Age 60 informal poll

[Patriot328]

Change the rule and "grandfather" all current pilots (student and up) to the current age 60 rule. Every new pilot starting from this day forward can retire at 65. Every pilot currently flying must be out by sixty. The rule changes and everyone that "believes in the cause" can be happy...

Oh wait, it doesn't help you out.. must not be good then....

 

[pipe]

Here, let me save Klako and Undaunted some trouble:

CUT ------ PASTE

CUT ------ PASTE

CUT ------ PASTE

Pipe

 

[Klako]

Here, let me save Klako and Undaunted some trouble:

CUT ------ PASTE

CUT ------ PASTE

CUT ------ PASTE

Pipe

Is that your best shot?

Do you always have trouble with reality?

 

[pipe]

Is that your best shot?

Do you always have trouble with reality?

re·al·i·ty (r

-

l

-t

) Pronunciation Key

n. pl. re·al·i·ties

1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: “the weight of history and political realities” (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality.

The reality is that mandatory retirement is 60 -- REALITY!!!!

Your hope is that it changes. I am not upset with the reality. You are the one who has the problem with the present reality.

PIPE

 

[Klako]

[/quote]The reality is that mandatory retirement is 60 -- REALITY!!!!

Your hope is that it changes. I am not upset with the reality. You are the one who has the problem with the present reality.
PIPE[/quote]

You must have more than just perceived "REALITY" to justify a law that denies an otherwise qualified person to practice in their profession. The federal government must prove that there are enough scientific reasons for such a law to exist. It is the federal government’s burden to prove that all airline pilots suffer an unacceptable decline in their ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public. This proof is something that Congress has repeatedly directed the FAA to come up with for over 20 years but the FAA has failed produce such proof. That proof simply dose not exist.

Age is not a safety a risk factor. There is no credible information available that supports the notion that airline pilots over age 60 pose more of a safety risk than younger pilots. There are, however, numerous credible reports supporting a ban on the FAA’s arbitrary age 60 mandatory retirement law. Now the FAA says that it is "NEUTRAL" as "safety" can no longer be used as a valid argument against changing the "Age 60 Rule Increasing the “Age 60 Rule” to age 65.

I would like to cite just a few of the numerous reports supporting a ban on the arbitrary age 60 mandatory retirement law, including:

1. A report published by Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002 Mar; 73(3): 194-202

Subject: The age 60 rule: Age discrimination in commercial aviation.

By: Wilkening R
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
CONCLUSION: There appears to be no medical, scientific, or safety justification for the Age 60 Rule. As such, perpetuation of the Age 60 Rule, where age alone is used as the single criterion of older pilot fitness, represents age discrimination in commercial aviation.

2. A prominent study of age and airline pilots, the Hilton Study. The study “supports the conclusion that an age 60 limit for pilots is not defensible…” and found “no hint of an increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers as they neared their 60th birthday.” The report concluded that the age for airline pilots could safely be raised.

3. Dr. Susan Baker, of Johns Hopkins University, wrote: “…there is no scientific evidence to support the Age 60 Rule. From 1991 until 1993, I served on a panel of experts appointed by the FAA to oversee the FAA-sponsored research by Hilton Systems. This research, at a cost of well over a million dollars, found no basis for the Age 60 Rule and recommended that the age limit be increased…I would rather fly with my life in the hands of a 64 year old captain than with a 29 year old pilot flying as captain.”

4. Dr. Stacy Vereen of the Civil Aviation Medical Association wrote that the association “supports the concept that pilots operating under FAR Part 121 [airline pilots] should not be forced to retire from piloting duties based solely on attaining age 60.”

5. A scholarly treatise by Dr. Robin Wilkening. The publication Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine ran her paper one year ago. It remains the single best and most comprehensive document pertaining to the Age 60 Rule. It does, by the way, conclude that the Age 60 Rule is blatant age discrimination.

6. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 2002, pp. 194-202.
Report No.: R0340302. “The Age 60 Rule remains a most contentious and politically sensitive topic, with challenges to the Rule currently mounted in both legislative and legal arenas. Methods: An extensive review of the medical literature was accomplished using MEDLINE. Pertinent Federal Regulations were examined. Legal proceedings and public domain documents were noted. Letters and personal communication were solicited where necessary information could not be ascertained by other means. Results: The Age 60 Rule was not based on any scientific data showing that airline pilots aged 60 and older were any less safe than younger pilots, and there is evidence to indicate that the choice of age 60 was actually based on economic rather than safety considerations. Airline pilots consistently exceed general population norms for longevity, physical health, and mental abilities. Fear of an adverse pilot health event causing a crash in standard multi-crew operations is not justified. For decades, airline pilots under age 60 have been granted the means to demonstrate their fitness for flying by taking medical, cognitive, and performance evaluations that are denied to airline pi1ots when they reach age 60. Actual flight experience demonstrates that older pilots are as safe as younger pilots. International aviation experience indicates that abolishing the Age 60 Rule will not compromise aviation safety. Conclusion: There appears to be no medical, scientific, or safety justification for the Age 60 Rule. As such, perpetuation of the Age 60 Rule, where age alone is used as the single criterion of older pilot fitness, represents age discrimination in commercial aviation.”

