Age 60 informal poll

[Gearup727]

no....

 

[Andy]

Your financial comments fail to consider inflation, unexpected events (health issues, crash in the market, divorce, etc.) and that no one knows how long they will live.

My comments were aimed squarely at analyzing the five year gap and the extreme variation in the numbers that you posted. In a five year span, those issues are minimal.
You pulled an extremely high number out of your nether regions. You failed to justify it. I did a very quick back of envelope calculation to show you that those numbers are very high unless you live a lavish lifestyle. There are many around the US who survive on only their SS checks; there's no savings for them. I know; my grandparents survived for years on only SS checks. Not a lavish lifestyle, but they did not lack for food, shelter or clothing. They didn't have a car, but I wouldn't have wanted them driving anyway; it would have been unsafe.
You are looking for a gold plated retirement. Your gold plated retirement went up in smoke with the World Trade Center.

Surely you do not believe that the ideal situation for raising children is the "Latch-Key-Kid" method. Supervision is what children need. If your children have done well with both of you working full time and through your two marriages, congratulations, but that's certainly isn't something to advocate. If a mother wants to nurture and be with her children full time, that should be encouraged as being best of all.

Wow. My ex and I spend a great deal of quality time with our children. We supervise them, but we don't smother them.
My children can reach me any time they want; with cell phones, you're not out of touch. And neither are my children out of touch from me.
I don't like the stay at home mother, but am not going to make negative comments about it. If my daughter decides to be a stay at home mom after going to med school, I think that will be a terrible waste of her time and my money. I believe that a fulfilling life involves having a professional career; be the person male or female. JMO.

Andy, please get this straight now so there will no longer be false hope of continued age discrimination against your senior colleagues. Age 60 will be gone and its coming to a country near you. And trust me; the new age 65 standard is not changing in the EU or with ICAO.

And 65 is not age discrimination? IF (huge IF) 65 passes, I expect a push for the age to be increased to 70 in short order. Because the same claims will be made - it's discrimination.
60 is not age discrimination; it's about safety. I've posted the reports, yet you have not posted any reports that counter them.

And regarding safety, the proof is in the statistics of those like El Al who have been flying to age 65 for 15 years. There is no more contrary evidence for or against age 65.

Post the statistics and a report from a reputable source. You keep talking about these phantom statistics, yet are unable to provide proof of your anecdotal comments.

I stand by my quote: “This is now all about steeling your grand parent’s house and throwing them into the street; so the children can have a larger playroom.”

That concept may be how you justify your actions, but it's foreign to me. I live my life with four themes- Family, Duty, Honor, Country. If the above statement is how you justify lowering safety standards in commercial aviation, then it appears that the main theme that runs through your life is a lack of integrity.
But after hearing about your side businesses and estimates (greater than airbus FO pay) on the income that you earn from them, in direct contradiction to your published comments, then I'd say that your moral compass is broken. There's more to life than money and material possessions.

 

[Klako]

Foxhunter, I don't like it when we decrease the level of safety in commercial aviation. Please take the time to these two FAA reports:
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_3.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_4.pdf
As described by the Federal Air Surgeon, there is a steep U curve.

Figures lie and liars figure. Your “steep U curve” is bogus. The FAA has fallen in its normal objective approach to amend the age 60 rule. Succumbed by obvious political pressures from ALPA, the FAA has chosen to become deceptive in promoting ALPA's false theories about aging and pilot safety. The FAA has used questionable statistics to try to prove that pilots over the age of 60 are unsafe. The fourth report in the FAA’s Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) series examined accident rates under 14 CFR, part 121 (scheduled commercial aviation regulations) and 14 CFR, part 135 (air taxi regulations) for professional pilots holding air transport or commercial pilot and Class I or II medical certificates for the period 1988-1997. An overall "U"-shaped trend was noted, with pilots aged 60-63 having a statistically higher accident rate than pilots aged 55-59. However, all of the accidents involving pilots over 60 occurred only in Part 135 air taxi operations as Part 121 pilots are not now permitted to fly past age 60. Pilots flying under Part 135-regulated operations have historically had a higher accident rate and this difference influenced the overall distribution when the data are combined. Therefore, no definitive conclusions about the relationship of age to accident rates for pilots engaged in commercial operations can be drawn solely on the basis of this study.
The bottom line is that there is no proof 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.

 

[Andy]

Klako, how do you explain the rise starting to occur at 55? There's still 121 data in the 55-59 age groups. The 60-63 data follows that upward curve.

 

[Sluggo_63]

Amazing video.

