Age 65

[gret]

And I don't think I have to be a pilot in the 121 world to know what the job is and what it's about. I doubt the same could be said of someone who has never experienced the frac world. I'll bet you whatever you like, that any frac pilot who has never flown 121 can tell you, fairly accurately, what the 121 world is about. And I'd make that same bet that a 121 pilot who has never flown in the frac world would barely even begin to scratch the surface of what frac flying is like/about.

Still, not seeing how my flying experience has anything to do with the age-65-for-all debate.

Did you really say this?

I guess so becasue it is in black and white. Are you saying frac pilots are just plain smarter than 121 pilots?

...as the saying goes..when you are in a hole, stop digging.

 

[av8trinabarrel]

My experience, or lack thereof, in the 121 world is irrelevant. Now you're just trying to deflect because you don't have any good responses to the questions I posed.

Again, you say the age 65 rule isn't a safety thing. Therefore, why do we need it in the frac world? You claim it's all about consistency. That argument makes no sense. Why on earth do we need consistency between the airlines and the frac world? If it's not a safety thing, then the answer is simply "We don't".

In fact, safety could be argued the other way. Taking the very experienced pilots out of the cockpit because of some random age rule is degrading safety. I don't care if the guy has the strength and stamina to throw 700 pounds of bags each leg. I'm happy to pick up the slack. I'd rather do that and keep the experience in the cockpit, than have a young buck who can bench press 400#, but doesn't have half the experience of his older counterpart.

And I don't think I have to be a pilot in the 121 world to know what the job is and what it's about. I doubt the same could be said of someone who has never experienced the frac world. I'll bet you whatever you like, that any frac pilot who has never flown 121 can tell you, fairly accurately, what the 121 world is about. And I'd make that same bet that a 121 pilot who has never flown in the frac world would barely even begin to scratch the surface of what frac flying is like/about.

Still, not seeing how my flying experience has anything to do with the age-65-for-all debate.

You really need to make up your mind which arguement your trying to make. I'm all for making everything equal and you bring up in two different paragraphs how drastically different frac is vs 121. Having never flown 121, how can you beat your chest and say " why would you want to be like the airlines" or " I hate too burst your bubble, but what we do is drastically different". Really!!!Having flown 121 for years and frac for 3, your gonna burst my bubble?!?!?!?! Are you kidding me.....

I could belittle you like you have tried with me and anybody else that thinks differently than you, but your simply not worth it. I truely hope you fly till you feel like hanging it up, but don't pretend to know something you know nothing about.

 

[realityman]

Did you really say this?

I guess so becasue it is in black and white. Are you saying frac pilots are just plain smarter than 121 pilots?

...as the saying goes..when you are in a hole, stop digging.

Are you intentionally being this obtuse, or are you just trying to pick a fight?

Where did I say frac pilots are smarter?

If you really need to be spoon fed, here is what I meant: It's pretty common knowledge amongst most professional pilots what being an airline pilot is about (or freight). Yeah yeah, we could get into the all the nitty-gritty about how everyone trains, follows company policy, etc......But long story short, in 121 you climb into the plane, turn left, and fly the same routes over and over ad nauseum. I think ANY pilot could describe pretty well what 121 flying is about. It's been around for a very long time.

But if you ask someone who has no experience in the frac world to describe what a typical day for a frac pilot is like, I doubt they'd give even a good generalized description (beyond "they fly planes"). Do you think they could describe the customer service we, the pilots, are often required to provide? Or that it'd occur to them that we toss our own bags, clean the plane, cater the flights, and many times act as our own dispatchers?

It's not about anyone being smarter than anyone else. I never said that. I'm saying that the job of a 121 pilot has been fairly well defined over the years and is well known. The frac pilot's job hasn't been around as long and isn't as well known by those outside the industry.

And no, I'm NOT trying to imply anything about who has a harder job either. But I suppose you'll try that approach too so that maybe we can get this thread up to 300 pages of ridiculousness.

 

[Semore Butts]

"often required to provide" You of course meant "always" I'm sure?

"Do you think they could describe the customer service we, the pilots, are often required to provide? Or that it'd occur to them that we toss our own bags, clean the plane, cater the flights, and many times act as our own dispatchers"?

We do that daily, every "live leg"!

We do the same job as the "big iron guys" except we have to give a safety brief instead of going up the stairs and "hanging a left".

I know every passengers name that gets on my flight.