7. After 2-plus years of study, the Aerospace Medical Association's Civil Aviation Safety Subcommittee found last year (2004) that there is insufficient medical evidence and/or accident record to support airline pilot restrictions based on age alone, published in the Association's scientific journal Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 75, No.8, August 2004. The Subcommittee thus suggests that the Association abandon its 20-plus year prior policy of support, and recommends that the FAA abandon the Age 60 Rule altogether, change the cutoff criteria, or raise the age limit. Note: This was one of the sources cited by ICAO in justifying it increase of the age limit for airline pilots.

The rest of the world does not see piloting an airliner past the age of 60 as a safety issue. Most of the world is moving to a retirement age of 65 for airline pilots. Japan and the Netherlands, to name but two, have done extensive studies which showed raising an airline pilot’s age is not a risk. Countries such as Japan, Australia, those of the Joint Aviation Authority in Europe...all have raised their pilots’ retirement age. Some 45 nations now allow their airline pilots to fly past the age of 60. Some of these pilots do so in United States airspace. The International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, Secretariat has now recommended a new upper age limit, with restriction to multi-crew, of 65 years. This recommendation is based on extensive studies, global experience (data compiled from 63 States) with older pilots, totaling 25,500 pilot-years, and the expressed wish of 93 States. The International Civil Aviation Organization—ICAO, now recognizes the harm done by the age 60 rule standard and will amend the international standard to age 65, which should become applicable on 23 November 2006. The Burns substitute amendment to The U.S. Senate Bill S. 65, if voted into law by the U.S. Congress, would direct the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary to adopt the ICAO standard or recommended practice within 30 days after the ICAO acts on the matter.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

1-800-The-Scooter Store!

This is the only set of wheels you'll need shortly Klako!

Remember their guarantee:

"We guarantee that if you complete our program, your claim for a new power chair or scooter will be approved or we'll give it to you absolutely free."


(Always the ever-helpful BBB! )

 

[Klako]

This is the only set of wheels you'll need shortly Klako!

I don't think so fat boy. I will still be flying in my airline left seat when your high colestrol an bad genes grounds you from anything more dangerous than a wheel chair.

 

[Klako]

Change the rule and "grandfather" all current pilots (student and up) to the current age 60 rule. Every new pilot starting from this day forward can retire at 65. Every pilot currently flying must be out by sixty. The rule changes and everyone that "believes in the cause" can be happy...

Oh wait, it doesn't help you out.. must not be good then....

I posed this age rule question to a very impartial person in the real-estate business and his response was this:

He compared the airline pilot age 60 rule and the dilemma of junior pilots to that of first time home buyers. He said that young couples trying to purchase their first house often complain that it is unfair that young people suffer unfairly because old people are holding on to and enjoying nice homes and driving up the price of homes at the expense of young first time home buyers. In frustration that they can not afford to buy the house they want, they very seriously say that there should be a law that forces everyone to forfit ownership and equity in their house to the government automatically on their 60th birthday and the government would then deed that house to some young person.

 

[Sluggo_63]

I posed this age rule question to a very impartial person in the real-estate business and his response was this:

He compared the airline pilot age 60 rule and the dilemma of junior pilots to that of first time home buyers. He said that young couples trying to purchase their first house often complain that it is unfair that young people suffer unfairly because old people are holding on to and enjoying nice homes and driving up the price of homes at the expense of young first time home buyers. In frustration that they can not afford to buy the house they want, they very seriously say that there should be a law that forces everyone to forfit ownership and equity in their house to the government automatically on their 60th birthday and the government would then deed that house to some young person.

Did you also mention that these older home owners got their nice houses because the government forced other, even older homeowners, to give up their houses so the current owners could move in.

I'd be interested in his new response.

 

[Klako]

Did you also mention that these older home owners got their nice houses because the government forced other, even older homeowners, to give up their houses so the current owners could move in.

I'd be interested in his new response.

