Age 60 informal poll

[luckytohaveajob]

AGE 60 needs remain as it currently is written because...

The FAA should not adopt the new ICAO standard’s maximum pilot age of 65 years of age because— ​

1. ICAO did not conduct a safety risk analysis to evaluate the impact of the change in the standard on safety. Before initiating a rulemaking that could change the Age 60 Rule, the FAA should conduct a safety risk assessment with the participation of airline, pilot, and aeromedical representatives.

[FONT=Arial Narrow,Arial Narrow]Age 60 ARC Recommendations to the FAA 16 Age 60 ARC Recommendations to the FAA 17 [/FONT]

The new age 65 standard arbitrarily replaces one age limit with another.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]T[/FONT]here is no criterion-based process for determining pilot fitness to fly past 60 years of age.

No mitigations have been offered that would provide for an equivalent level of safety if the ICAO standard were adopted over the existing Age 60 Rule.

Adoption by the FAA of the new ICAO standard would reduce the current U.S. airline safety standard.

The FAA will be in compliance with the new ICAO standard on November 23, 2006, without changing the existing regulations because the standard does not preclude the United States (or any ICAO State) from setting a lower maximum age limit.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Before initiating a rulemaking that could change the Age 60 Rule, the FAA should conduct a safety risk assessment with the participation of airline, pilot, and aeromedical representatives.
[/FONT]

 

[FoxHunter]

Age 65, The New World Standard

Finally, we agree with medical and flight safety experts who have studied the Age 60 Rule and have conclusively found that experience is the best indicator of how a pilot will perform when there is a crisis in the cockpit. Therefore, the ICAO standard improves safety by keeping the most experienced pilots in the air for up to an additional 5 years.​

[FONT=Arial,Arial]The FAA Should Immediately Adopt the ICAO Age 65 Standard [/FONT]
The Adopt the ICAO Standard Working Group recommends that the FAA revise its current Age 60 Rule by adopting ICAO Amendment No. 167 to increase the upper age limit for pilots to 65 years of age, provided another pilot in the cockpit is under 60 years of age.​

For domestic operations, the FAA should consider waiving or amending the over-under provision and allow both pilots to be over 60 years of age. Eliminating the over-under provision would streamline many implementation issues and benefit the industry.​

The working group further recommends that the FAA initiate the regulatory process necessary to implement these changes immediately upon receipt of the ARC Report.​

[FONT=Arial,Arial]Key Factors Considered in Adopting the Pro-Change Position [/FONT]​

1. ICAO Amendment 167 provides a catalyst and a rationale for immediate change.​

1. Beginning November 23, 2006, foreign pilots over 60 years of age will be allowed to fly in U.S. airspace; unless the FAA changes the Age 60 Rule, U.S. pilots will still be forced to retire at 60 years of age.
2. If foreign pilots over 60 years of age are deemed safe to fly in U.S. airspace, then there is clearly no rational explanation for applying a different standard to U.S. pilots.
3. One level of safety, two sets of rules[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]: [/FONT]This is a double standard that cannot be tolerated.
4. ICAO conducted an international survey of flight safety data and found no evidence to support an upper age limit of 60 years of age for commercial pilots.
5. ICAO recognizes that pilot performance, longevity, and health have improved dramatically, along with the aircraft, systems and the aviation operational environment.
6. ICAO surveyed existing flight safety data which was conducted both in the United States and abroad and came to the conclusion that a "higher upper age limit is compatible with safe flying." They based their findings on "[d]ata compiled from 64 States, accumulated experience with well over 3,000 older pilots and totaling at least 15,000 pilot-years."
7. The risk analysis conducted by ICAO concluded that the risk of two older pilots becoming medically incapacitated at the same time is "thus one per trillion hours, a risk so low that it can safely be disregarded."

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Nobody would be flying at age 65 for 5 years. The proposed change effectively raises the age limit one day per day. The sky isn't falling.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Experience not the be all end all

Sorry FoxHunter, but experience does not ensure safety.