That name may be "Kennedy", "Brown", "Smith", "Buffet", "Jordan", or whatever? (Throw in Hurley,Midler,Plant, Annistan, Led Zeppelin (OK, I made that up, I've never flown any of those people) But, you get the message!

I dig knowing that, but it doesn't matter.

I sling the bags, lay out the catering, and "wressle" the baby seats.

I'm good with it. I work out, and am in my opinion, in better shape then alot of the fat asses (sorry guys) that are alot younger then me.

Look at yourselfs in the mirror boys before you slam the "old geezers"!

By the way, when your "old geezer" FO offers to help you move the 67 lb. raft from the back to the front of the aircraft for overwater (680 Sovereign)? Do it you "dip sh!t". dont be an idiot! (Cause if I'm the CPT, you will be helping me.

I will do my best to protect you from yourselves!!!!

Merry Christmas....Semore

 

[realityman]

You really need to make up your mind which arguement your trying to make. I'm all for making everything equal and you bring up in two different paragraphs how drastically different frac is vs 121. Having never flown 121, how can you beat your chest and say " why would you want to be like the airlines" or " I hate too burst your bubble, but what we do is drastically different". Really!!!Having flown 121 for years and frac for 3, your gonna burst my bubble?!?!?!?! Are you kidding me.....

I could belittle you like you have tried with me and anybody else that thinks differently than you, but your simply not worth it. I truely hope you fly till you feel like hanging it up, but don't pretend to know something you know nothing about.

I'm not trying to belittle anyone. If it seems that way, then I apologize. Sometimes the written word doesn't come out like I intend it to.

But do I really have to have flown 121 to know that it's different than the frac world? I admit I'm not familiar with all the details of 121 flying, but I think I have a pretty good general idea what the job is about. I've certainly flown with enough retired/furloughed 121 folks to have learned a lot about what they did at their respective airlines. And even before speaking with them, I had a decent picture of the job. 121 flying has been around for a long time. I never said I was an expert about it. But to say I know 'nothing' about it is false.

Have you ever driven a truck for a living? If not, I'll bet you could still give a pretty good general description of a truck driver's job and life on the road. That profession has also been around a long time, and most folks have at least a general knowledge of it. At any rate, I'd bet almost anyone could point out the major differences between driving a truck for a living and driving a cab. Don't need to have actually done it.

Your attitude of "I've been there and done it and you haven't, so you know nothing about it." is what's belittling.

But as to how any of this pertains to the topic at hand, I'm just pointing out that even you admitted that the age 65 rule isn't based on anything safety related. And I sure don't want to see a rule implemented just because the airlines have it. If the rule made some kind of sense, then maybe. But I still pose the question, why do we need to have uniformity between the airlines and the fractionals? Especially regarding a rule that even you admit doesn't make much sense (from a safety standpoint).

Fortunately, there isn't anything in the works (yet) pushing this issue. I hope it stays that way. And I hope that those younger pilots who would like to see a rule like this implemented, stop and think about how this could affect them later down the road.

Anyway, continue to debate however you like. I'm done with this thread. It appears we all have our minds made up. Good luck to all! It's a tough industry to be limiting future options in.

Peace!

 

[jppt2000]

I'm not trying to belittle anyone. If it seems that way, then I apologize. Sometimes the written word doesn't come out like I intend it to.

But do I really have to have flown 121 to know that it's different than the frac world? I admit I'm not familiar with all the details of 121 flying, but I think I have a pretty good general idea what the job is about. I've certainly flown with enough retired/furloughed 121 folks to have learned a lot about what they did at their respective airlines. And even before speaking with them, I had a decent picture of the job. 121 flying has been around for a long time. I never said I was an expert about it. But to say I know 'nothing' about it is false.

Have you ever driven a truck for a living? If not, I'll bet you could still give a pretty good general description of a truck driver's job and life on the road. That profession has also been around a long time, and most folks have at least a general knowledge of it. At any rate, I'd bet almost anyone could point out the major differences between driving a truck for a living and driving a cab. Don't need to have actually done it.

Your attitude of "I've been there and done it and you haven't, so you know nothing about it." is what's belittling.

But as to how any of this pertains to the topic at hand, I'm just pointing out that even you admitted that the age 65 rule isn't based on anything safety related. And I sure don't want to see a rule implemented just because the airlines have it. If the rule made some kind of sense, then maybe. But I still pose the question, why do we need to have uniformity between the airlines and the fractionals? Especially regarding a rule that even you admit doesn't make much sense (from a safety standpoint).

