Age 60 informal poll

[Klako]

Klako

I think most of those problems are due to a tough economy, management miscues and a changing environment.

And besides just what does that have to do with the notion that the pro 60 crowd is mistaken about their endeavor? Maybe you can explain why the ICAO rule includes a requirement for you to have someone under 60 if you are over 60. Do you think aging is an issue?

If yes how would you screen for old age issues?
If no then you think the ICAO rule is bad?

What would you propose that is better?

Please answer the questions. Logically.

You say most of the airline problems are due to a tough economy, management miscues and a changing environment.
Then why are the companies that are healthy like SW in favor of increasing the age 60 rule? I say APA/ALPA with their disfunctional politics is the primary cause of their problems. John Prater may be their savior.


The ICAO rule includes a requirement to have someone under 60 if the other pilot is over 60, probably as an interim measure to safely verify and gather more data.

How should we screen for old age issues? The goal should be to demonstate that age alone is not the issue. Screen all pilots with the same standard as the age 65 pilot. A person’s age must not be the sole determination of one’s ability to safely perform the duties of an airline pilot. No one has proven that physical and mental decline can be measured by age alone. We have all observed that some people decline in their physical and mental abilities faster that others. There is the experience factor to be considered also. Everyone since the Wright Brothers has known that the more experienced pilot is the safer pilot. Though highly experienced pilots may suffer some varying amount decline in physical abilities as they age, their experience will more than compensate for any slight physical decline in performance.


What would I propose that is better? I would increase the medical standards for every pilot regardless of age and make retirement a choice not an arbitrary age.

 

[Cyclone]

OK thanks for answering the quesion Klako

I agree that age alone isn't the issue. So we have to come up with something better than just "at this age you turn into a pumpkin." I am convinced that the ICAO proposal is worse than what we have because:
1) It uses age alone (just as the current rule does)
2) It acknowledges that age is an issue (with the over/under caveat)
3) It errs on the wrong side of caution.

Below is your quote:
"How should we screen for old age issues? The goal should be to demonstate that age alone is not the issue. Screen all pilots with the same standard as the age 65 pilot. A person’s age must not be the sole determination of one’s ability to safely perform the duties of an airline pilot. No one has proven that physical and mental decline can be measured by age alone. We have all observed that some people decline in their physical and mental abilities faster that others. There is the experience factor to be considered also. Everyone since the Wright Brothers has known that the more experienced pilot is the safer pilot. Though highly experienced pilots may suffer some varying amount decline in physical abilities as they age, their experience will more than compensate for any slight physical decline in performance."

Experience is one factor. Age is one factor.
Experience doesn't have a constant slope that benefits to the upside; at some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in and then you don't really gain that much through more experience...we all can learn but...it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks too. At some point experience can no longer make up for this. Larry Bird and Magic Johnson used to be great...Jordan too. I used to be able to run a 4.7 40...not anymore...was I fast? I can still run. Am I fast? It's all relative...in the grand scheme of things no.

Experience isn't a bandaid for aging...it helps...up to a point and then eventually experience can no longer compensate. We should make sure the rule forces you to retire before this point...not after that happens...then it's too late.

The rule is here to protect all of us from ourselves.

As far as age goes...the slope is different for all of us and it isn't at the same or even a constant pace. This is why 60 seems unfair to you guys about to turn 60. Once we start to deteriorate one thing is certain. We deny deny deny that it is happening to us. My mother-in-law can "see just fine" despite macular degeneration. God help anyone on the road if she is out there tonight.

The law should protect us from this mindset. Adopting the ICAO standard will take us away from safety and sanity. Why should we do it just because the international goofs are doing it. Like I said before...let's do something better. The reality is that a lot of pilots dread this because they may get grounded next week (because they should get grounded next week) and they aren't even 60 yet.

 

[FoxHunter]

