1261 days to go!

[BushwickBill]

Haven't been on FI for ages. Glad to see the geezer meter final wind down to zero. Still no jobs. Oh well. Hope you guys can find another way to keep hope alive.

 

[pilotyip]

Interesting points Laker but let me ask you this: Do you agree or disagree that the change from 60 to 65 should have included an age-based limit on ALL compensated flying?

Would this include Flight Instructing? When I retire at age 75, that is what I plan on doing. Back to the previous post, this has been the safest 5 years in the airline history. Could it be that expereince in the cockpit has saved 100's of lives?

 

[gutshotdraw]

Would this include Flight Instructing? When I retire at age 75, that is what I plan on doing. Back to the previous post, this has been the safest 5 years in the airline history. Could it be that expereince in the cockpit has saved 100's of lives?

Or maybe it was the 49-year-old Captain taking the jet before the 73-year-old, 33-year airline, deaf, wheezing co-pilot could run it off the runway.

Ask me how I know....

There's a limit Yip. And it should apply to 91K and 135 as well. At least an instructional flight wouldn't risk the life of some poor schumck in the back so caveat emptor would apply.

 

[pilotyip]

Or maybe it was the 49-year-old Captain taking the jet before the 73-year-old, 33-year airline, deaf, wheezing co-pilot could run it off the runway.

Ask me how I know....

There's a limit Yip. And it should apply to 91K and 135 as well. At least an instructional flight wouldn't risk the life of some poor schumck in the back so caveat emptor would apply.

Yes that would be one way to look at it, but the history of accidents is clustered at a much younger age. The older pilots will know when to pull the plug, they will get input from their AME, their Check airman, and fellow pilots.
These guys have figured it out. http://unitedflyingoctogenarians.org/

 

[75 Driver]

doesn't effect the accident rate

On a strict numerical basis I would agree with you, but on further analysis I think you might find that in less crowded skies mistakes especially communication related have decreased almost on a linear basis with the reduction in traffic. NATA sources say this has always been the case.

On a personal level, I know that when I do not sit in line for an hour before heading across the ocean I arrive in Europe much better rested and rarely have to Hold the two or three times that we used to before the traffic slowed down. Have not been rerouted in the Track system for years now vs a nightly occurrance several years ago. All these things are factors that sometimes led to less than optimal performance issues dealt with in the morning ops meeting.

Sitting calmly preflighting with plenty of time before departure vs waiting for the aircraft at the gate and jumping in at the last moment has certainly led to fewer mistakes according to our data. The FOQA data has showed that crews are much more stabilized in the current environment vs the hurry up that was going on several years ago.

I certainly agree that having a more experienced group is fundamental to safety improvements.

 

[Flopgut]

Would this include Flight Instructing? When I retire at age 75, that is what I plan on doing. Back to the previous post, this has been the safest 5 years in the airline history. Could it be that expereince in the cockpit has saved 100's of lives?

Age 65 is more likely to have contributed to the accident in Buffalo than it is to have bolstered the overall safety record. Experienced pilot legislation that kept pilots after 60 put thousands of younger, highly experienced pilots out of work entirely. If ethical seniority progression (that included pilots exiting the top of the seniority list) had not been halted, perhaps the sort [type] of pilots in Buffalo might not have been paired together. Now, that won't make a dent in your thinking, but I assure you, oversight is asking the question.

Or, consider this: The RLA provides for re-allocating of experienced workers throughout the profession when furloughing takes place... FOR RAIL only. That's in place for the sake of safety. You old guys just took whatever served your own needs. Not a care at all if the rule was the right thing or even safer. If you were interested in, or actually understood safety, you would not have settled on what you did. The rule change needed to be comprehensive.

 

[Flopgut]

And finally -

I'd be the first to say that it was a disruptive change, hard on many people.
Most of the guys I know thought it would slow things down (a freeze in retirements does not, with but perhaps a few exceptions, make things move backward). Slow is annoying. It's not a killer. But the recession was an ass kicker. Now it wasn't a matter of pace because as airlines reacted to the crappy market our pilot lists were impacted. It was a reversal, one that no one saw coming. Younger/junior pilots were most severely impacted. And that sucked.

However, as I acknowledge that younger pilots got hammered due to their lack of advancement or security, it would nice to hear that some younger folks understand that many older pilots were hurt over the years as well.

It's not so easy to plan if your airline vanishes. It's disingenuous to think that if someone has a pension they should assume in their plannig that it will go away. Oh, maybe recently people feel like that but it wasn't a common thing (for a pension to vanish) not all that long ago.

But it's not all about pensions. There was the discrimination aspect, which was acknowledged by many pilots, the EEOC, many in Congress and even within the FAA. You can say anything you want, but you can't change that reality. You also cannot say that someone should not, if he is healthy and competent, stay to continue doing what he likes to do, what he loves to do. It's not a matter of "getting a life". Most of us have tons of other activities we do or can do. But FLYING! That is and always has been special to most of us.