Fortunately, there isn't anything in the works (yet) pushing this issue. I hope it stays that way. And I hope that those younger pilots who would like to see a rule like this implemented, stop and think about how this could affect them later down the road.

Anyway, continue to debate however you like. I'm done with this thread. It appears we all have our minds made up. Good luck to all! It's a tough industry to be limiting future options in.

Peace!

I've done 121, and fractional flying, realityman is spot on with his comparisons.
Long time ago, a very wise check-airman called it "big rig" syndrome.

 

[doh]

I can't believe this thread has gone on this long. I have never flown with anyone over seventy who wasn't in constant need of babysitting. Some of the people I have flown with who were over sixty-five have been pretty sharp though. So I say someplace between 65-70 is where we need to make it mandatory to get out. 67 sounds like a nice compromise.

 

[rettofly]

I've done 121, and fractional flying, realityman is spot on with his comparisons.
Long time ago, a very wise check-airman called it "big rig" syndrome.

Big Rig Syndrome strikes a chord with me.

I've flown with several furloughed Big Rig drivers who absolutely detested having to fly the little birds. One in particular (PIC, junior to me) whined for two days about having to be SIC, so I called Dispatch and talked them into switching seat assignments for the rest of the tour. He still wasn't happy, but at least he wasn't bitching about being SIC. Last time I saw him, he was Captain on an MD80 on which I was a paying passenger. He still didn't seem too happy. Go figure.

The other side of the coin is represented by the furloughed big rig guys who were some of the best sticks and crew mates a pilot could ask for.

 

[jppt2000]

I can't believe this thread has gone on this long. I have never flown with anyone over seventy who wasn't in constant need of babysitting. Some of the people I have flown with who were over sixty-five have been pretty sharp though. So I say someplace between 65-70 is where we need to make it mandatory to get out. 67 sounds like a nice compromise.

Yeah, sounds great to you.
Easy to post this tripe on an anonymous chat board.

 

[jppt2000]

Big Rig Syndrome strikes a chord with me.

I've flown with several furloughed Big Rig drivers who absolutely detested having to fly the little birds. One in particular (PIC, junior to me) whined for two days about having to be SIC, so I called Dispatch and talked them into switching seat assignments for the rest of the tour. He still wasn't happy, but at least he wasn't bitching about being SIC. Last time I saw him, he was Captain on an MD80 on which I was a paying passenger. He still didn't seem too happy. Go figure.

The other side of the coin is represented by the furloughed big rig guys who were some of the best sticks and crew mates a pilot could ask for.

Yup,
"I've flown the big rigs so let me tell you how it is"
Regional- small jet pilots can tell you many stories of encounters of pilots with big rig syndrome.
Go back in posts about 2 years ago and you can even see evidence of BRS in my company, but thankfully with education and an LOA its all but disappeared or mostly gone underground.

 

[doh]

Yeah, sounds great to you.
Easy to post this tripe on an anonymous chat board.

It is anecdotal, but that is my experience.

 

[Fozzy]

Last I heard he was. The guy may be crusty as hell and not the best customer service rep, but he was a damn good stick and a very capable captain (other than throwing bags, helping with catering, being polite with our pax, etc...)


Not saying one way or the other if he should retire, but when you can't do the job. Get out!!! Young or old

If that is how he does his job, he should be shown the door. 35 or 70, that is unacceptable.
Other than flying, he does nothing. I think there is a starter position opening up at his local golf course if he needs to keep busy.

 

[ExJmbDrv]

I've read 7 pages, and I still don't know the answer, but since everyone is throwing in their $.02, here's mine.

1. If they can do the job, "I want to move up the ladder" is not a good reason to fire someone. The flying public values wisdom and experience. Right or wrong, the gray haired captain is preferred to the captain that hasn't started shaving yet.

2. I doubt any solution the FAA/Congress put forth would be based on logic or safety or anything resembling common sense, therefore, I would not really look in that direction for a "solution."

3. The last statistics I saw (several years ago) showed no significant improvement in accident statistics after the "500 hour / 500 hour in type spike." This is why it is wise to pair a brand new captain with an FO that is highly experienced in the type. (assuming the upgrade is from different equipment)

4. The last Human Resource class I took pointed out that if you have an excessive pool of qualified applicants for a position, your salary is probably to high. While I don't like the sound of that as a pilot, it tells you where management is coming from and what they think of their labor supply.