http://www.age60rule.com/docs/2005_ICAO_Full_Analysis.pdf

PDF Page 29-30 Secretariats Comments

older pilots do not present any particular risk to flight safety. Neither is the Secretariat aware of scientific research that dictates the maintenance of the current upper age limit. On the contrary, studies conducted in Japan (1990) and United States (1993) both gave indication that pilots’ retirement age could safely be increased by several years, and a very recent study of 165 commuter aircraft accidents in the United States between 1983 and 1997 points to no notable differences between the age groups except that the percentage of crashes involving pilot error decreased somewhat with age, being lowest for pilots between 58 and 63. The over-all conclusion was that neither the prevalence nor the pattern of aircraft accidents change significantly as age increases from the 40s to the SOs and early 60s. In another recent study in the United States, a cohort of more than 3 300 commuter and air taxi pilots, who were between 45 and 54 years old in 1987, were followed for eleven years. No age-related increase in crash risk was shown, but the risk of crash decreased by half among pilots with more than 5 000 flying hours at baseline. In Japan, in a study of its 60-63 year-old airline pilots, it was found that none had been involved in an accident during the ten-year study period (1992- 2001) while during the same period 323 accidents ncluding twenty-seven airline accidents had been reported to the authorities. The purpose of simulator checks, line flying checks and regulatory health examinations is to contain the risk of pilot ‘failure’ during the period of validity of the rating or medical certificate; it appears from available evidence that such checks do ensure adequate protection of flight safety for those aged under 60 years. The Secretariat knows of no reason to believe that they will fail to do so for those aged 60 to 64 years. Moreover, there is still today, as stated by AsMA, insufficient medical evidence to support any restrictions based on age alone. In the JAA countries, the upper age limit of 60 has been maintained for pilots in single-crew operations, but since 1 July 1999, the JAA regulations have allowed airline pilots to continue flying until age 65 with limitation to multi-crew operations and with the proviso that no other member of the flight crew is older than 59. However, the Secretariat is aware that this proviso was not based on medical grounds but rather the result of a compromise between the different parties. Although recommended by IATA, the Secretariat does not consider this proviso safety relevant for the following reason: For the individual pilot engaged in multi-crew operations, it is today generally accepted that a medical incapacitation risk of one percent per annum (“The 1% Rule”) is fully compatible with the desired flight safety level for airline operations. This risk level corresponds to one medical incapacitation per 100 years or approximately one million hours. Male pilots from Scandinavia, United Kingdom and NorthAmerica are lilely to approach this risk level when they are around 65, female pilots three to four years later. The risk of two older pilots becoming medically incapacitated at the same time, during the same one-hour flight, is thus one per trillion hours (1 trillion [FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]— [/FONT]1012 or one million [FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]x [/FONT]one million), a risk so low that it can safely he disregarded.

 

[General Lee]

Two over age 60 pilots may not become medically incapacitated, as your report above suggests, but what about both falling asleep? Very likely. They are old. How about depth perception, hearing problems, and night vision or vision problems? That is an accident waiting to happen. Not safe.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Klako]

I agree that age alone isn't the issue. So we have to come up with something better than just "at this age you turn into a pumpkin." I am convinced that the ICAO proposal is worse than what we have because:
1) It uses age alone (just as the current rule does)
2) It acknowledges that age is an issue (with the over/under caveat)
3) It errs on the wrong side of caution.

Below is your quote:
"How should we screen for old age issues? The goal should be to demonstate that age alone is not the issue. Screen all pilots with the same standard as the age 65 pilot. A person’s age must not be the sole determination of one’s ability to safely perform the duties of an airline pilot. No one has proven that physical and mental decline can be measured by age alone. We have all observed that some people decline in their physical and mental abilities faster that others. There is the experience factor to be considered also. Everyone since the Wright Brothers has known that the more experienced pilot is the safer pilot. Though highly experienced pilots may suffer some varying amount decline in physical abilities as they age, their experience will more than compensate for any slight physical decline in performance."

Experience is one factor. Age is one factor.
Experience doesn't have a constant slope that benefits to the upside; at some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in and then you don't really gain that much through more experience...we all can learn but...it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks too. At some point experience can no longer make up for this. Larry Bird and Magic Johnson used to be great...Jordan too. I used to be able to run a 4.7 40...not anymore...was I fast? I can still run. Am I fast? It's all relative...in the grand scheme of things no.

Experience isn't a bandaid for aging...it helps...up to a point and then eventually experience can no longer compensate. We should make sure the rule forces you to retire before this point...not after that happens...then it's too late.

The rule is here to protect all of us from ourselves.

As far as age goes...the slope is different for all of us and it isn't at the same or even a constant pace. This is why 60 seems unfair to you guys about to turn 60. Once we start to deteriorate one thing is certain. We deny deny deny that it is happening to us. My mother-in-law can "see just fine" despite macular degeneration. God help anyone on the road if she is out there tonight.

The law should protect us from this mindset. Adopting the ICAO standard will take us away from safety and sanity. Why should we do it just because the international goofs are doing it. Like I said before...let's do something better. The reality is that a lot of pilots dread this because they may get grounded next week (because they should get grounded next week) and they aren't even 60 yet.

You say that ICAO:
1) Uses age alone - Yes, but with age 65 a an interim measure while safely gathering data to verify current conclusions, all intended to justify the ultimate goal of abolishing age alone as the standard altogether.

2) It (ICAO) acknowledges that age is an issue - Only that age alone has been wrongly associated with safety. The ICAO studies are very compelling.

3) It (ICAO) errs on the wrong side of caution - It is abundantly clear that the age 60 rule has errored on the far side of reason, that age 60 is not about safety, that age 60 is really only a smokescreen for political and monetary advantage. That ALPA/APA have institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots. The anti-change advocate's position is that, in spite of numerous scientific studies, there is insufficient evidence to prove that an airline pilot would be as safe or safer if allowed to fly beyond age 60 and therefore all airline pilots must be grounded on their 60th birthday. What a pitiful distortion of logic that would deprive an otherwise qualified person their right to perform in their lifelong career.

You say that (the current age 60 rule) "is here to protect all of us from ourselves." - I say it just an unjust excuse to force qualified pilots out of their profession.

