Age 60 informal poll

[Andy]

Andy, you are avoiding the question I posed. Tell me about the accidents at your airline over the last 35 years and what were the ages of those involved? As a matter of fact tell us about the age ratios for FAA violations at Delta. Don't bother BSing us as I know what they were when I left and they were not weighted to anyone even close to 60. Usually fairly young, by Delta standards, new Captains. Clean up your own house before you start trashing the other groups.

No, I wasn't avoiding anything you stated: "Please direct us to your statistics regarding the older "airline" pilots and their increased accident rates." I did that.
Now, what do you want? Accident rates over the last 35 years at my specific airline? That will take a little while, since I'd have to hand tabulate it. What exactly would be the point? The sample size would be so small that the results would not be statistically significant.

How exactly do you suggest that I get data for the FAA violations at Delta? Out of all the times that I've flown on Delta aircraft, I have never sat in the cockpit. Oh, I get it. For some reason, you think that I worked for Delta. I regret to inform you that your cognitive abilities are deteriorating to the point where you are confused as to which company I flew for. Amazing considering that my airline has been discussed on this thread within the last ten pages.

 

[Spooky 2]

No, I wasn't avoiding anything you stated: "Please direct us to your statistics regarding the older "airline" pilots and their increased accident rates." I did that.
Now, what do you want? Accident rates over the last 35 years at my specific airline? That will take a little while, since I'd have to hand tabulate it. What exactly would be the point? The sample size would be so small that the results would not be statistically significant.

How exactly do you suggest that I get data for the FAA violations at Delta? Out of all the times that I've flown on Delta aircraft, I have never sat in the cockpit. Oh, I get it. For some reason, you think that I worked for Delta. I regret to inform you that your cognitive abilities are deteriorating to the point where you are confused as to which company I flew for. Amazing considering that my airline has been discussed on this thread within the last ten pages.

You are right Andy, I did think you were a Delta guy. Forgive me as I waited until there were 600 post on this subject before I jumped in. My mistake and I'm truly humbled by your modesty. I suspect that your airline has had similar issues and I doubt that all these accidents and incidents that have happened in your backyard are a result of older pilots. End of story.

 

[Phaedrus]

Undaunted: My answer is "yes". I would retire. Why? Because I knew that I'd have to retire at that age when I started. Would I possibly have to get another, lower paying, less prestigious job? Maybe, and I wouldn't hesitate. Would I have to contract a little bit in my living style? Maybe, and I wouldn't hesitate. Tough choices to be sure, but that's what I signed up to do.

 

[Andy]

I suspect that your airline has had similar issues and I doubt that all these accidents and incidents that have happened in your backyard are a result of older pilots.

Obviously, not all accidents are due to older pilots. However, based on number of hours flown, the accident rate takes an upward turn at age 55. The chart makes a similar downward turn with young pilots, leveling out in the low to mid 30s.
The latter high accident rates (those of youthful pilots) are understandable due to lack of experience and no one argues with them.
It is the former accident rates that some seem to have a hard time grasping in spite of there being concrete evidence that the accident rate per 100,000 flight hours increases in the age 55 range. This has been argued ever since a medical panel recommended to the FAA back in the 50s to make age 60 mandatory retirement age for pilots, a decision that was based on multiple scientific studies.
I'd be willing to discard the 60-63 group due to the small sample size, but it follows a logical extension of the results for the 54-57, 55-58, and 56-59 age group bands and is therefore consistent with the trend data.
Again, note that the data only includes professional 121/135 pilots.

As for the tone of my response, I gave you a civil response in post #594/598 to your sarcastic post #592. You chose to again respond with sarcasm in post #606, accusing me of not answering your question in post #592 (in which you never asked me a question about Delta's accident rate; you may want to reread it).
Based on your yet again sarcastic post #612, it appears that my response in post #611 hurt your overly sensitive feelings. Since you appear to be overly sensitive to sarcastic responses, your best course of action would be to not make sarcastic posts. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

 

[Spooky 2]

Obviously, not all accidents are due to older pilots. However, based on number of hours flown, the accident rate takes an upward turn at age 55. The chart makes a similar downward turn with young pilots, leveling out in the low to mid 30s.
The latter high accident rates (those of youthful pilots) are understandable due to lack of experience and no one argues with them.
It is the former accident rates that some seem to have a hard time grasping in spite of there being concrete evidence that the accident rate per 100,000 flight hours increases in the age 55 range. This has been argued ever since a medical panel recommended to the FAA back in the 50s to make age 60 mandatory retirement age for pilots, a decision that was based on multiple scientific studies.
I'd be willing to discard the 60-63 group due to the small sample size, but it follows a logical extension of the results for the 54-57, 55-58, and 56-59 age group bands and is therefore consistent with the trend data.
Again, note that the data only includes professional 121/135 pilots.