5. I'd be worried if I were a senior pilot with a lot of seniority at an operation that does 135 ops. I could see management lobbying for an age 65 rule. Force a guy that makes $150k to retire and replace him with a new hire that makes $40k + the cost to upgrade a FO to Captain ($60k to $90k pay raise at a fractional). You still save the company $80k. In the management world, you'd be on your way to stardom. If you could do it to 13 people, you'd have saved the company over $1,000,000. You'd probably be promoted to senior VP.

6. #5 is why I don't understand why the older guys are resistant to unionization. I'm not taking a pro or anti union stance here. I'm just saying - a pilot with a lot of seniority (pay) has more to lose than the young FO. From an economic perspective, it should be the old guys encouraging the young to organize. I've seen several Captain terminations for small/insignificant things. It has saved the company a lot of money in pay. It also saved them a lot because the next time they told another Captain to jump, he said how hi?

OK, sorry, I gave $.06 instead of $.02

 

[Hawkered]

Congress and the FAA will surely enact an age 65 rule soon. Who in office wants the speculation of the national media when two crew members in their 70s go down with some former head of state on board.

 

[gunfyter]

70 is the new 50 ....

You need to get a Life Extension membership at www.LEF.org

 

[jonjuan]

Congress and the FAA will surely enact an age 65 rule soon. Who in office wants the speculation of the national media when two crew members in their 70s go down with some former head of state on board.

http://www.ainonline.com/news/singl...ots-faulted-in-houston-gulfstream-crash-3973/

 

[pilotyip]

Congress and the FAA will surely enact an age 65 rule soon. Who in office wants the speculation of the national media when two crew members in their 70s go down with some former head of state on board.

but it won't be age related when two 30 year old pilots land short of the runway with a some former head of state on board.

 

[jonjuan]

but it won't be age related when two 30 year old pilots land short of the runway with a some former head of state on board.

That's like my 88 year old grandmother who regularly claims that she's had fewer driving accidents than kids in their 20s. Maybe, but she's caused her fair share.

 

[Semore Butts]

but she's caused her fair share

And you base that on what knowledge?

Your 3000+ hours of experience?

At what hour level does you're experience become a detriment?

So your saying that older people don't have a higher amount of car wrecks, they just cause them?

Then why does your insurance go down as you age with no accidents or tickets?

I can't believe you actually wrote that?

 

[DAS at 10/250]

And you base that on what knowledge?

Your 3000+ hours of experience?

At what hour level does you're experience become a detriment?

So your saying that older people don't have a higher amount of car wrecks, they just cause them?

Then why does your insurance go down as you age with no accidents or tickets?

I can't believe you actually wrote that?

It's not because of her age. It's because she's a woman.






:bomb:

 

[FrontierFan]

I have been paired up with many pilots over 60 and some over 65 as of late. Here is my opinion based on my own life experiences.

To begin with I will not use blanket statements to cover any group of people as I believe such attempts at making a point take away any substance and validity to any attempted point. "All young people need babysat....or all 60+ year olds need depends etc"....is stupid

Second, I am 33, live in base, have ok seniority and will gain very very little if an age 65 rule was started at my company. So, at least, in my case "get outta my seat" does not apply to my personal situation.

Regardless of the emotion of those possibly affected by an age 65 rule at the fracts, here are some facts worth noting:

Two 60+ year-olds are not allowed to sit next to each other in international airspace per ICAO.

Those two CAL pilots who unfortunately died in their seats both had legal medicals and passed all checkrides. Dying at work could happen in your 30s but is far far less likely than someone over 60. Not surprisingly one of the biggest determination in life / health insurance is AGE.

There are many people over 60 and 65 that I have flown with who do a great job as a professional at Netjets. Not just pilots skillz but people skillz, numb chuck skillz, and are all around model crew-members.

I have also flown with a couple who were terrible. It wasn't because they were bad people, it was because they didn't age well. One guy in particular (who left NJA with the early out) was just terrible. No one had any idea how he got through his medical with his loss of hearing. You would have to repeat callouts two and three times. He couldn't control the volume of his voice so he would often yell through the head set at such loudness that all the pax in the back could hear him and later asked if he wore hearing aids.

He would commonly put the new assigned altitude in the heading and new assigned heading in the altitude window. Something like a runway change to a parallel would be turned into a border line emergency...and worst of all, his flying was completely embarrassing. Throwing customers drinks out of their hands while taxing, crashing onto runways, etc....just terrible.

