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

1261 days to go!

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
Heard a flight of four UH-60s in the Persian Gulf yesterday. Call sign: Merkin 56 flight. ?
 
Common sense prevails, and in Federal Court, no less.

Indeed!! Interesting news and likely to have some far reaching effects. I think FAR 91K will have a retirement age max pretty soon, and that will pbly spill over else where.

It's too bad the greed imperative took over this profession. Leaving 121 early at 60 and then flying 91 to age 70+ will be over for everyone. The weak pilots thought they deserved what the sharp ones were getting. Soon it will be over.
 
Indeed!! Interesting news and likely to have some far reaching effects. I think FAR 91K will have a retirement age max pretty soon, and that will pbly spill over else where.

It's too bad the greed imperative took over this profession. Leaving 121 early at 60 and then flying 91 to age 70+ will be over for everyone. The weak pilots thought they deserved what the sharp ones were getting. Soon it will be over.

I don't see Congress or anybody at the FAA clamoring for extending the rule to 91K/135 so don't hold your breath.

The Fed missed their chance when they extended the age to 65. The trade-off for pushing the age to 65 should have been applying it to ALL compensated flying. There was no demand for it then. There won't be any demand for it now even with this court ruling (which actually first came out in May).
 

Latest resources

Back
Top