If you agree that age alone isn't the issue, then you would have to agree that if the United States Federal Government is to continue the age restriction in FAR Part 121-383, given that a pilot is otherwise qualified to practice in their profession, then that government must prove that there are enough reasons to deny pilots the full enjoyment of their profession. If pilots are denied piloting an aircraft for no reason other than because of age, then it is the Federal Government’s burden to first prove that all pilots suffer an unacceptable decline in their ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public. The proof that age 60 alone determines when a FAR Part 121 pilot must not operate aircraft in FAR Part 121 operations is something that Congress has directed the FAA to come up with but the FAA has failed to produce such proof. That proof simply does not exist.

The age 60 restriction in FAR Part 121.383(c) should be extended or abolished until/unless it is proven that all Far Part 121 pilots suffer an unacceptable decline in ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public.

 

[General Lee]

Klako,

Are all medicals the same? Do you go to a doctor who pencil whips your medical for $100? Does anyone go to those?

And, where were you 10 years ago when your Captains were about to leave? Did you think about standing up and telling them "hey, please stick around here for 5 more years, you still "got it."" ? Did you suggest that? No? Were you thinking the same thing as most of us are now? ("These guys are dangerous, thank gawd they are on their way out, and I finally get the opportunity to go to the left seat and make some more money for my family, as they did for their's.") You didn't? Hypocrite. These guys need to leave and hit the golf course. Really.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Cyclone]

The issue

Klako

Age is the issue.

Do we want to allow pilots ANY age flying airplanes? I agree with you in theory that there should be a screen that assesses a pilot's ablility to do the job, to have the physical and cognitive skills to do the job. That would be great, in theory. How do we implement this in practice.

I am not concerned about incapacitation as much as I am mental errors associated with age. It will happen to all of us unless we die first.

We have to chose something to use as a screen. The current rule relies on age 60 to keep us safe.

If you want to propose something other than age...tell me please...I am all ears. The practical side of being able to enforce this is more difficult.

We need some way to prevent guys who are too old to do the job from doing the job. We need an effective screen. Age 60 isn't perfect. The ICAO proposal is worse. It has all of the bad that the Age 60 rule is (it is still arbitrary) and it is more discriminatory (because it places the burden of safety on the younger, less compensated crewmember). That isn't fair and it isn't safe.

You guys won't even acknowledge that your skills diminish with age. That is ludicrous.

The ICAO is forcing a younger pilot to be there with an older pilot. That in and of itself is an extraordinarly compelling statement. That is a compelling argument that after all it is all about age.

 

[Klako]

Klako,

Are all medicals the same? Do you go to a doctor who pencil whips your medical for $100? Does anyone go to those?

And, where were you 10 years ago when your Captains were about to leave? Did you think about standing up and telling them "hey, please stick around here for 5 more years, you still "got it."" ? Did you suggest that? No? Were you thinking the same thing as most of us are now? ("These guys are dangerous, thank gawd they are on their way out, and I finally get the opportunity to go to the left seat and make some more money for my family, as they did for their's.") You didn't? Hypocrite. These guys need to leave and hit the golf course. Really.


Bye Bye--General Lee

I continue to see an AME who has the reputation for being the most strict Class I examiner in town. He will not compromise the current FAA standards.

I can honestly say that I have been continiously active in fighting to change the age 60 rule since I was 18 years old. In 1965, I remember helping my then next door neighbor, who was then a Western Airlines Captain and a Western ALPA Executive Council member. I helped him stuff envelopes for a campaign to repeal the age 60 rule then and I have been at it ever since.

The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) at first fought hard to repeal the age 60 rule. Click here to see: The Chronology of the "Age 60 Rule"
http://www.ppf.org/chrono.htm

In 1968 this was ALPA’s official stance on the Age 60 Rule:

“ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE . The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provision is unreasonably discriminating against all of the air line pilots. Shortening a pilots career with no realistic justification is cheating the public as well as the industry. ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.”

Sadly, ALPA turned traitor to it’s senior members after supporting a change in the rule for over twenty years. ALPA has now institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots. One would have to beg answers these questions:
When did younger pilots became more valuable than experienced pilots?
Why would ALPA, a labor union, actively support a rule that discriminates against its own members, forces them to leave their workplaces and leave them with reduced benefits?

I recall this WAL captain often saying, “ this age 60 rule will be a thing of the past long before you reach age 60”. I cannot believe that it is still here over 40 years later.

 

[freeflyer14]

You say that ICAO:
1) Uses age alone - Yes, but with age 65 a an interim measure while safely gathering data to verify current conclusions, all intended to justify the ultimate goal of abolishing age alone as the standard altogether.

You seriously want there to be no age rule in place at all? You really think pilots will somehow know when to call it quits? Do you really believe most pilots will know when their skills have degraded to the point that they are unsafe? And do you really think a doctor in a 15 minute check up is going to be able to determine that? I don't.

Care to link to these current conclusions you speak of? I'm sure there is soo much unbiased, long term data on this point.

 

[freeflyer14]

I continue to see an AME who has the reputation for being the most strict Class I examiner in town. He will not compromise the current FAA standards.

My hat is off to you, however, I truely believe you are in the minority on this one... I agree with General Lee's statement.