Now he was a really nice guy but he would not hang it up. Now in my situation I was put into a bad spot because we did not have any age limits at NJA that would have removed him years prior and now I was left with what to do. It is very easy to say "screw it, he's a nice guy, yada yada yada". But it begged the question, "would I be comfortable with him flying anyone I cared about"? The answer was absolutely not. I flew with him on many tours so he didn't have a bad day (like we all do at times), he had a bad certificate that should have been revoked years prior.

Now some would now answer "hey why not call that union committee"? The reason is because its hard. Do I wanna take time out of my day off to go tell on my union brother who I have no beef with whatsoever and is genuinely a nice guy knowing you personally will have a negative impact on another union member's life? Not really. And then the self talk starts....

"why is this guy still here"? "I have friends who are furloughed AND aren't embarrassing to owners"

Now I don't believe every pilot degrades into what I witnessed after they turn 65...but some really really do.

The big question is what about those who may be in the majority who are the kind of people I have flown with lately. Great people and great people who happen to be over 60-65. Just because some are what I witnessed does not constitute a blanket cover all rule.

But medicals and checkrides don't always cover all the bases either. It didn't help those two CAL pilots who died in their seats nor did it help the guy I flew with years ago.

In a perfect world we are all going to have awesome careers and be in a financial position to retire at 60 and flying past 60 is purely for health insurance and a hobby. Unfortunately today's world is far far from perfect and I have met many who are still working past 60 because they absolutely have to.

So what do we do? I have flown with lots of people are over 60 and 65 who are model crew members. I have also flown with at least one who was in his early 60s and terrible. Honestly I don't want your seat. I am scared if we ever have a pilot die on a pax flight. On both occasions CAL was in the papers for sometime after these two guys died in the seat.

So here is my idea:
Why not keep our current medical / checkride requirements and use (nja's case) our union committees. And in addition maybe we should also consider an age limit of 70. There will still be many who can perform past 70 but I believe 70 is reasonable nonetheless.


Thoughts?

 

[cldsfr79]

One solution would be to downgrade after 65.

Once a pilot hits his 65 birthday, if he/she wants to continue to operate in a 135/91K environment than they can as a first officer. As mentioned by some, there are guys over 60 that have great skills and there are some who should hang it up, if they still want to fly, this will give them a chance, but they wont be in command.

I know its been posted about how aging affects the mind and I have taken enough human factors classes and read enough books to say this:

As someone gets older they do rely on their skills and past experiences to handle situations. There has been studies in which a young pilot fresh out of training is placed up against a "retirey" in challenging situations. It turns out that the young pilot actually takes a bit longer to react to a situation because they have to examine the situation, rely on what they have learned, make a decision, and then react. The older pilot through experience is able to quickly examine the situation determine an outcome based on experience and react.

That being said, the younger guy excels when it comes to them both learning new items and in stamina.

In our new world where technology and procedures change rapidly, I'm afraid that the "retireys" will be overtaken by the information flood. Sadly it's getting to the point where experience is getting replaced by technology. We don't have to "eye-ball" a thunderstorm due to weather technology, listen to a strange sounding engine because of advanced engine diagnostics, heck, our planes even help us with V1 cuts by pushing in on the correct rudder. The days of "seat of you pants flying" is over and technology has assisted in new information that a retirey could have only dreamed about.

All in all I think it would be fair to downgrade. Before the 65 age rule became what it is, if I have correct information, FedEx pilots who hit 60 were allowed to downgrade to Engineer if they wanted to stay in the cockpit.

 

[pilotyip]

good post

I have been p.....on committee"? The reason is because its hard. Do I wanna take time out of my day off to go tell on my union brother who I have no beef with whatsoever and is genuinely a nice guy knowing you personally will have a negative impact on another union member's life? Not really. And then the self talk starts....

"why is this guy still here"? "I have friends who are furloughed AND aren't embarrassing to owners"

Now I don't believe every pilot degrades into what I witnessed after they turn 65...but some really really do.

The big question is what about those...... many who can perform past 70 but I believe 70 is reasonable nonetheless.


Thoughts?

nice job, goes to the reality of the issue. Age alone does not define capability.

