Age 60 informal poll

[vetrider]

Duane Woerth supposedly told our local council that age 65 is now attached to some bill that is 22 billion pages long and will slip through the cracks this year without even getting debated. But then again, not to long ago he said that it was dead this year. I think his tune changes depending upon his audience and the exact circumstance.

 

[Klako]

Wrong, Miles. Klako is not telling you the entire story.
Klako retired from the military as a CW4; he has been getting a monthly pension for the last 17+ years. That also entitles him to very inexpensive medical care. Klako will also claim that he chose to fly at his current employer (Horizon) because it was close to home and that he expected to be able to fly until 65.

Now, let’s dissect this a bit. I’d be willing to bet that Klako does not have a bachelor’s degree (his choice), which almost completely rules out a job at a major airline.
Klako will also claim that he can’t afford medical care because his 15+ year doctor won’t accept Tricare. Again, his choice to continue to go to that doctor rather than change to another doctor.
Klako hasn’t mentioned that the rule which made Horizon go from 135 to 121 ops in 1999 had been around since 1995. Klako knew that he’d have to retire at 60 back in 1995.

As far as Klako’s current pay, a 17 year Horizon captain on the CRJ-700 is making $117/hr. If he’s not holding CRJ-700 captain, that’s his choice.
He also has a 10% match for his 401k. If he has chosen to not put away 10%, that’s his choice.

Klako’s had a lot of time to make different choices, but he has chosen not to. I was furloughed in 2002 and had to make major course corrections in my career. Klako has chosen to not make course corrections and is now expending his time and energy in a fruitless effort to change the age 60 rule before he turns into a pumpkin.
There have been efforts to have the FAA make regulatory changes to the age 60 rule, but the FAA has not done so due to safety concerns. There have been efforts to have judicial system change the age 60, but all judges have ruled against them.
The latest effort to change the age 60 rule is through the legislative process. The politics is indeed interesting to watch. While many politicians will pay lip service and state publicly that they are in favor of change, no one is bringing the bill forward for a vote on the Senate side and it's bottled up in subcommittee on the House side. And it won’t come up for a vote because Congress has more significant issues that they are concentrating on. For us pilots this seems monumental, but for politicians, it’s not even on the radar screen. Even Jim Gibbons’ radar screen.

Andy, your distortions of the truth will not win you debate points.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Whistlin' Dan, the accident rate takes an upward turn at 55, not 40.

The report cited makes no reference to accident rates as a function of age, only to rates of incapacitation and impairment. (Figure 1, page 12) If you'll look again, you'll see that the rates are lowest for pilots between the ages of 35 and 39. Pilots above AND below those rates are at increased risk of becoming incapacitated in flight.

The question of whether the increased experience and depth of knowledge that a senior crewmember brings to the job outweighs his marginally greater chance of becoming incapacitated is not addressed in the report. That's too bad, because where those lines cross should probably be the true determinant of when a pilot should be forced to retire.

Something else of interest in the report - 3 of the 4 pilots who were incapacitated had a previously documented history of heart problems...problems that almost assuredly would have disqualified them from flying under the increased medical scrutiny proposed for those pilots who would fly past the age of 60.

My point is, that if somebody wants to use "safety" in their argument for forcing a fixed retirement age upon pilots, they should cite ALL the data. It weakens their argument to cite increased rates for only those pilots who just happen to be considerably older than they are.

 

[pipe]

Andy, your distortions of the truth will not win you debate points.

Correct the record or shut your piehole.

You and Undaunted never answer fact-based arguments. For 40 pages now, whenever anyone makes a valid fact-based argument, you ignore it and move on like it never happened. You just spout the same rhetoric like a deaf crazy person. In fact, maybe you are deaf and crazy. Both often accompany aging. No, that can't be right. Aging has no effects. To imply otherwise would be discriminatory.

WHAT ARE ANDY'S DISTORTIONS OF THE TRUTH? PLEASE POINT OUT THE FACTUAL ERRORS. PLEASE SUPPLY FACTS TO DISPUTE THESE ERRORS.
AGAIN -- CORRECT THE RECORD. ADDRESS THE FACTS POINT BY POINT. RESPOND WITH FACTS. IF YOU CANNOT, PLEASE SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!!

PIPE

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The latest effort to change the age 60 rule is through the legislative process. The politics is indeed interesting to watch. While many politicians will pay lip service and state publicly that they are in favor of change, no one is bringing the bill forward for a vote on the Senate side and it's bottled up in subcommittee on the House side. And it won’t come up for a vote because Congress has more significant issues that they are concentrating on. For us pilots this seems monumental, but for politicians, it’s not even on the radar screen. Even Jim Gibbons’ radar screen.

It is interesting to see how little you really know about what is happening. This change will happen almost overnight, in a matter of one or two days and then it will unstoppable. All those in power now want this change to happen. The driving force is the ICAO change and ICAO can not be stopped.