If it did how would an airline such as XJT have safety operated for the last six years with a complete replacement of all its experienced pilots being hired away, the addition of 200 aircraft, and 2000 new pilots added? The majority of all XJT pilots currently on property have been hired since 1999. And those inexperienced pilots have operated a statistical safe airline with a low level of experience as a perfect example contrary to the theory that experience creates safety.


Below are direct quotes from the ARC study:

"Other concerns expressed by the Federal Aviation Agency (regarding over 60 pilots) included the loss of the ability to perform highly skilled tasks rapidly; resist fatigue; maintain physical stamina; perform effectively in a complex and stressful environment; apply experience, judgment, and reasoning rapidly in new, changing, and emergency situations; and learn new techniques, skills, and procedures." American Airlines got it right in 1960 as well as the ARC study of 2006.

"Older airlines with high-longevity employees would be at a competitive disadvantage to younger airlines with newly-hired employees." The airlines of today are about making money not charity work. How is that experience going to help the profit margins?

"1994: FAA Hilton Study. The accident rates of older pilots with a first class or second class airman medical certificate declined from age 40 through the early 60s, but showed a slight increase from age 65 to 69." Looks like the 65 year is less safe.

 

[FoxHunter]

Sorry FoxHunter, but experience does not ensure safety.

If it did how would an airline such as XJT have safety operated for the last six years with a complete replacement of all its experienced pilots being hired away, the addition of 200 aircraft, and 2000 new pilots added? The majority of all XJT pilots currently on property have been hired since 1999. And those inexperienced pilots have operated a statistical safe airline with a low level of experience as a perfect example contrary to the theory that experience creates safety.


Below are direct quotes from the ARC study:

"Other concerns expressed by the Federal Aviation Agency (regarding over 60 pilots) included the loss of the ability to perform highly skilled tasks rapidly; resist fatigue; maintain physical stamina; perform effectively in a complex and stressful environment; apply experience, judgment, and reasoning rapidly in new, changing, and emergency situations; and learn new techniques, skills, and procedures." American Airlines got it right in 1960 as well as the ARC study of 2006.

"Older airlines with high-longevity employees would be at a competitive disadvantage to younger airlines with newly-hired employees." The airlines of today are about making money not charity work. How is that experience going to help the profit margins?

"1994: FAA Hilton Study. The accident rates of older pilots with a first class or second class airman medical certificate declined from age 40 through the early 60s, but showed a slight increase from age 65 to 69." Looks like the 65 year is less safe.

Only the ALPA/APA side agreed with the above. I realize you're very upset that is changing but you will benefit in later years.

 

[Freight Dog]

I just read that report in its entirety.

Wow!

Same hash/rehash we had here. I'm surprised there's no more talk about any implementation of this and the cost associated with changing this rule. I can assure you the cost would come from our own pockets in forms of paycuts. But hey, who cares about everyone else, right Fox? As long as you get to keep lining your pocket at the expense of everyone else... life is good!

Amazing... simply amazing.

 

[Phaedrus]

Head, meet wall.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

I probably will not make the cut, but it's clear that change is coming sooner rather than later.

"A house divided against itself can not stand."

Change will probably come in a form not expected. And sooner than expected.

 

[Freight Dog]

UF... if you really want to keep working, I'm sure there's some ex-pat work flying 777 in one of ICAO countries where they have a true pilot shortage we were discussing earlier.

I'm thinking Emirates or Eva or another entity like that.

Might be a way to augment your retirement.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

UF... if you really want to keep working, I'm sure there's some ex-pat work flying 777 in one of ICAO countries where they have a true pilot shortage we were discussing earlier.

I'm thinking Emirates or Eva or another entity like that.

Might be a way to augment your retirement.

Thanks for your suggestion but I'm really not interested in being based overseas. My home is here and that's where I'll be.

There are still many angles to this issue.

My primary interest is flying for my company if there will be an 11th hour call from the FAA. But in any case, I have placed my order for my last crew meal before termination.