One solution would be to downgr......... who hit 60 were allowed to downgrade to Engineer if they wanted to stay in the cockpit.

smacks of get out of my seat

 

[Pervis]

We've had two pilots die on duty in the last few years. One died in his sleep in the hotel-he was in his 30s. Another dropped dead of a massive coronary on the ramp-he was in his 40s. So far, all the old guys are doing just fine. Maybe the ones who died were doing too much stress worrying about senior pilots hoarding "their" seat.

 

[jonjuan]

Then why does your insurance go down as you age with no accidents or tickets?

AARP

 

[pilotyip]

We've had two pilots die on duty in the last few years. One died in his sleep in the hotel-he was in his 30s. Another dropped dead of a massive coronary on the ramp-he was in his 40s. So far, all the old guys are doing just fine. Maybe the ones who died were doing too much stress worrying about senior pilots hoarding "their" seat.

In that case maybe the retirement age should be in the 30's or 40's.

 

[rettofly]

but it won't be age related when two 30 year old pilots land short of the runway with a some former head of state on board.

Like the change from 135 to 121 for 10 or more pax seats after a B1900 with a 30 year old captain met a B90 0r B200 at the runway intersection at Quincy, IL some years ago.

 

[rettofly]

One solution would be to downgrade after 65.

Once a pilot hits his 65 birthday, if he/she wants to continue to operate in a 135/91K environment than they can as a first officer. As mentioned by some, there are guys over 60 that have great skills and there are some who should hang it up, if they still want to fly, this will give them a chance, but they wont be in command.

I know its been posted about how aging affects the mind and I have taken enough human factors classes and read enough books to say this:

As someone gets older they do rely on their skills and past experiences to handle situations. There has been studies in which a young pilot fresh out of training is placed up against a "retirey" in challenging situations. It turns out that the young pilot actually takes a bit longer to react to a situation because they have to examine the situation, rely on what they have learned, make a decision, and then react. The older pilot through experience is able to quickly examine the situation determine an outcome based on experience and react.

That being said, the younger guy excels when it comes to them both learning new items and in stamina.

In our new world where technology and procedures change rapidly, I'm afraid that the "retireys" will be overtaken by the information flood. Sadly it's getting to the point where experience is getting replaced by technology. We don't have to "eye-ball" a thunderstorm due to weather technology, listen to a strange sounding engine because of advanced engine diagnostics, heck, our planes even help us with V1 cuts by pushing in on the correct rudder. The days of "seat of you pants flying" is over and technology has assisted in new information that a retirey could have only dreamed about.

All in all I think it would be fair to downgrade. Before the 65 age rule became what it is, if I have correct information, FedEx pilots who hit 60 were allowed to downgrade to Engineer if they wanted to stay in the cockpit.

Good post, but I worry about the notion that "seat of the pants" flying is over. The red X on the PFD (or the blank PFD) and other assorted undue events are not sufficiently emphasized in the sims, leading to overreliance on the technology. When the panel suddenly gets dark and scary is not the time to be learning stick and rudder skills. Experiencing a tail stall from airframe icing is not the time to learn how to deal with it. Etc, etc.

 

[FrontierFan]

We've had two pilots die on duty in the last few years. One died in his sleep in the hotel-he was in his 30s. Another dropped dead of a massive coronary on the ramp-he was in his 40s. So far, all the old guys are doing just fine. Maybe the ones who died were doing too much stress worrying about senior pilots hoarding "their" seat.

As I wrote in my post:

My fear is a pilot who dies in his / her seat on a pax leg and with no age limit whatsoever it could happen. As posted, it already happened not to two 70 year olds but two guys at and just under 60.

I understand the original age limit of 60 was formed due to business politics but it was also brought up to global standard by a union push from pilots not able to retire at 60 after 9/11.

Again in accordance with ICAO, two 60+ plus year olds aren't even allowed to sit next to each-other. And that is not "get outta my seat".

Someone posted a link to the G crash in HOU on its way to pickup former Pres Bush. If I remember correctly the capt had like 19 billion hours and in the end they put in the wrong ILS freq. I am sure he has done that before but that was not his day.

If a pilot has equal odds of dying on the job at 40 as a 70 year old than their insurance premiums should be the same....and we all know they are not. The reason is not age discrimination on behalf of the insurance company.

 

[pilotyip]

As I wrote in my post:
If a pilot has equal odds of dying on the job at 40 as a 70 year old than their insurance premiums should be the same....and we all know they are not. The reason is not age discrimination on behalf of the insurance company.

might insurance premiums might be different if they only insured poeple passing a 1st class medical?