Over AGE 60 PILOTS TO FLY IN UNITED STATES

[Boeingman]

In a completely unrelated topic, Holy K-rap Boeing! If your posts are indicative of your verbosity in general then I have great sympathy for your passengers.
Just kidding. Type on, John Donne, type on!

LOL!!!, nah my PA's are quick and to the point.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Well....what does a over 60 pilot do right now for a 1st class? Why change anything where thats concerned.

The point of my post was that the pro-Age 60 defenders cite safety as their rationale. When they cry foul at higher medical standards across the board (which could add some marginal degree of safety albeit at a very high cost) their safety argument becomes quite specious.

 

[ivauir]

So then its not about my greed then is it since I am already topped out at the 12+ year pay scale at our company?
But you get to stay their an extra 5 years/
My comments were aimed at the few that continually keep ripping on me in here. You try to use logic and try to make compromises or offer constructive ideas that may benefit everyone. But then you get the comments about keeping your orginal wife ( I only had and still have just 1). Buying your second home ( I only have 1). Making good investments ( I have lived within my means my whole career).
First I hope you don't hink I'm ripping in to you. I respectfully disagree with your position. I cannot recall any compromises you have offered (maybe you did and I missed it)- I offered over 60 in the right seat and was completely ignored.
But all alot of the younger guys see is getting into the left seat and maybe having to wait a few more years to get there if its does go to 65. Most Pilots attitudes to this issue start to change around 40 years old.
You scoff at our perspective, but maybe if you could see it from our point of view we could come up with a compromise that the whole group could support and then you changewould have a much better chance.
If they made it 65 I would probably only go to 62 (current situation) when my Social security kicks in unless I dont have any medical coverage at that time which would probably force me to go to 65. Medical is a hugh deal to me. I have seen lots of bad things happen to people over my life in reguards to health and if you arnt covered you loose big time. Now I am sure the same smart A$$es will come in and say then go buy some. I have health insurance with my work and will buy it if and when its needed and not a moment sooner.

All these guys say they want the change, but won't stay much past 60. I don't buy it. In the heat of the moment with the temptation that fat paycheck dangling I bet almost all stay. There are great reasons to change the rule, but why should one generation reap the full benefit at everyone else's expense?

 

[Occam's Razor]

The point of my post was that the pro-Age 60 defenders cite safety as their rationale. When they cry foul at higher medical standards across the board (which could add some marginal degree of safety albeit at a very high cost) their safety argument becomes quite specious.

I think you misunderstand the argument.

The argument is that the current testing and standards (none and none) are adequate because age is not a statistically significant contributing factor in Pt 121 mishaps. Age 60 is a low enough age to preclude the requirement for standards and/or testing.

The status quo is safe. Changing the age limit would require more testing...and that is not good.

 

[Boeingman]

Changing the age limit would require more testing.

Says who?

 

[32LT10]

LOL!!!, nah my PA's are quick and to the point.

Do you tell them about your Big Watch, L-39, Citation, Investments and some other verbose BS .

Ever wonder why you never fly with the same F/O twice?

 

[32LT10]

Says who?

ALPA took a poll and the old gompers lost. You CO guys wanted to be forgiven and ALPA let you back in. Do you not support your association and what the majority of the membership wanted? That is right, it is all about you. I keep forgetting what I am dealing with.

 

[Boeingman]

The Brain Surgeon Is Back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you tell them about your Big Watch, L-39, Citation, Investments and some other verbose BS .

Ever wonder why you never fly with the same F/O twice?

Now that is odd I seem to see the same guys on a regular basis. Is this something you speak from experience Brain Surgeon? I wouldn't know this problem.

I love the jealousy that drips with each of your posts. You asked for it and you got it. I want to thank you for making my point as well.

P.S. It just dawned on me that my Aero has the same dark green color stripes as your envy. Imagine that!

 

[Bringupthebird]

I think you misunderstand the argument.

The argument is that the current testing and standards (none and none) are adequate because age is not a statistically significant contributing factor in Pt 121 mishaps. Age 60 is a low enough age to preclude the requirement for standards and/or testing.

The status quo is safe. Changing the age limit would require more testing...and that is not good.

Any safety issue regarding age must be viewed as a health issue. If these Age 60 proponents champion the cause of safety (actually, " the world would be safer if I was captain") then they must also advocate stricter medical standards for all pilots. Why stop with just kicking out the old guys? Why not fat guys with high cholesterol? Why not disallow all special issuance medicals and waivers? Why not bring back 20/20 vision?

The answer is simple. They cannot hide behind the safety straw man. They use the defense when it suits them and abandon it when it doesn't. The sixty-year-old of today in no way resembles the sixty-year-old of 1958. In fact to gain an actuarial equivalent you would have a retirement age of 71, so 65 is no great stretch.

We can't pretend that advances in health and medicine haven't been made since 1958. And it is proper that the retirement age will be raised over and over, or simply replaced with a medical and skills-based testing to reflect these advances while insuring public safety. Raising the retirement age to 65 doesn't solve everything, but it is a small, very small step in the right direction.

 

[Boeingman]

ALPA took a poll and the old gompers lost. You CO guys wanted to be forgiven and ALPA let you back in. Do you not support your association and what the majority of the membership wanted? That is right, it is all about you. I keep forgetting what I am dealing with.

I'd like to see that poll today after the NWA and DAL bankruptcies. I would also like to see how the retirees that you and yours hosed would vote today if they would have known then what some of the backstabbers like yourself planned on doing to them. All in the name to save your skins...right I forgot your excuse du joir.

