Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Age 60 informal poll
- Thread starter 71KILO
- Start date
- Watchers 146
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Another psychologist, great. I have no other agenda than to see the rule changed. Age 60 is broke, let's fix it.
How about an exercise in logic, since you ignored my last scenario? Imagine just for a moment that Age 60 doesn't exist, and in it's place for the last 47 years was a rule that states "ATP certificate valid for thirty years from date of issuance. Non-renewable."
Could you get in line to support changing that law if it existed? Why or why not? What do you think my opinion would be, since my motives are so blatantly clear to you?
Last edited:
no1pilot2000
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2006
- Posts
- 529
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
Senate Letter of Interest
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
September 28, 2006
The Honorable Marion Blakey
Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Dear Administrator Blakey:
On November 23, 2006 the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) will adopt a new worldwide standard of age 65 for commercial airline pilot retirement. We fully support this new standard and agree that it should be adopted in the U.S. as well.
Although we were sorry to see that the U.S. was only one of the four countries to disagree with the adoption of this new standard, we are encouraged that you have decided to convene an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to explore changes in the Age 60 rule for U.S. Pilots.
It is our understanding you have said that the FAA will not promulgate a rule to adopt the ICAO standard for American pilots this fall without a Congressional mandate. We understand international law dictates that the U.S. must allow foreign pilots over age 60 to work and fly in our airspace; it is our hope that as you revise the rule for foreign pilots to meet the new ICAO standard that you will insist American pilots are afforded the same right to work until 65.
As co-sponsors of S.65, we have worked tirelessly this session to provide the FAA with legislative guidance that would afford U.S. pilots the same right that you will be required to give foreign pilots this fall. We are hopeful that Congress will pass this legislation prior to adjourning sine die this year.
At the same time, you have assembled the ARC to advise you on changes to the rule. We will watch this process carefully and look forward to seeing the ARC report. We hope you appreciate that a finding which leads to a rule allowing foreign pilots to work and fly in the U.S. to age 65 without affording U.S. pilots the same privilege will not sit well with the American people and most Members of Congress.
In the process of adopting the new standard, ICAO studied more than 3,000 over-60 pilots from 64 nations, totaling at least 15,000 pilot-years of flying experience and found the risk of medical incapacitation “a risk so low that it can be safely disregarded.” A recent economic study shows that allowing pilots to fly to age 65 would save almost $1 billion per year in added Social Security, Medicare, and tax payments and delayed Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) payments. The Aerospace Medical Association says that “There is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based upon age alone.” American Association of Retired Persons, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Seniors Coalition, and the National Institute of Aging of NIH all agree that the Age 60 Rule is simply age discrimination and should end. We agree.
As you begin the ARC, we ask that you do everything in your power to ensure American pilots are given the same opportunity as foreign pilots to work and fly in their own country.
Sincerely,
James M. Inhofe
United States Senate
Mike Enzi
United States Senate
John Warner
United States Senate
Charles Grassley
United States Senate
Sam Brownback
United States Senate
Conrad Burns
United States Senate
Johnny Isakson
United States Senate
Larry Craig
United States Senate
Rick Santorum
United States Senate
Wayne Allard
United States Senate
Ted Stevens
United States Senate
John Ensign
United States Senate
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
September 28, 2006
The Honorable Marion Blakey
Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Dear Administrator Blakey:
On November 23, 2006 the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) will adopt a new worldwide standard of age 65 for commercial airline pilot retirement. We fully support this new standard and agree that it should be adopted in the U.S. as well.
Although we were sorry to see that the U.S. was only one of the four countries to disagree with the adoption of this new standard, we are encouraged that you have decided to convene an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to explore changes in the Age 60 rule for U.S. Pilots.
It is our understanding you have said that the FAA will not promulgate a rule to adopt the ICAO standard for American pilots this fall without a Congressional mandate. We understand international law dictates that the U.S. must allow foreign pilots over age 60 to work and fly in our airspace; it is our hope that as you revise the rule for foreign pilots to meet the new ICAO standard that you will insist American pilots are afforded the same right to work until 65.
As co-sponsors of S.65, we have worked tirelessly this session to provide the FAA with legislative guidance that would afford U.S. pilots the same right that you will be required to give foreign pilots this fall. We are hopeful that Congress will pass this legislation prior to adjourning sine die this year.
At the same time, you have assembled the ARC to advise you on changes to the rule. We will watch this process carefully and look forward to seeing the ARC report. We hope you appreciate that a finding which leads to a rule allowing foreign pilots to work and fly in the U.S. to age 65 without affording U.S. pilots the same privilege will not sit well with the American people and most Members of Congress.
In the process of adopting the new standard, ICAO studied more than 3,000 over-60 pilots from 64 nations, totaling at least 15,000 pilot-years of flying experience and found the risk of medical incapacitation “a risk so low that it can be safely disregarded.” A recent economic study shows that allowing pilots to fly to age 65 would save almost $1 billion per year in added Social Security, Medicare, and tax payments and delayed Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) payments. The Aerospace Medical Association says that “There is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based upon age alone.” American Association of Retired Persons, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Seniors Coalition, and the National Institute of Aging of NIH all agree that the Age 60 Rule is simply age discrimination and should end. We agree.
As you begin the ARC, we ask that you do everything in your power to ensure American pilots are given the same opportunity as foreign pilots to work and fly in their own country.
Sincerely,
James M. Inhofe
United States Senate
Mike Enzi
United States Senate
John Warner
United States Senate
Charles Grassley
United States Senate
Sam Brownback
United States Senate
Conrad Burns
United States Senate
Johnny Isakson
United States Senate
Larry Craig
United States Senate
Rick Santorum
United States Senate
Wayne Allard
United States Senate
Ted Stevens
United States Senate
John Ensign
United States Senate
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
Is 60 too old to be a pilot?
Question raised as ex-astronaut forced to retire from airline job</SPAN>
By BILL HENSEL JR.
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
Robert "Hoot" Gibson was not the happiest camper Friday, despite a party in his honor.
Not only was the longtime astronaut piloting his last commercial airline flight because of a forced retirement, but the flight was five minutes late, to boot.
Gibson, a colorful member of NASA's elite astronaut corps who commanded four of the five space shuttle missions he flew, is ending a 10-year run with Southwest Airlines because he turns 60 on Monday, the mandatory retirement age for pilots in the U.S.
Gibson calls it blatant age discrimination.
"I'm not ready," he said.
He makes his complaint at a time when there's a chance the rule, enacted in 1959, could be changed, although whether it will remains to be seen.
The Federal Aviation Authority has launched a review to explore a possible change.
But the agency has made it known it doesn't want to act without a congressional mandate. Lawmakers could vote on pending legislation later this year.
Next month, the International Civil Aviation Organization is set to adopt a new worldwide standard of age 65 for commercial airline pilot retirement.
The organization believes member countries should increase the age limit, as long as the second pilot in the crew is below 60 and all pilots over 60 undergo a medical assessment every six months.
The U.S. is one of four countries that disagrees with the organization's change. The others are France, Pakistan and Colombia.
A cadre of senators who want the age limit changed wrote a letter to FAA Administrator Marion Blakeley several weeks ago noting that foreign pilots over 60 will be allowed to work and fly in U.S. airspace.
"We hope you appreciate ... allowing foreign pilots to work and fly in the U.S. to age 65 without affording U.S. pilots the same privilege will not sit well with the American people and most members of Congress," the letter said.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, co-sponsored the Senate legislation, a spokesman said Friday.
But there is a host of opponents, including the Air Line Pilots Association. The pilots' union long has favored the age limit and is not considering a change, said Pete Janhunen, ALPA spokesman.
But Gibson said ALPA members don't want the change because pilots who retire at 60 enjoy a hefty benefits package.
Janhunen acknowledged there are "financial implications."
A study earlier this year by airline analyst Darryl Jenkins determined that Senate Bill 65 would save the federal government almost $1 billion in delayed pension payments and added Social Security, Medicare and tax payments.
Southwest Airlines, whose pilots are not represented by the ALPA, is on record as supporting a change in the age limit, spokesman Ed Stewart said Friday, as does the Southwest Airlines Pilot Association.
Southwest's chairman, Herb Kelleher, has sent letters to Washington asking for the change to be considered, Stewart said.
"It's been in effect since 1959, and the world has changed," Stewart said.
Houston-based Continental on Friday deferred to its pilots union, which is affiliated with the ALPA.
Gibson noted that he passes two physicals a year, flies a large assortment of other types of aircraft and runs four miles a day several times a week.
There's never been an age-related accident involving a commercial aircraft, he said.
"It ought to be an on-condition type of thing," he said.
Friends and family attended the party at Hobby feting Gibson, who was chosen as an astronaut in 1978.
"Nobody can fly a simulator or a shuttle like Hoot Gibson," said former Southwest pilot and friend Dick East.
Gibson, who is married to shuttle astronaut Dr. Rhea Seddon, retired from NASA in 1995. He was inducted into the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame in 2003.
Many passengers on Gibson's last flight Friday came out smiling, such as Cindy Oravecz of Ohio, who flew to Houston to attend the annual quilt show.
"That flight was a real hoot," she said as she left the plane.
Video Link:
http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou061027_gj_pilotsretire60.7e3e4603.html#
Question raised as ex-astronaut forced to retire from airline job</SPAN>
By BILL HENSEL JR.
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
Robert "Hoot" Gibson was not the happiest camper Friday, despite a party in his honor.
Not only was the longtime astronaut piloting his last commercial airline flight because of a forced retirement, but the flight was five minutes late, to boot.
Gibson, a colorful member of NASA's elite astronaut corps who commanded four of the five space shuttle missions he flew, is ending a 10-year run with Southwest Airlines because he turns 60 on Monday, the mandatory retirement age for pilots in the U.S.
Gibson calls it blatant age discrimination.
"I'm not ready," he said.
He makes his complaint at a time when there's a chance the rule, enacted in 1959, could be changed, although whether it will remains to be seen.
The Federal Aviation Authority has launched a review to explore a possible change.
But the agency has made it known it doesn't want to act without a congressional mandate. Lawmakers could vote on pending legislation later this year.
Next month, the International Civil Aviation Organization is set to adopt a new worldwide standard of age 65 for commercial airline pilot retirement.
The organization believes member countries should increase the age limit, as long as the second pilot in the crew is below 60 and all pilots over 60 undergo a medical assessment every six months.
The U.S. is one of four countries that disagrees with the organization's change. The others are France, Pakistan and Colombia.
A cadre of senators who want the age limit changed wrote a letter to FAA Administrator Marion Blakeley several weeks ago noting that foreign pilots over 60 will be allowed to work and fly in U.S. airspace.
"We hope you appreciate ... allowing foreign pilots to work and fly in the U.S. to age 65 without affording U.S. pilots the same privilege will not sit well with the American people and most members of Congress," the letter said.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, co-sponsored the Senate legislation, a spokesman said Friday.
But there is a host of opponents, including the Air Line Pilots Association. The pilots' union long has favored the age limit and is not considering a change, said Pete Janhunen, ALPA spokesman.
But Gibson said ALPA members don't want the change because pilots who retire at 60 enjoy a hefty benefits package.
Janhunen acknowledged there are "financial implications."
A study earlier this year by airline analyst Darryl Jenkins determined that Senate Bill 65 would save the federal government almost $1 billion in delayed pension payments and added Social Security, Medicare and tax payments.
Southwest Airlines, whose pilots are not represented by the ALPA, is on record as supporting a change in the age limit, spokesman Ed Stewart said Friday, as does the Southwest Airlines Pilot Association.
Southwest's chairman, Herb Kelleher, has sent letters to Washington asking for the change to be considered, Stewart said.
"It's been in effect since 1959, and the world has changed," Stewart said.
Houston-based Continental on Friday deferred to its pilots union, which is affiliated with the ALPA.
Gibson noted that he passes two physicals a year, flies a large assortment of other types of aircraft and runs four miles a day several times a week.
There's never been an age-related accident involving a commercial aircraft, he said.
"It ought to be an on-condition type of thing," he said.
Friends and family attended the party at Hobby feting Gibson, who was chosen as an astronaut in 1978.
"Nobody can fly a simulator or a shuttle like Hoot Gibson," said former Southwest pilot and friend Dick East.
Gibson, who is married to shuttle astronaut Dr. Rhea Seddon, retired from NASA in 1995. He was inducted into the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame in 2003.
Many passengers on Gibson's last flight Friday came out smiling, such as Cindy Oravecz of Ohio, who flew to Houston to attend the annual quilt show.
"That flight was a real hoot," she said as she left the plane.
Video Link:
http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou061027_gj_pilotsretire60.7e3e4603.html#
Last edited:
Falconjet
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2002
- Posts
- 1,586
Yeah, I am all torn up about that.
Just more proof that we are the best country in the world.
FJ
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
Falcon Jet: If you are going to say such stupid comments, you should not do so while representing yourself as an ALPA member. At least lie as ALPA does and say "Safety." Don't tarnish to stupidity of the whole organization by yourself being so un-American and to say that foreigners should be given privileges that Americans are not.
Last edited:
Phaedrus
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Posts
- 932
Falconjet
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2002
- Posts
- 1,586
UF: There are plenty of things that are done in other countries that are not allowed in the US. I don't think that we need to loosen our standards and decrease the safety of the traveling public just because some quacks in ICAO decided to come up with this hairbrained idea.
Did you ever hear the old "if everybody else jumped off a bridge would you too?" from your parents? That is how I see this issue. Just because ICAO adopts a standard doesn't mean that we have to follow. In the US typically the majority rules. The MAJORITY of airline pilots are opposed to changing the rule, as am I. I am proud to live in a country where we ALL have a voice.
If the minority wins on this issue, it won't be the end of the world, but in my opinion it would dramatically decrease the safety of the flying public and be inherently unfair to the thousands of pilots on furlough.
Those are my opinions, and although I don't represent ALPA, and have never claimed to (although I did cite that the MAJORITY of ALPA's pilots are in favor of the rule not changing), I am an ALPA member. So what.
Again, for your sake, I do see this as a safety AND fairness issue. I've yet to hear one coherent argument about why one pilot has to be under 60. If there isn't a concern about safety, then why is that stipulated. What if ICAO said that one of them had to be left handed? Should the US follow that too?
Grossly unfair to the poor under 60 guy who has to babysit the over 60 guy, seeing as if he weren't there to do so, the over 60 guy couldn't even be there. So, he can't move up because he has to babysit the guy keeping him from moving up. Total lunacy that is easily solved by a sickout by all under 60 guys on the day the change goes into effect (if it ever does). Talk about the law of unintended consequences, how can these dolts not see this coming?
Oh yeah, then there is the matter of the thousands of furloughed guys/gals who finally stand a chance of being recalled now that the industry is making a comeback of sorts. Try explaining to them how they have to sit on the sidelines another 5 years so the over 60 guys can take advantage of thier windfall. That too is unfair, as the over 60 guys benefited from the rule their whole career and now when its time to move aside they don't want to.
Full disclosure: I am 46 and have only been at FedEx for a little over 4 years. I won't make a full retirement at FedEx and I am ok with that, I will save now and won't cry in 2020 when it is my time to step aside and let the young turks rule. That is the way the game has been played, and I don't think there is any compelling argument to change the rules now.
Thanks for listening.
FJ
Last edited:
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
To Falcon Jet:
Sorry, but safety is just a word here that has no basis in fact.
Unfair is two sided. What's viewed as unfair to one group is viewed as fair to the other.
I would guess that the age 60/65 crew mix has not been finalized in the FAA's rule. Who knows, it may be an all age 65 rule by the FAA. Would that resolve your concerns on that part of the issue?
Regarding your career and retirement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are able to work 5 more years with the age change, wouldn't that solve your problem with retirement from FE?
Sorry, but safety is just a word here that has no basis in fact.
Unfair is two sided. What's viewed as unfair to one group is viewed as fair to the other.
I would guess that the age 60/65 crew mix has not been finalized in the FAA's rule. Who knows, it may be an all age 65 rule by the FAA. Would that resolve your concerns on that part of the issue?
Regarding your career and retirement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are able to work 5 more years with the age change, wouldn't that solve your problem with retirement from FE?
Falconjet
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2002
- Posts
- 1,586
See, there is a difference of opinion. You feel there is no safety issue, I feel that there is. That is fine. What doesn't make sense is if there isn't a safety issue, why the under 60 guy? By saying that maybe the FAA won't require it you are acknowledging that the ICAO rule is suspect. Different reason, but still suspect. So do we still blindly follow it? Again, I hope not.
I don't see how the over 60 crowd thinks that changing the rule is unfair to them. Its been that way since they started, they knew it, time to move on. I have no problem with mandatory retirement ages. They exsist in many fields and I don't see that as age discrimination. You are free to continue flying past 60 in any number of ways, just not part 121. I feel that is a good rule.
The over 60 guys will gain a windfall at the direct detriment to the furloughed and under 60 guys. That to me is unfair for everybody.
Also, I don't feel that I have a retirement problem at FedEx. I know what to hope for (note I didn't say expect) based on my years of service and possible high 5, and I will plan accordingly. Working 5 more years isn't in my plans. Yes it would get me a larger retirement, but I'd rather live within my means and have 5 years of doing things outside of flying for Fred.
Again, that is just me.
FJ
I don't see how the over 60 crowd thinks that changing the rule is unfair to them. Its been that way since they started, they knew it, time to move on. I have no problem with mandatory retirement ages. They exsist in many fields and I don't see that as age discrimination. You are free to continue flying past 60 in any number of ways, just not part 121. I feel that is a good rule.
The over 60 guys will gain a windfall at the direct detriment to the furloughed and under 60 guys. That to me is unfair for everybody.
Also, I don't feel that I have a retirement problem at FedEx. I know what to hope for (note I didn't say expect) based on my years of service and possible high 5, and I will plan accordingly. Working 5 more years isn't in my plans. Yes it would get me a larger retirement, but I'd rather live within my means and have 5 years of doing things outside of flying for Fred.
Again, that is just me.
FJ
SBD-2U3
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2004
- Posts
- 100
write to your lawmakers
http://www.senate.gov
http://www.house.gov
greed is not a good reason to change a rule that keeps us safe.
if age 60 isn't an issue why are we going to adopt a rule that allows only one pilot to be over age 60...the other must be less than 60. that is not logical.
http://www.senate.gov
http://www.house.gov
greed is not a good reason to change a rule that keeps us safe.
if age 60 isn't an issue why are we going to adopt a rule that allows only one pilot to be over age 60...the other must be less than 60. that is not logical.
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
The age 60/65 crew mix is really a step-at-at-time measure to appease those that are always crying safety. This crew mix rule will be hard to work with and I expect it will be changed to all age 65 in a year or two internationally, and possibly to just age 65 initially here in the USA. The change will come since there is really no scientific basis for it, just as there isn't any basis for the age 60 rule.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