Wait, when has the government forced anyone out of their home?

We are not under Communism yet!

Our government has no right to take from those who have and give to those who have not.

Seniority, property are all the same, possession is 9/10ths of the law.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The facts are that there is no more evidence for or against changing the age-60 rule from a safety point of view. For every study that says one thing there is another study that says the opposite. FAA Administrator Blakey even made this statement on her recorded (on video) reply to a question at the EAA's Sun'N Fun Convention.

Many members of this Board post this and that survey and quote this and that expert, all of which become confusing to the general public, so things need to be simplified for the public to better understand and have an opinion. Well it has been simplified, it’s the ICAO change and it can not get any easier or simpler than that for people to understand. Now the issue can be understood by all. It’s double discrimination: Against Americans and discrimination against seniors by young people.

Therefore the only discussion now is on the ICAO implementation scheduled for November 23. That will happen without further discussion of fact. The FAA has said it will happen. So what more can be discussed, nothing.

No one believes that foreigners are healthier than Americans and yet they will be flying into all of our countries airports in the same airplanes and on the same airways. Politically this will not fly so changes must be made. Pressure is building as the media is picking up on this story. The media is looking at the unkind comments being made by young people on this issue, many of which are found on this Board. The media is also picking up on and making a point of the flip flops of ALPA as that organization has tried to attract younger pilots, only at the expense of getting rid of the experienced Captain who is in excellent health. For anyone to support these young people who feel they have an entitlement to a senior pilot’s seat is now politically incorrect. Such a position is being abandoned by every politician and even the FAA.

Beating up on senior citizens doesn't go over anywhere and the newspapers are beginning to have a field day with those who choose to discriminate against senior captains. Just consider the Chicago Tribune, one of the most respected pagers in the country and the 4th largest, ran a feature news story above the front page fold just a few weeks ago, and that story was picked up and run by hundreds of other papers across the USA.

Trust me. Change is coming to the USA on the age 60 issue. My guess it that it will be November 23. 2006.

 

[Phaedrus]

I don't know what is more irritating.
Klako and Undaunted's Swiss Alps echos,
or the cut and paste routine that makes
me have to move my page left to right
to read this ridiculous thread.
I know, I know, I'm a "cut-and-pastist".

 

[Andy]

It looks like Sen Stevens stuffed S. 65 into HR 5576, the DOT's appropriations bill in section 114. It's an amendment that was added in Senate appropriations subcommittee. It can be pulled if a Senator stops it on the floor, but the resistance has been minimal thus far. If the Senate passes HR 5576, it goes back to the House to hammer out the differences. Section 114 can also be pulled at that point, but subcommittees often do some strange things.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The resistance has been minimal thus far.

See UndauntedFlyer's post above for reasons why.

 

[Phaedrus]

See UndauntedFlyer's post above for reasons why.

Okay, but only if you quit referring to yourself in the third person. Who are you? Bob Dole?

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

"A house divided against itself can not stand" It must become all of one thing or all of the other.

Is there a person on this board who believes that this country will stay divided on the age 60 rule for ever while the rest of the world's ICAO carriers continue to fly throughout American with a different retirement age rule? I think not.

So when will the FAA rule change to harmonize with the rest of the world?

My guess is November 23, 2006.

What is yours?

 

[Phaedrus]

My guess is I don't don't care what your guess is.
"A house divided cannot stand". Please apply this cliche, in specific detail, to this situation. Otherwise it is simply a passe cliche. Enough French for today.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

June 16, 1858 - Springfield, IL - Abraham Lincoln

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half of one mind and half of another.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.

The aviation community is divided on the age-60 rule. This can not continue with the upcoming discrimination against Americans starting November 23. Add to this the loss of pensions that brings forth important retirement issues. Agitation on this issue has continued for years and is now coming to a head over the ICAO change. Change will come soon. Does anyone doubt this?

As it says in the bible, "A house divided against itself can not stand."

 

[Jonny Sacko]

EXCELLENT, CHANGE IS COMING!! YOU CAN STAY PAST 60, until 80, but it will be in the right seat at starting wages! There, now you won't ******************** me anylonger. I didn't steal your retirement. NOR WILL LET ANYONE STEAL MINE!

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

EXCELLENT, CHANGE IS COMING!! YOU CAN STAY PAST 60, until 80, but it will be in the right seat at starting wages! There, now you won't ******************** me anylonger. I didn't steal your retirement. NOR WILL LET ANYONE STEAL MINE!

Is there a point to this comment?

We are all just along for the ride in this career. And like the market it goes up and down. None of us have much more control over the ride than we do the market.