever been an accident caused by the incapitation of an over-65 pilot flying a transport category airplane? I haven't heard of any. If there haven't been any this makes the subject a little lame from a safety standpoint.
Click to expand...

Probably get rid of Age-65 across the board.

If you can pass the physical, the flying public deserves the most
experienced, safest pilots available.
 
cldsfr79 said:
Although I can't guess if it's true, I sure hope it is. Some "retired" guys use the fracs as a "get-out-of-the-house" entertainment after their 30 year career flying 777 across the pond. It's quite annoying for the furloughed guys and FO's that will never upgrade when you have a "retired" guy that flys for fun and wont leave until they lose their medical or die....which has happened.

I really hope when I hit 65 I can enjoy the fruits of my labor and relax in a country home.

And before anyone throws in the statement that "the retirees lost their pension or 401k and have to work until they die"; I will tell you that I have flown with enough of them to know that the bulk of them have summer homes, and winter homes, and luxury cars, and toys and more. I get to hear all about it at 41,000 feet.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY my thoughts as well!
 
yea same thing in the on-demand 135 we are pushing for a age 90 rule, I mean those guys are going to keep us from upgrading unless they quit flying ha ha
 
Look at the history of when age 60 rules started. Who started it? Airline managements. Why? It's all about the money. Force the higher paid types out to be replaced by lower paid types. Medical fitness had nothing to do with it. Since when did an airline care about that stuff.
 
Age 60 was forced on the pilots back in 1958. ALPA was still fighting to get it repealed up until about 1970. This rule had nothing to do with safety; it was a deal between two W.W.II USAF Generals, AAL's C.R. Smith and Pete Quesada (sp.?) the first head of the FAA. It was to get rid of high paid pilots at the top of AAL the seniority list. It was done in the name of safety, because who can be against safety? It is like motherhood and patriotism. If we really want to do this retirement age correctly in the name of safety, we take the age of youngest pilot that experiences an in-flight incapacitation, say a heart attack at age 47, and that becomes the new retirement age.
 
glasspilot said:
Okay, keep going...why should they be allowed to fly their own Cessna?


I'm not trying to put anyone out to pasture here, but here is how the FAA protects people. They do it by assumed risk.

People on the ground get the most protection. They have done NOTHING to assume ANY risk. The FAA really hates it when airplanes kill or hurt people on the ground.

Next is passengers (part 121). They have assumed some risk, but are most protected of all those airborne. The FAA hates it when passengers are killed.

Last is pilots. They have assumed the most risk. They know the consequences of their actions and are held to a higher standard. The FAA dislikes it when pilots are killed.


So, where are fractional pax? Well, they own the plane and assume the risk. Before 91K they owned all the risk and were equal with "pilot" on the FAA concern chart above. Now they are between 121 pax and pilot. A nice little niche that the powers that be have lumped in with charter pax (part 135).

My guess is age 65 is not going to make it to fractional operators. Our pax know the risk. Now, that's not to say that enough owners at a particular company won't get together and protect themselves and demand an age cap.

Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Well stated, Glass.

There is one factor that could drive a move to mandatory age 65 retirement: The growing number of card members being carried under Part 135. If Age 65 comes to Part 135 operations, I expect most frac operators will not have two separate pilot groups.
 
Every pilot thinks mandatory age retirement is a great idea, right up until the time they start planning their own retirement.

The argument - while never ending - is like trying to convince your mother-in-law that your wife is wrong - pointless.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top