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
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
UndauntedFlyer said:
UndauntedFlyer, you have not answered any of my questions!
Now, if you expect a thanks from me for something that I barely used (unemployed for a while and did use it for a barebones policy), you're smoking crack. My job's health insurance covers me.
How much did you pay to ALPA-PAC while furloughed? Likely as much as me.
I had no problems with paying my ALPA assessments, but I do have a problem with those pilots on UAL property who screwed the furloughees, and then say stuff like, 'we helped pay for your medical insurance while you were unemployed.' How generous. You change the work rules to keep us unemployed longer and pay a few bucks a month (less than one hour's wage/mo for you) for medical so that you can sleep with a clear conscience.
Yes, age discrimination is wrong. The age 60 law is not about age discrimination, it's about safety. The problem is that pilots get sick more often after age 55, the same point at which the accident stats per flight hour take a sharp upward turn.
Please keep thinking positively about age 60 changing soon. Sen. Frist, MD is the one who gives a thumbs up or down to any bills on the calendar to go to the Senate floor. S 65's been sitting there under General Orders no. 382 since 3/30/06 and Frist has chosen to not have it go to the floor. Frist is a doctor and is able to comprehend the effects of aging. On the House side, the Aviation Subcommittee (where HR 65 has been since 1/5/05) isn't even scheduled to meet this next week. This session of Congress is scheduled to adjourn on 8 Oct. The clock's ticking and there's no forward movement on either S 65 or HR 65.
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
Andy said:
Like it or not, the rest of the aviation world is changing on age 60 in November....2 months. Then there will be pilots on passenger carrying aircraft flying as PIC that are over 60....We know that is going to happen.
Funny how you say that the age 60 law is not about age discrimination, but safety....but it wasn't enacted with safety in mind....and yet, even the FAA cannot come up with any facts concerning a reduction in safety for pilots over 60...even though members of congress have asked them to produce that information many times over. They are now officially "neutral" on the repeal of age 60.
And, rumour has it that Capt. Duane Woerth told the AWA MEC last week that the repeal of the age 60 law is a "done deal"
Tejas
GuinessGuy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Posts
- 238
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
Questions and answers regarding age 60
From: Samuel D. Woolsey
Date: September 9, 2006
Subject: Re: Question: Age60Rule.com
First Officer (FO): I have a few questions regarding the changing of the Age 60 rule here in the USA. First, I have been told that the USA is a treaty member of ICAO.
Sam Woolsey (SW): That is true. In fact, the US was one of the major forces at the creation of ICAO.
FO: ICAO will be changing their Age 60 rule to 65 in November 2006.
SW: Some corrections needed here. An ICAO "rule" is actually a "minimum standard" (minimum in the sense of safety, not age) that one State may require of (or impose on) another State's carriers and pilots, but says nothing about what a State may require of its own national carriers and pilots. The current ICAO standard for pilot age is maximum age 60 for PIC, with no maximum age limit for co-pilots. The US, on the other hand, restricts both Captains and co-pilots of its own national carriers to age 60.
Example: Canada has no maximum age limit for any of its pilots, Captains or co-pilots. The US restricts all to age 60. Under the ICAO rules, the US may (and does) restrict both PICs and co-pilots of US registered carriers to age 60, world-wide. And the US may (and does) restrict PICs (Captains) for Canadian (and all other nation's) carriers to age 60. BUT, the US may not (and does not) restrict co-pilots of Canadian carriers (or those of any other nation, for that matter) to any maximum age.
The ICAO rule to become effective in November is not simply age 65, however. The new ICAO rule will be one pilot to age 65 provided the other pilot is below 60. Thus, either the PIC or the co-pilot of foreign registered carriers will be able to fly into the US to age 65, but if either one is past 60, the other pilot (co-pilot or PIC, as the case may be) must be under 60.
But again -- this is not a regulation, but rather a minimum safety standard that one State may require of another State's carriers and pilots, but says nothing about what one State may regulate for its own national carriers and pilots.