By the way Andy, you are all invited to my 60th birthday party in HNL and to ride back on the flight I'll be flying.

The argument now is that if ICAO countries can fly into the USA safey to age 65, so should Americans be able to.

 

[PurpleInMEM]

...The argument now is that if ICAO countries can fly into the USA safey to age 65, so should Americans be able to.

No, that's the basis of your argument, not your argument. It's like saying because the Euros want something that it's automatically good for us too.

ICAO is a joke; always has been, always will be. I don't care if ICAO lets geezers fly until they're 90. We merely have to permit signatories to operate in that manner here, but we don't have to let pilots certificated by the U.S. authority operate in the same manner. Being a party to ICAO in NO WAY diminishes a member state's ability to mandate operations for it's own citizens.

It's clear to me that all you're going to do by raising the mandatory retirement age is further injure furloughed pilots and keep the least productive pilots around a little longer. Nice!

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

It's clear to me that all you're going to do by raising the mandatory retirement age is further injure furloughed pilots and keep the least productive pilots around a little longer. Nice!

Oh, OK. I'm done for. Going to buy a trailer in the Middle of MO and retire. I blew all my dough on airplanes, girls and gambling so that's it. Guna home school my kid too.

By the way, the other day my two sharp young guy F/O's wanted to let our flight depart from a runway with the last 1000 feet closed for construction. They didn't know about this closure even though the whole airport is torn up. Not until the voice of 37 years of experience asked them to check the Notams did they discover we didn't have enough runway. In aviation there is nothing like experience.

 

[Patriot328]

By the way, the other day my two sharp young guy F/O's wanted to let our flight depart from a runway with the last 1000 feet closed for construction. They didn't know about this closure even though the whole airport is torn up. Not until the voice of 37 years of experience asked them to check the Notams did they discover we didn't have enough runway. In aviation there is nothing like experience.

Or common sense and procedure. It doesn't take 37 years of experience to read the effing notams. Stop patting yourself on the back and pretending that every FO you fly with is trying to kill you.

 

[catIIIc]

Undaunted you are a flying god, how in world do other airplanes stay in the air without your expert wisdom to guide them. Its no wonder why most people think that United pilots think their S&*t doesn't stink. Fortuantely I know quite a few of them and I know you are not the majority. Otherwise the airline would stop operatiing because you would be to busy patting each other on the back.

 

[Klako]

Correct the record or shut your piehole.

You and Undaunted never answer fact-based arguments. For 40 pages now, whenever anyone makes a valid fact-based argument, you ignore it and move on like it never happened. You just spout the same rhetoric like a deaf crazy person. In fact, maybe you are deaf and crazy. Both often accompany aging. No, that can't be right. Aging has no effects. To imply otherwise would be discriminatory.

WHAT ARE ANDY'S DISTORTIONS OF THE TRUTH? PLEASE POINT OUT THE FACTUAL ERRORS. PLEASE SUPPLY FACTS TO DISPUTE THESE ERRORS.
AGAIN -- CORRECT THE RECORD. ADDRESS THE FACTS POINT BY POINT. RESPOND WITH FACTS. IF YOU CANNOT, PLEASE SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!!

PIPE

The Age 60 Rule: Age Discrimination in Commercial Aviation

Robin Wilkening: rmwilkeningearthlink.net​

The Federal Aviation Administration, along with the Air Line Pilots Association and the politicians whose pockets they line, state that the Age 60 Rule is a necessary safety standard. The truth is, if the issue was really safety there wouldn’t be an Age 60 Rule. Time and again over-60 pilots have been shown to be as safe as or safer than their younger colleagues. The Age 60 Rule has never really been about safety.
The Age 60 Rule’s conception followed the unethical professional coupling of the CEO of American Airlines, C. R. Smith, and the first Administrator of the FAA, retired Lieutenant General Elwood Quesada, resulting in an economic windfall for the airline and a sweet post-retirement job for the Administrator.16, 17, 18, 19 Even then the FAA knew "it was not yet possible to establish a retirement age for civil airline pilots based on scientifically determined facts."1
A brief review of the three major concerns frequently raised regarding the health and fitness of our most experienced and skilled pilots is in order.

1. 1. Pilots over age 60 might experience incapacitation.
   2. Pilots over age 60 might experience undetected cognitive decline.
   3. Medical testing may not identify pilots over age 60 who might be at risk for adverse health events.

Incapacitation
Sudden incapacitation due to cardiovascular disease was the stated reason, though not the real reason, that the actual age of 60 was chosen. Forty years ago, when ALPA still championed the rights of all pilots to remain employed, former ALPA president Clarence Sayen challenged FAA Administrator Elwood Quesada to justify his hasty decision to enact the Rule. Quesada responded with 41 highly questionable articles culled from the medical archives of the 1950’s, the majority of these having been published decades earlier. In addition to being astonishingly outdated, these articles described characteristics of the general population and not of airline pilots.20 They are clearly not the "fundamental, indisputable principles of medical science"30 that current ALPA president, Duane Woerth, has stated. The original justification for the Rule implied, incorrectly, that the health characteristics of the general population of white males in the United States applied also to the population of air carrier pilots. Wrong then and wrong now! Airline pilots are still healthier and live longer than their counterparts in the general population the world over.3, 4, 7, 12, 13, 14, 22
Moreover, concern over pilot incapacitation causing a crash is simply unjustified. IATA data and simulator data show that the risk of incapacitation due to cardiovascular disease is only 1 event in more than 20 million flight hours. The calculated probability of a crash occurring as a result of incapacitation is 1 event in every 8.3 billion flight hours, or, stated another way, 1 episode every 400 years.8 Furthermore, it is well established that in-flight incapacitation is a far lesser threat to safety than are mishaps due to inexperienced pilot error.11
The truth is, 40 years of medical scrutiny show no justification for the Age 60 Rule based on the fear that an airline pilot will become incapacitated, regardless of age.
Cognitive Performance
The normal, healthy aging process is accompanied by decreases in cognitive function over time in all population groups, though rarely manifest prior to 70.25, 26 Airline pilots consistently demonstrate superior task performance when compared to age-matched non-pilots.27 High levels of education and training — characteristics of commercial aviators — significantly enhance the retention of mental abilities.25 Airline pilots are selected for good health at the start of their careers and are subjected to comprehensive medical examinations every 6 months thereafter. Illnesses that might lead to cognitive decline are detected and corrected, or the pilot is removed from the work force.9 They are the most monitored and health-conscious of all professionals. Moreover, all airline pilots undergo mandatory simulator time that tests every conceivable routine and emergent situation. They are under the constant scrutiny of other pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, loadmasters, gate personnel and air traffic controllers during daily flight operations. They are subject to the two-communication rule at all times. There is simply no chance that cognitive decline will occur unnoticed. The truth is, 40 years of medical scrutiny show no justification for the Age 60 Rule based on the fear that an airline pilot will have undetected cognitive impairment, regardless of age.
Identification of Pilots at Risk for Adverse Health Events
ALPA opines that "medical science has not developed a regimen of reliable tests that can be administered effectively to identify those aging pilots who are, or will become, incapacitated, or whose performance will decline to an unacceptable level."30 ALPA's president, Duane Woerth, who made this pronoucement, is either sadly uninformed, or seeks deliberately to misinform. The truth is, sophisticated and readily available testing programs have been used by the FAA for more than 20 years to determine airline pilot fitness for duty. In addition to the diagnostic value of these ever-improving tests, they are widely accepted to have predictive value as well.2, 6, 21 Moreover, age simply does not affect the manner in which disease manifests itself diagnostically.28 The claim that these tests - both medical and psychological - fail the day a pilot turns 60 is simply wrong! Airline pilots under age 60 who have been removed from duty for myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass surgery, valvular disease, alcoholism (even after relapse), drug abuse, brain injury, psychiatric illnesses, and a long list of other life-threatening maladies, are routinely returned to flying upon passing one or more diagnostic tests, and have been for decades.10, 22, 29 They are allowed to prove themselves fit. Without exception or justification, the FAA denies access to these same tests by pilots the day they turn 60. This unethical double standard in medical evaluations based on age alone is not defensible! The truth is, it's not a safety standard - it's age discrimination.
Flight Performance Data: the Greatest Significance to Public Safety
Most importantly, decades of actual flight performance data, the measure of greatest significance to public safety, show that for every age group, older pilots are as safe as younger. The FAA's 1993 Hilton Study demonstrated that there was simply no diminution in flight performance as pilots reached age 60,15 a finding confirmed by 1999 FAA data showing no difference in accident risk comparing pilots aged 20-59.5 FAA data analyzed independently and published in the Chicago Tribune in 1999 showed that air transport pilots over age 60 were as safe as their younger colleagues.24 In attempting to counter the Tribune's findings the FAA deliberately manipulated the data to exclude these over-60 pilots from their analysis. However, FAA data from 1988-1997 released last year confirms yet again that air transport pilots with Class 1 medical certificates - the type of pilot who can be an airline Captain - are as safe as younger pilots.31 How many times does this information need to be repeated before it's believed?
The increasingly traveled skies of our nation require the most experienced pilots in the cockpit, those that are now forced out of work by the Age 60 Rule. The FAA clings irrationally to the notion that the age of 60 is an appropriate single standard for the evaluation of older pilot fitness, and promotes their incorrect and outmoded position by misrepresentation of data. The archaic and discriminatory Age 60 Rule prohibits our most experienced pilots from performing the work they know and do better than anyone else in the business, thereby compromising the safety of all air travelers.