The rule sucked the day it was passed. It sucked even more 47 years later. It was ripe to change, almost changed numerous times, and finally was
changed in '07. It was a ********************-y surprise to have the recession hammer us. No one wanted the age change to happen the way it did. It just did.

Some guys got hurt. It's a setback for some, an annoyance for others, a disaster to more than a few. But one of the driving ideas all along, an idea that got more and more support as pensions vanished and our airlines changed, is that if a guy was healthy and competent he should not be forced to leave his cockpit. That's what drove SWAPA all the way back in 1994.

So, today, our careers have been extended five years. It will not benefit some. Their position on their seniority list was akin to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, as a class, pilots benefit from age 65 snce our lives and careers are longer. Five years matters - for the principle, joy of flying and pensions. That's it in a nutshell.

I have an aging mother in need of surgery, a move for her to move to assisted living to organize, a friend who has recurring cancer. It's time for me to let this dog lie and, yes, Flop...celebrate Christmas with prayers for those in trouble.

That's a fair portrayal of what has happened. I think you're starting to see my point. Additionally, for every ALPA misstep leading up to the change, the old guy contingent has made just as many after. You guys should have closed ranks and made sure you showed the right behavior in the years after the change. Instead what you've done is made it clear to everyone in our very large audience that this was only about yourselves and about keeping seniority. I'm interested in what is going to take place in the next 5-8 years. There are a great number of pilots who will be approaching the "experienced pilot" years during that time, and absent a boost like you got, they won't be able to retire. Those extra 5 years are not enough. Our lives and careers are longer, yes. But as a class we now have MORE problems. You say that's "akin to wrong place at the wrong time", but that could have just as easily been said about you getting pushed out at 60. Bottom line: If the younger guys on here seem rowdy, well, there's a reason. You getting on here and trying to shout it down with some explanation doesn't help in the least. You're just as wrong about some things as you are right about others. Unselfish solutions are what we need.

 

[gutshotdraw]

The older pilots will know when to pull the plug, they will get input from their AME, their Check airman, and fellow pilots.
These guys have figured it out. http://unitedflyingoctogenarians.org/

That's EXACTLY the problem at my company. There is more than a handful that DON'T realize they are past the time to pull the plug. One 70+ type has been called in for simulator evaluation more than once after "input" from fellow pilots but he kept the box upright long enough for the company to sign him off. Probably because they are scared to death of an age discrimination lawsuit since there ISN'T a Federal limit for 91K/135. He didn't "get the hint" and is now the only name on my "no-fly" list after scaring the poo out of my flight attendant and me the last time we flew together.

The airline guys here are worried about flying with somebody who is over 60. We've got nearly a dozen JUST IN MY FLEET that are PAST 70! WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE YIP? 80? 90? By nature, pilots have large egos. Myself included. Very few "figure it out" on their own.

 

[pilotyip]

On a strict numerical basis I would agree with you, but on further analysis I think you might find that in less crowded skies mistakes especially communication related have decreased almost on a linear basis with the reduction in traffic. NATA sources say this has always been the case.

On a personal level, I know that when I do not sit in line for an hour before heading across the ocean I arrive in Europe much better rested and rarely have to Hold the two or three times that we used to before the traffic slowed down. Have not been rerouted in the Track system for years now vs a nightly occurrance several years ago. All these things are factors that sometimes led to less than optimal performance issues dealt with in the morning ops meeting.

Sitting calmly preflighting with plenty of time before departure vs waiting for the aircraft at the gate and jumping in at the last moment has certainly led to fewer mistakes according to our data. The FOQA data has showed that crews are much more stabilized in the current environment vs the hurry up that was going on several years ago.

I certainly agree that having a more experienced group is fundamental to safety improvements.

Nice touch of reality, rare on FI. As opposed to the pilot centered victim post.

The airline guys here are worried about flying with somebody who is over 60. We've got nearly a dozen JUST IN MY FLEET that are PAST 70! WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE YIP? 80? 90? By nature, pilots have large egos. Myself included. Very few "figure it out" on their own.

I fly with some guys approaching 80, they do a good job, then again they have younger guy like me in the cockpit to back them up.

Age 65 is more likely to have contributed to the accident in Buffalo than it is to have bolstered the overall safety record.

Lets me get this, the age 65 rule caused two pilots in their 30's and 40's to crash? Wouldn't have been better to have two 60+ experienced guys in that cockpit?


BTW Merry Christmas to all, thank God for everything we have compared to the rest of the population.

 

[gutshotdraw]

I fly with some guys approaching 80, they do a good job, then again they have younger guy like me in the cockpit to back them up.

Nicely dodged. Again.

WHERE do you draw the line Yip? We have to legislate based on the average, not the exception. It IS a safety issue in our operation.