Thus, even after November 23d, the US FAA may (and, in my view, will, unless compelled by court or Congress) keep its own rule of both pilots (Capt and co-pilot) of US carriers restricted to age 60. BUT, for foreign registered carriers and pilots (e.g., all the rest of the world) the US must accept one pilot (Capt or co-pilot) to maximum age 65 provided the other pilot (co-pilot or Capt) is under 60.
For your information, the FAA has stated publicly that it agrees with the above interpretation.
FO: Therefore, the FAA will have 30 days to file for an age 60 exemption or the ICAO Age 65 rule will be automatically implemented in the USA in November 2006. Is this True?
SW: Differences, not "exemptions": ICAO requires that a "Difference" be filed (not an exemption) when a State has a regulation that is less restrictive than the ICAO "standard." The purpose of filing this "difference" is to notify the rest of the world that the filing State enforces on its own pilots a rule that is less restrictive than the ICAO standard, thus the rest of the world is alerted to check on, thus may more easily enforce the more restrictive ICAO standard on the filing State's carriers and pilots. Examples: Canada currently files their "difference" stating that they have no maximum age limit for any pilots -- Capts or co-pilots. The US does not need to file a difference about its co-pilot rules, however, 'cause they (maximum age 60) are more restrictive than the ICAO standard of no age limit for co-pilots.
FO: Secondly, I was also told that if the USA does go to the new Age 65 rule there will be new medical standards.
SW: Currently, the ICAO standard is less restrictive than the US standard. For Captains (same as our medical Class I), the ICAO standard requires a physical only once a year. With the new (November) change, the ICAO standard will match the US -- each 6 months.
FO: I was informed that the ICAO and FAA medical standards are different and that the ICAO standards are considerably more stringent than our current FAA standards.
SW: As to the specifics - I know they are worded a bit differently -- but comparable. Certainly NOT "considerably more stringent." That is NOT the nature of the ICAO minimum standards system.
Moreover, provided Canada's (or any other nation's) regulation's (medical or otherwise) are found to satisfy the minimum ICAO standard, no other State (the US, for example) may reject them, or re-interpret them, or attempt to apply a different (i.e., their own) standard.
FO: Is this also true and if so, then can you tell me what those new medical standards will be or at least how they will differ from those we have now here in the USA?
SW: No. But then, again, the ICAO "standards" are just that -- minimum safety standards that one State may require of another State's carriers and pilots.
FO: Thank you for you time and effort, I appreciate it!
SW: MY EDITORIAL COMMENT: The questions you ask suggest that there is a huge mass of misinformation -- perhaps disinformation -- out there in the US air carrier workplace. Whether you, personally, are in favor of change -- or not -- you are wise to have asked, and thus become better informed. If there is anything -- anything -- in the above with which you disagree or do not understand, please ask for clarification. Further, you are free to share my comments with anyone, anywhere, anytime -- with or without attribution.
Please note that it’s my opinion that while votes are important for a politician, governing public policy should be reflective of fact, not greed, self-interest, or emotion. Thus, where misinformation and/or disinformation is pervasive, the politician's job is not just legislation, but also education.
From: Samuel D. Woolsey
Date: September 9, 2006
Subject: Re: Question: Age60Rule.com
First Officer (FO): I have a few questions regarding the changing of the Age 60 rule here in the USA. First, I have been told that the USA is a treaty member of ICAO.
Sam Woolsey (SW): That is true. In fact, the US was one of the major forces at the creation of ICAO.
FO: ICAO will be changing their Age 60 rule to 65 in November 2006.
SW: Some corrections needed here. An ICAO "rule" is actually a "minimum standard" (minimum in the sense of safety, not age) that one State may require of (or impose on) another State's carriers and pilots, but says nothing about what a State may require of its own national carriers and pilots. The current ICAO standard for pilot age is maximum age 60 for PIC, with no maximum age limit for co-pilots. The US, on the other hand, restricts both Captains and co-pilots of its own national carriers to age 60.
Example: Canada has no maximum age limit for any of its pilots, Captains or co-pilots. The US restricts all to age 60. Under the ICAO rules, the US may (and does) restrict both PICs and co-pilots of US registered carriers to age 60, world-wide. And the US may (and does) restrict PICs (Captains) for Canadian (and all other nation's) carriers to age 60. BUT, the US may not (and does not) restrict co-pilots of Canadian carriers (or those of any other nation, for that matter) to any maximum age.