As for the tone of my response, I gave you a civil response in post #594/598 to your sarcastic post #592. You chose to again respond with sarcasm in post #606, accusing me of not answering your question in post #592 (in which you never asked me a question about Delta's accident rate; you may want to reread it).
Based on your yet again sarcastic post #612, it appears that my response in post #611 hurt your overly sensitive feelings. Since you appear to be overly sensitive to sarcastic responses, your best course of action would be to not make sarcastic posts. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Andy.....I hope this gets me banned for life. Go ******************** YOURSELF! ***********************************.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Andy.....I hope this gets me banned for life. Go ******************** YOURSELF! ***********************************.

Spooky you old geezer ... SETTLE DOWN!

BBB

 

[Andy]

Andy.....I hope this gets me banned for life. Go ******************** YOURSELF! ***********************************.

Dude, calm down. I'm not going to complain to the mods; I just got off of a weeks' ban for my posts on this board (somebody reported me; I no longer post anything against the TOS).

We obviously disagree on the age 60 rule. It was initiated as a safety measure (in spite of the cloak and dagger insinuations). There is no one at the FAA with a reason to continue that rule unless they felt that safety would be compromised if it changed. If you think about it for a moment, they've got a shortage of FAA controllers due to the 55 mandatory retirement age ... raising pilot retirement ages would open the door to allow them to bump up controller retirement ages beyond 55, helping them alleviate the shortage.
You may disagree with the rule, but until someone posts anything more than anecdotal statements to justify a change (such as valid scientific studies), I will continue to oppose a change for safety reasons. Doesn't it strike you as odd that ICAO is requiring one pilot in multiplace aircraft to be under 60, and not allowing any over 60 pilots to fly single place aircraft? If it were safe to allow pilots over the age of 60, you wouldn't have those restrictions.

Now, as for your suggestion. Some of it was bleeped out, but I think that I got the jist of your statement. I'm almost positive that I am anatomically incapable of performing such a feat, so I will be unable to comply with your request. :laugh:

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

You all are claiming discrimination as your rallying cry as if you had no idea what the rules were when you started. The reality is you knew full well. Now, and at the expense of those below you, you'd like some more. If you want to change the rules of the game midstream, then I call BS. What you didn't know you had to retire at 60 when you started?

What if I didn't think it should be repealed because it was discriminatory? What if I thought it should be repealed because it was stupid and arbitrary? Would that make a difference?

The notion that "rules" should not be changed after one starts their career is probably the most specious argument against repeal of this rule that I've heard. The "rules" governing how we conduct our business are anything but static. That's why we have memo books, recurrent training, and why we file revisions to our manuals every week. We live in a world of change, and as professionals, we're expected to adapt. We're no different than most other professions in that regard.

I'm curious...other than this "age 60" rule, are there any other rules that you were told would never, under any circumstances, change during the course of your career? And who told you that?

I don't know.... Maybe it's a training problem.

 

[Phaedrus]

Yes, maybe a training problem. All the changes, revisions, and training you'd like to draw an analogy to are to increase safety. Beyond that small point it's a poor analogy on the face of it. Let me ask you a question to prove the point: when you began your career did you honestly expect changes to your Jepps and regulations? How about the age 60 rule?
Oh, I can't think of any better reason to repeal a law that everyone in the US has operated under for decades than your belief that it is stupid.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Yes, maybe a training problem. All the changes, revisions, and training you'd like to draw an analogy to are to increase safety. Beyond that small point it's a poor analogy on the face of it. Let me ask you a question to prove the point: when you began your career did you honestly expect changes to your Jepps and regulations? How about the age 60 rule?

Yes, I expected daily changes to my schedule, weekly changes to my Jepps, monthly changes to my Ops manual, and semi-annual changes to the FAR's. What I didn't expect were the changes to our business, both in terms of who/what flew on airplanes, and what kinds of changes deregulation would bring to our industry. I don't think very many people expected that. A few of those who did are millionaires today.

I didn't like all of the changes of course, but I adapted to all of them nicely, as I'm sure you have...and will, when this "age 60" thing is changed.

Come to think of it, the National speed limit was 55 mph when I started in the flying business. Those who opposed raising it to 65 mph cited concerns over safety. But you know, by some miracle, we came through that OK too.

If you're going to cite "safety" as a reason to force otherwise healthy pilots into early retirement, then you're going to have to address the sharp rise in accidents experienced by those pilots over 40 as well as those over 60. Personally, if I'm going to have to start another career, I'd rather do it at 40 than at 60.