Figures lie and liars figure. Your “steep U curve” is bogus. The FAA has fallen in its normal objective approach to amend the age 60 rule. Succumbed by obvious political pressures from ALPA, the FAA has chosen to become deceptive in promoting ALPA's false theories about aging and pilot safety. The FAA has used questionable statistics to try to prove that pilots over the age of 60 are unsafe. The fourth report in the FAA’s Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) series examined accident rates under 14 CFR, part 121 (scheduled commercial aviation regulations) and 14 CFR, part 135 (air taxi regulations) for professional pilots holding air transport or commercial pilot and Class I or II medical certificates for the period 1988-1997. An overall "U"-shaped trend was noted, with pilots aged 60-63 having a statistically higher accident rate than pilots aged 55-59. However, all of the accidents involving pilots over 60 occurred only in Part 135 air taxi operations as Part 121 pilots are not now permitted to fly past age 60. Pilots flying under Part 135-regulated operations have historically had a higher accident rate and this difference influenced the overall distribution when the data are combined. Therefore, no definitive conclusions about the relationship of age to accident rates for pilots engaged in commercial operations can be drawn solely on the basis of this study.
The bottom line is that there is no proof 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.

Cool video. Watch until the 4 minute mark at least.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06LBgfuxgA

By the way... 61 year old Danish pilot.
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05LA085&rpt=fa

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Klako, how do you explain the rise starting to occur at 55? There's still 121 data in the 55-59 age groups. The 60-63 data follows that upward curve.

Andy, how do you explain the 25-year old captain with his 21-year old first officer who decided to try to join the FL410 club. Or how about the recent accident at LEX. Clearly, a lack of experience was a factor in these tragedies. Do you possibly think that Capt. Al Haines, Capt Hinnenkamp or Capt. Cronin would have fallen into these traps? I think not. That gray hair only distinguishes today’s airline pilot as the ones with the experience to avoid those pitfalls. Don't you watch the movies?

And I do have one question for you:

If you were in my place, having your pension ripped away in the 11th hour, would you really want to just quit and give up what you worked for all your life to become a whatever?

And as a comment about my "business" and its success. That is really a joke. Everything you have heard is greatly embellished by someone with little or no knowledge of me personally. Haven't you heard, there isn't any money in general aviation. Or if there is, I haven’t found it anywhere. But no matter either, if I had $10M in savings, that should make no difference. Age discrimination has nothing to do with how much money you have. It has to do with age only.

 

[Andy]

"If you were in my place, having your pension ripped away in the 11th hour, would you really want to just quit and give up what you worked for all your life to become a whatever?"

Yes. The stock and bond money that you received will easily sustain you through the next few years PLUS pay for your son's college. And you should have been squirreling away every extra dollar that you made post-911 instead of buying airplanes. The writing on the wall was VERY CLEAR. Were you not able to comprehend the magnitude of the problem? From your statements, you were not able to comprehend. I would consider this to be another indicator that your cognitive abilities have been deteriorating over the last five years.
As a furloughed United pilot, I had my pension ripped away from me. Care to state publically the amount of stock and bond money that you received? Ballpark from what I've read is that it's north of $500K. I can do a bit of digging and get an actual numbers. You know how much stock and bond money that I received? About $8K (zero bond money). Am I upset? No; I have contingency plans to offset that loss.
Is this your rationale for reducing public safety?


Undaunted flyer, if you read the graphs from the reports that I cited, there is a clear U shape. Younger pilots have a higher accident rate. But so do older pilots.
I assume that we can agree that as we age, our physical and cognitive abilities deteriorate. You have placed a great deal of wieght on experience. At what point is that experience outweighed by the deterioration of physical and cognitive abilities?
From looking at the data, I'd say that the age is 55. I've yet to see any data that indicates pilots older than 55 are safer than pilots in their 40s and early 50s.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Andy: Keep trying but its not going to work. The facts have all been considered by the world (ICAO) and the change is coming based on those facts.

 

[Klako]

Klako, how do you explain the rise starting to occur at 55? There's still 121 data in the 55-59 age groups. The 60-63 data follows that upward curve.

Aerospace Medical Association finds no medical support for the Age 60 Rule

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. 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 Subcommittee's recommendation to the Association's governing body, dated January 15, 2004, can be viewed at:

Aerospace Medical Association Position Paper, Age 60 Rule,
(.pdf, 48 Kb).​

The paper was published in the Association's scientific journal Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 75, No.8, August 2004.
Note: At the bottom of p.6, last sentence of the Staff paper, the AsMA Subcommittee recognizes the methodological flaws underlying Reports 3 and 4 of the FAA/CAMI 4-part study that is the subject of my DQAct complaint. Visit the "Woolsey DQAct Complaint & Docket" at left to view these Data Quality Act complaint documents.

 

[Klako]

Aerospace Medical Association finds no medical support for the Age 60 Rule

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. 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 Subcommittee's recommendation to the Association's governing body, dated January 15, 2004, can be viewed at:

Aerospace Medical Association Position Paper, Age 60 Rule,
(.pdf, 48 Kb).​

The paper was published in the Association's scientific journal Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 75, No.8, August 2004.
Note: At the bottom of p.6, last sentence of the Staff paper, the AsMA Subcommittee recognizes the methodological flaws underlying Reports 3 and 4 of the FAA/CAMI 4-part study that is the subject of my DQAct complaint. Visit the "Woolsey DQAct Complaint & Docket" at left to view these Data Quality Act complaint documents.

Source:http://age60rule.com/

Also note in the source that:
"FAA statistics show that air carrier pilots aged 60 and over have a superior safety record as compared to other pilot age groups within either Part 121 or Part 135."