The ICAO rule to become effective in November is not simply age 65, however. The new ICAO rule will be one pilot to age 65 provided the other pilot is below 60. Thus, either the PIC or the co-pilot of foreign registered carriers will be able to fly into the US to age 65, but if either one is past 60, the other pilot (co-pilot or PIC, as the case may be) must be under 60.
But again -- this is not a regulation, but rather a minimum safety standard that one State may require of another State's carriers and pilots, but says nothing about what one State may regulate for its own national carriers and pilots.
Thus, even after November 23d, the US FAA may (and, in my view, will, unless compelled by court or Congress) keep its own rule of both pilots (Capt and co-pilot) of US carriers restricted to age 60. BUT, for foreign registered carriers and pilots (e.g., all the rest of the world) the US must accept one pilot (Capt or co-pilot) to maximum age 65 provided the other pilot (co-pilot or Capt) is under 60.
For your information, the FAA has stated publicly that it agrees with the above interpretation.
FO: Therefore, the FAA will have 30 days to file for an age 60 exemption or the ICAO Age 65 rule will be automatically implemented in the USA in November 2006. Is this True?
SW: Differences, not "exemptions": ICAO requires that a "Difference" be filed (not an exemption) when a State has a regulation that is less restrictive than the ICAO "standard." The purpose of filing this "difference" is to notify the rest of the world that the filing State enforces on its own pilots a rule that is less restrictive than the ICAO standard, thus the rest of the world is alerted to check on, thus may more easily enforce the more restrictive ICAO standard on the filing State's carriers and pilots. Examples: Canada currently files their "difference" stating that they have no maximum age limit for any pilots -- Capts or co-pilots. The US does not need to file a difference about its co-pilot rules, however, 'cause they (maximum age 60) are more restrictive than the ICAO standard of no age limit for co-pilots.
FO: Secondly, I was also told that if the USA does go to the new Age 65 rule there will be new medical standards.
SW: Currently, the ICAO standard is less restrictive than the US standard. For Captains (same as our medical Class I), the ICAO standard requires a physical only once a year. With the new (November) change, the ICAO standard will match the US -- each 6 months.
FO: I was informed that the ICAO and FAA medical standards are different and that the ICAO standards are considerably more stringent than our current FAA standards.
SW: As to the specifics - I know they are worded a bit differently -- but comparable. Certainly NOT "considerably more stringent." That is NOT the nature of the ICAO minimum standards system.
Moreover, provided Canada's (or any other nation's) regulation's (medical or otherwise) are found to satisfy the minimum ICAO standard, no other State (the US, for example) may reject them, or re-interpret them, or attempt to apply a different (i.e., their own) standard.
FO: Is this also true and if so, then can you tell me what those new medical standards will be or at least how they will differ from those we have now here in the USA?
SW: No. But then, again, the ICAO "standards" are just that -- minimum safety standards that one State may require of another State's carriers and pilots.
FO: Thank you for you time and effort, I appreciate it!
SW: MY EDITORIAL COMMENT: The questions you ask suggest that there is a huge mass of misinformation -- perhaps disinformation -- out there in the US air carrier workplace. Whether you, personally, are in favor of change -- or not -- you are wise to have asked, and thus become better informed. If there is anything -- anything -- in the above with which you disagree or do not understand, please ask for clarification. Further, you are free to share my comments with anyone, anywhere, anytime -- with or without attribution.
Please note that it’s my opinion that while votes are important for a politician, governing public policy should be reflective of fact, not greed, self-interest, or emotion. Thus, where misinformation and/or disinformation is pervasive, the politician's job is not just legislation, but also education.
miles otoole
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 7, 2004
- Posts
- 948
Most pilots will do the same thing when they hit 60 as well. Many won't be able to pass physicals. It will give the small minority of folks who want to keep working past 60 the opportunity. Might as well plan for it as it's a done deal as higher taxes in the future. 401 (K) contribution limits will go up as well, which should help.GuinessGuy said:
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:
