Age 60 informal poll

[Falcon Jet 1]

Right on! I keep telling these dumb sob's here at SWA it aint gonna last forever. All I know is it will be pretty miserable for any guy over 60 that i have to fly with if this pos passes. SAVE your call till the 13 Nov.

 

[Cyclone]

ditto

if this passes and you are over 60...let's just say the trips won't be treats. happy halloween old timers. you are going to be the persona non grata of the industry.

 

[I Hate Freight]

Age 60 is history. It's a done deal. It's going up, probably to 65 so get used to it.

If you plan on giving some captain a hard time or not doing your job like you're supposed to because he's over sixty, and you're causing a hostile or unsafe work environment then you should also prepare to be kicked off of trips and explaining your actions to your CP.

 

[Cyclone]

over 60

If he's over 60 I expect hazardous duty pay compensation if i'm the F.O. Otherwise, I expect the senior citizen to be in the right seat; if the rule mandates an assisted living F.O. who is under 60 to help the oldtimer, then the 60+ guy really ought not be the captain. Age is an issue.

If neither of the above happen, expect things to be not-so-rosy for any airline pilots over 60. They will not be popular. Trust me. They may get their way as far as the law is concerned...but they better not falter on the line.

 

[FoxHunter]

if this passes and you are over 60...let's just say the trips won't be treats. happy halloween old timers. you are going to be the persona non grata of the industry.

Son, if you were flying with me it would be a treat even if I knew you had fought the change. I flew with enough AHs before there was such a thing as CRM to make sure that there is a relaxed professional cockpit. If you want to have a beer and dinner, fine, if not that is also fine.

Now if an overt attitude problem that is causing problems you will be removed from the trip. The Chief Pilot and the VP of OPS can decide your future.

 

[Cyclone]

Condescending

Yes sir. I am sorry sir. Please forgive me sir. You know what foxhunter....that is my attitude...and the first time you doze off or miss a crossing restriction I will be the one to go to the chief...to tell him that I think you need medical evaluation and that you may be suffering from senility or some other condition that I think is preventing you from doing your job. Yes sir. Aye Aye skipper.

Stay awake. Don't mess up. You'll be just fine old timer.

 

[FoxHunter]

Yes sir. I am sorry sir. Please forgive me sir. You know what foxhunter....that is my attitude...and the first time you doze off or miss a crossing restriction I will be the one to go to the chief...to tell him that I think you need medical evaluation and that you may be suffering from senility or some other condition that I think is preventing you from doing your job. Yes sir. Aye Aye skipper.

Stay awake. Don't mess up. You'll be just fine old timer.

What can I say son? Good Luck?:beer:

 

[Sluggo_63]

Hmm!! Guys forced back into a position they really don't want to be. You couple that with the fact that many of those pilots have a very large sick bank that will be lost once they do retire. :beer: Most sick leave by over age 60 S/Os is probably due to eye problems, they can't see going too work.

First of all, no one was forced to the engineer panel when they turned 60.

Secondly, do you mean to tell me that these pilots were calling in sick en masse when they really weren't sick? Why? Because they wanted to other things than fly? But the reason they want to stay is to fly, but then why the sick call. Maybe they were just being dishonest and lying to the company to pad their retirement. I'm sure that testimony would look good in front of Congress.

 

[Cyclone]

Age Caveat

Foxhunter. For once, answer the question:

If age isn't an issue why the caveat under 60 with over 60?

If age is an issue then come up and propose something better than simply changing a number. The new rule won't make the skies safer. That is my beef. It may make the skies less safe. I have a problem with that. This isn't about greenbacks for me. For you it is. You have said so in previous posts. That is evil motive.

 

[FoxHunter]

First of all, no one was forced to the engineer panel when they turned 60.

Secondly, do you mean to tell me that these pilots were calling in sick en masse when they really weren't sick? Why? Because they wanted to other things than fly? But the reason they want to stay is to fly, but then why the sick call. Maybe they were just being dishonest and lying to the company to pad their retirement. I'm sure that testimony would look good in front of Congress.

They have a choice, be a S/O, or retire. Some were over 50 when hired ex military, ex EAL etc. Just pointing out the facts of life. Sick leave abuse is a big problem in the airline industry, it always has been. I've known guys that say they use all the sick bank every year, and therse are guys under age 40. I've heard numerous pilots say that they intend to retire with zero hours of sick pay. If they had a full bank to start with that works out to about 9-10 months pay.

 

[FoxHunter]

Foxhunter. For once, answer the question:

If age isn't an issue why the caveat under 60 with over 60?

If age is an issue then come up and propose something better than simply changing a number. The new rule won't make the skies safer. That is my beef. It may make the skies less safe. I have a problem with that. This isn't about greenbacks for me. For you it is. You have said so in previous posts. That is evil motive.

Changing the rule will not make the skies less safe. I've spent 8+ years on furlough, plus many more very junior so I understand where the opposition to the change is coming from. The two things that make it a perfect storm for change is the failed pensions plus the ICAO change. The age 65 limit is still bogus, the one pilot under age 60 is also bogus, but that is what has been proposed and I expect that is what we will have. The idea that this change will push all the junior people back five years is also bogus. Some will only go a few months past age 60, some a few year, and some to age 65 or older if that number is eliminated. I do believe at some future date the world will go the way of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand with no upper limit.

I would hope that everyone would have the luck in this industry that I have had. I can also say that there were many times that I thought I was having no luck at all, but in hind sight I know I was wrong. I enjoy my job, enjoy going to work. If I thought I was slipping I would quit tomorrow.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Son, if you were flying with me it would be a treat even if I knew you had fought the change. I flew with enough AHs before there was such a thing as CRM to make sure that there is a relaxed professional cockpit. If you want to have a beer and dinner, fine, if not that is also fine.

Now if an overt attitude problem that is causing problems you will be removed from the trip. The Chief Pilot and the VP of OPS can decide your future.

Foxhunter,

Sounds pretty arrogant coming from you. It looks like you think it’s a slam dunk -- like you’re counting on getting Age 65 plus the left seat plus all the amenities. I wouldn’t be spending your unearned windfall quite yet. This fight is far from over.

If age 65 passes, all pilots over age 60 go to the end of the seniority list of the pilots hired under ago 60. You can call HR all you want but you do it from the right seat.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

The idea that this change will push all the junior people back five years is also bogus. Some will only go a few months past age 60, some a few year, and some to age 65 or older if that number is eliminated.

Foxhunter,

Where is your data to support your claim. Truth is you have none. You have no idea of where this industry is going in a few years let alone one week. Except for probably the freighter guys, we are all only one terriorist hit away from a industry wide bankruptcy.

When the age changes, you can count on the majority of pilots going to the full retirement age. Look at past history.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Changing the rule will not make the skies less safe.

If I thought I was slipping I would quit tomorrow.

Foxhunter,

Again, where is your data claiming the skies will not be less safe? Even ICAO admits as much when they're only allowing one pilot over the age of 60 in the cockpit. So not only will you be stealing our jobs, but then we will have to baby-sit you on top of it. Now that's bogus.

If you thought you we're slipping you would quit tomorrow -- yeah right. You really think you can make an honest assessment of your own flying skills? The sports world is littered with players making an honest assessment of their own skills and playing way past their prime. Truth is if a pilot can continue to make money, most will continue to fly regardless of what they think their true flying skills are -- it's human nature. I see it all the time with guys showing up to work sick because they don’t want to lose the time.

Over the years I have flown with the old two stripers who flew well into their 60's and 70's. Now some were sharp, but there were others that were completely out to lunch with most of them sleeping the majority of time between DFW and HNL. It would be interesting to see some good data, but you can take it to bank that a huge majority of them were calling in sick one or twice a month.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Cyclone]

Foxhunter. Answer the questions.

If you think age 60 is bogus OK. You said you also think the ICAO proposal is bogus.
Do you support the ICAO proposal?
How do you explain that the ICAO proposal forces an under 60 guy to fly with an over 60 guy? Do you think this is because age is an issue?
Do you think age is an issue?
If not, then you are OK with 80+ year olds flying airliners?
If yes then how would you screen?

Some of us here really do care about safety and we would be interested to hear from you on how we could keep our skies safe and have a better rule.

Changing the number from a to b isn't changing the rule it is just changing the number. This will make the skies less safe because older people who lose skills as they age will be allowed to fly. You will be less safe in five years than you are now...just like you will be needing more cialis for your chalice. It's going to happen.

 

[Klako]

Over the years I have flown with the old two stripers who flew well into their 60's and 70's. Now some were sharp, but there were others that were completely out to lunch with most of them sleeping the majority of time between DFW and HNL. It would be interesting to see some good data, but you can take it to bank that a huge majority of them were calling in sick one or twice a month.

AA767AV8TOR

It appears that the problem you describe is not the result of aging but that of a sick airline and sick union.
It is becoming clear that as a result of recent actions by the ALPA and APA, the so-called legacy carriers like United, American, Northwest and Delta are condemned to the death throws of extinction. Greed, ineptness and blindness to reality will also destroy the likes of the ALPA and APA. The old guard pioneers of the golden age of aviation should be raging mad in their graves at the miss deeds of today’s big union politics.

 

[Cyclone]

Huh?

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.

 

[FoxHunter]

If age 65 passes, all pilots over age 60 go to the end of the seniority list of the pilots hired under ago 60. You can call HR all you want but you do it from the right seat.

AA767AV8TOR

I would not be surprised if APA tried that. The problem would be there would be a good chance that you would have to cough up a great deal of money to pay for the settlement. Could be you'll see the senior pilots get a huge sum.:laugh:

Good luck!

 

[FoxHunter]

Foxhunter,

If you thought you we're slipping you would quit tomorrow -- yeah right. You really think you can make an honest assessment of your own flying skills? The sports world is littered with players making an honest assessment of their own skills and playing way past their prime.
AA767AV8TOR

Poor analogy, because in the sports world only the very best make it to the top and stay there. I have no doubt Tiger Woods at age 65 will be better than most pros, even though he has sliped from age 30 due to the physical nature of the game.
\

Over the years I have flown with the old two stripers who flew well into their 60's and 70's. Now some were sharp, but there were others that were completely out to lunch with most of them sleeping the majority of time between DFW and HNL. It would be interesting to see some good data, but you can take it to bank that a huge majority of them were calling in sick one or twice a month.

AA767AV8TOR

The people that have trouble in their 60s had the same problems in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. There may be an exception, but it is rare.

 

[General Lee]

Foxhunter,

Why would ICAO recommend NOT having 2 over age 60 pilots in the same 2 man cockpit at the same time? Any reason? You seem to avoid that question. Also, can you see the expansion in Europe with the LCCs? Could that be a reason for a change? A pilot shortage over there? Do we have one here?

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[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.