Thats right, I forgot what I am dealing with. A pathetic little man that has no life outside of Uni...er YONITED. You gladly bent over for not one, but two paycuts while screwing your peers who left a legacy for you to destroy.

As far as ALPA, I never asked nor needed to be forgiven. Fact is, ALPA came groveling back to CAL. With ilk like yourself in the association, it is hard to suport anything with ALPA these days.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Says who?

The FAA, in their testimony in court, and in their presentations to the A.T.A.

 

[Boeingman]

The FAA, in their testimony in court, and in their presentations to the A.T.A.

I was speaking more from a position that nothing has been decided on how they will proceed.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Any safety issue regarding age must be viewed as a health issue. If these Age 60 proponents champion the cause of safety (actually, " the world would be safer if I was captain") then they must also advocate stricter medical standards for all pilots.

Ok...you don't understand the argument. That's cool.

Here's the part you're missing: The current system is working. It is not broken. Need proof? - The safest form of transportation on the planet is provided by US airlines operating under Pt. 121 .

One of the rules that ensures this ne plus ultra safety record is Age 60...even without specific standards for cognitive ability and reflexes, and without testing for same.

Before you start cutting-and-pasting a reply, please be sure you include admission that the current system is producing the safety record desired...the best. Also, please include empirical evidence that safety would be enhanced by changing the rule.

As simplistic as it may seem, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is tough nut for you to crack. If you can't provide a compelling argument for change that includes benefits for the system (ie: enhanced safety), then it's simply a "What's best for ME!" issue.

Why stop with just kicking out the old guys? Why not fat guys with high cholesterol? Why not disallow all special issuance medicals and waivers? Why not bring back 20/20 vision?

There are rules for cholesterol and vision. There is a rule for Age 60. Together, the result has been the safest model for transportation in the world.

When the feds grounded Bob Hoover, they hit the issue head-on...there is no standard for cogntive ability. It would be nice if the traveling public accepted the ability of a pilot to perform dead-stick acro as proof that he can fly them safely, instead of relying on his ability to recite a spoken 9-digit number sequence backward (one of the cog-screen tests given to airline pilots returning from LOC or depression-related suspensions). But that's not the way rules work, is it?

The sixty-year-old of today in no way resembles the sixty-year-old of 1958. In fact to gain an actuarial equivalent you would have a retirement age of 71, so 65 is no great stretch.

Using the same logic; since the air transportation system is safer than is was in 1958, we should do whatever it takes to continue the trend. Why change something that has made us safer?

 

[FN FAL]

Did anyone stop to think that it's safer when you have a young guy and an old guy in the cockpit?

The young guy says, "Let's fower one oh it dude!"

The old guy says, "No, lets not!"

Safety is achieved, lives are saved and the old man doesn't forget to put the landing gear down on approach, because the hand-eye coordination of the child pilot saves the day.

Teamwork.

 

[Dash Power]

Using the same logic; since the air transportation system is safer than is was in 1958, we should do whatever it takes to continue the trend. Why change something that has made us safer?

Quantifying whether today is safer than 1958 because of the age requirement is difficult to do. Many other factors such as technology and experience of time may cloud the water so to speak. If 55 years old is more safe than 65 years old then 50 years old should be safer than 60 years and so on and so on. If there is a maximum age that is safer then shouldn't there be a minimum age as well? I know I'm a better pilot now in my forties as I was in my twenties. Not judgment based on experience, but judgment based on maturity.

I believe that the people who do not want the reg change use safety as an argument that is simply not clearly proven. And on that note, the people who do want the reg change automatically say it is not a safety issue when in all reality, it really is not the issue on hand. The issue is about seniority and money.

Not admitting this is truly denying this to yourself.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Quantifying whether today is safer than 1958 because of the age requirement is difficult to do.

Agree.

I was questioning the logic, not stating a thesis. Here is is: "Using the same logic; since the air transportation system is safer than is was in 1958, we should do whatever it takes to continue the trend. Why change something that has made us safer?"

If there is a maximum age that is safer then shouldn't there be a minimum age as well?

I believe there is. You must be 23 to fly as Pt 121 PIC. You must also have 1,500 hours TT. Based on the safety record of Pt 121 carriers, it appears those rules are doing their part too.

I know I'm a better pilot now in my forties as I was in my twenties. Not judgment based on experience, but judgment based on maturity.

Unfortunately, the FAR's aren't written for you...or for me. They are written for all of us. Many of them are written in blood. What is the compelling reason to change something that is working?

I believe that the people who do not want the reg change use safety as an argument that is simply not clearly proven. And on that note, the people who do want the reg change automatically say it is not a safety issue when in all reality, it really is not the issue on hand. The issue is about seniority and money.

Agree!

 

[Phaedrus]

Rock on Dash.

 

[Dash Power]

I believe there is. You must be 23 to fly as Pt 121 PIC. You must also have 1,500 hours TT. Based on the safety record of Pt 121 carriers, it appears those rules are doing their part too.

After reading my statement I apologize for not being
more clear.

If safety is the issue...would you rather ride in the back of a 737 with a 23 year old Captain...or a 64 year old Captain? If we are going to question the reg of 60 years old, then naturally we should question the age of the 23 year old? That is my point.

Why change something that has made us safer?"

Doesn't this statement directly infer that the age change is a safety issue?

 

[Phaedrus]

Easy. 64. But that isn't really the question, is it? Those aren't, in reality, my choices.

 

[CaptainMark]

Obviously the 23yr old has his sh$t together...the 64 yr old has his sh$t in a bag strapped to his leg..i will go with the 23yr old...