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

65 year old pilot strokes out inflight!

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
As others have said, as long as the under 60 crew member gets compensated for his/her "necessary" presence it's all good. Scale down after 60 pay by year and tag it on to the pay of those who have to fly with them. Perfect balance.
 
As others have said, as long as the under 60 crew member gets compensated for his/her "necessary" presence it's all good. Scale down after 60 pay by year and tag it on to the pay of those who have to fly with them. Perfect balance.

I agree a pay scale such as that would be fair. But the age 65 pay needs to equal first year pay.

$200k
$150k
$100k
$50k
$25k

ALPA pay tables max out after 12 years as the level of productivity and proficiency is marginal to non-existent after 12 years. Therefore, as productivity and efficiency wanes in the last five years of slacker geezers career so should his respective pay.
 
At the very least, I think the membership needs to oversee how these guys bid. Monthly line value AND equipment. We probably should also ban them from the new Mercedes and bubba mansion.
 
Back to the article, that was pretty amazing. It's horrifying enough to lose one's vision, let alone by yourself at altitude. This was certainly a one in a million chance surviving such an event.
 
I hope this GAO review is something more than their garden variety oversight. If they just publish their findings and the gubment is free to totally disregard them, then it is for naught.

They GAO and the NTSB are at the top of a very short list of gubment entities that I feel are totally accurate and unbiased. They share a common limitation in that their efforts and products are ASOLUTELY IGNORED AND HAVE NO ABILITY TO CHANGE the entities they oversee. The elected idiot ruling class (mis)handles that job.

If the GAO had actual power then gubment efficiency and strategy would approach that of the business world. It is instead a crock of crooks and a den of incompetents.

The NTSB's ability to improve or limit the failings of the FAA and our careers do not need restating to this audience.

Sad and scary all at once.
 
You guys crack me up with this reduced payscale talk.

Have at it. Everyone deserves a dream.
 
"You could hear the apprehension in his voice over the radio and the frustration he was experiencing," said radar controller Richard Eggleton. "I kept saying 'Are you visual?' and he would reply 'No sir, negative, I'm sorry sir.' He kept on apologizing."

Profusely apologizing suggests he knew he was symptomatic. Seems clear he regrets being in that position and perhaps knew better.

Of course, I would expect no less than the same from anybody who desperately has to fly to 65. You know, the same clowns who got this rule changed.
 
I agree a pay scale such as that would be fair. But the age 65 pay needs to equal first year pay.

$200k
$150k
$100k
$50k
$25k

ALPA pay tables max out after 12 years as the level of productivity and proficiency is marginal to non-existent after 12 years. Therefore, as productivity and efficiency wanes in the last five years of slacker geezers career so should his respective pay.
Hard to believe you would support your pay being cut after 12 years at the company or age 60 whichever comes first. That's really quite generous of you but your comrades on the flight deck might not agree.
 
Profusely apologizing suggests he knew he was symptomatic. Seems clear he regrets being in that position and perhaps knew better.

Of course, I would expect no less than the same from anybody who desperately has to fly to 65. You know, the same clowns who got this rule changed.

I don't think he had to fly. ;) The rules never were changed for him in any case. The fact is that you are talking about a guy flying a C-182.
http://www.pprune.org/d-g-general-aviation-questions/350128-lucky-chap-indeed.html

I hope you are a little better informed when you're doing your F/O duties, but reading your posts over the last few years I have my doubts.
 
I don't think he had to fly. ;) The rules never were changed for him in any case. The fact is that you are talking about a guy flying a C-182.
http://www.pprune.org/d-g-general-aviation-questions/350128-lucky-chap-indeed.html

I hope you are a little better informed when you're doing your F/O duties, but reading your posts over the last few years I have my doubts.

"I don't think he had to fly"? Is that really how you want to word that? Doesn't matter if it's a Cessna or your widebody, no one has to fly. You can't nurture a proper safety culture and leverage a more likely incapacitation against ones need for money.

If you think things like this don't eventually come to bear on us simply because it was a Cessna you are incorrect.

It's Captain Flopgut.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top