Age 60 informal poll

[Klako]

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.

ALPA no longer has any credibility in telling anyone that the "Age 60 Rule" will not or must not change. This is because the Airline Pilots Association's (ALPA) has now signed Canadian air carrier “Jazz” to a contract allowing pilots to fly to age 65. ALPA represents Jazz and has approved a contract that set pensions at age 60 and allows flight to age 65. Additionally, ALPA's President Duane Woerth publicly stated that he would sign any ALPA over age 60 contract for a United States carrier if the Age 60 Rule were to be changed in the United States, and that is about to happen.

 

[jbDC9]

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.

Oh good, then it's not just me beginning to think Klako is acting like a retarded 3rd grader...

Blah blah blah, Klako keeps spewing his crap, but when faced with the actual fact that most senior guys have benefitted from the Age 60 rule throughout their careers, he clams up, ignores it and continues to spout more worthless gibberish that fits his selfish agenda. Also, why is 60 discriminatory and 65 isn't? Eh, nevermind, Klako won't respond to facts anyway.

 

[Andy]

The report cited makes no reference to accident rates as a function of age, only to rates of incapacitation and impairment.

Ah, you read one of the reports that I posted, but not the other one.
Here's the one you read: http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/2000s/media/0416.pdf

Here's the one you didn't read: http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_3.pdf
See page 24 for age related accident rates among part 121/135 pilots per 100,000 flight hours. You will see the curve take a distinct upward turn at 55.

 

[Andy]

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.

He's referring to the Senate attachment to the DOT's appropriations bill. However, that was merely symbolic, since it is against Senate rules to attach legislative action to appropriations bills. The attachment will not be there when the appropriations come to a vote on the Senate floor.

 

[pipe]

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

Klako- I meant facts to show that Andy has distorted the truth. Andy's post seemed to have more specifics than anything in this entire thread.

But, as usual, you responded with the "head fake". Did you explain how Andy distorted the truth? No. Instead you cut and paste another article. One that starts out by calling old pilots "our most skilled" pilots. That's not biased. (insert hint of sarcasm here)

Klako - the battle of cut and paste will never be won by either side, nor will it ever prove anything. There is an infinite amount of information out there that gives the appearance of support for either side of this argument. Infinite!!!

So again, here's what it comes down to. My association is bigger than your association. My association uses a democratic process and Robert's Rules of Order to do business. The membership of my association is not in favor of changing the rule.

But, if you cut and paste enough information on a message board - well who knows? Hopefully our side will cut and paste enough articles to keep the age the same. That's what it really comes down to isn't it?

I can see the cover of Aviation Weekly. "Klako wins battle of cut and paste with sheer quantity--Age 60 rule abolished". Good luck.

PIPE

 

[Klako]

Klako- I meant facts to show that Andy has distorted the truth. Andy's post seemed to have more specifics than anything in this entire thread.

Andy's and your arguments are based solely on the grounds that no one has come up with a study proving that pilots will be safer beyond their 60th birthday, that the available safety data and latest medical research are insufficient for an extension to the age 60 rule. Thus Andy's position is that, in spite of numerous scientific studies, there is insufficient evidence to prove that an airline pilot would be as safe or safer if allowed to fly beyond age 60 and therefore ALL US airline pilots must be grounded on their 60th birthday. What a pitiful distortion of logic used to deprive otherwise qualified persons their right to perform in their lifelong career. If the Federal government wants a law that denies an otherwise qualified person to practice in their profession, then that government must prove that there are enough scientific reasons for such a law to exist. It is the federal government’s burden to prove 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

 

[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

I was primarly refering to Andy's distortions of my personal situation. My or anyones personal situation should never have been discussed. The issue is that qualified pilots are forced out of their profession for no other reason than their age and that is simply wrong!

 

[Andy]

I was primarly refering to Andy's distortions of my personal situation. My or anyones personal situation should never have been discussed. The issue is that qualified pilots are forced out of their profession for no other reason than their age and that is simply wrong!

Klako, if I had made any statements that were a gross misrepresentation of your situation, you'd be posting a detailed response.
As for bringing forth personal situations, you opened that can of worms all by yourself by stating a distorted picture of your personal situation. I was merely correcting your distortions.

 

[ils2minimums]

 

[Andy]

Andy's and your arguments are based solely on the grounds that no one has come up with a study proving that pilots will be safer beyond their 60th birthday, that the available safety data and latest medical research are insufficient for an extension to the age 60 rule.

No, I've posted two reports that were based on multiple scientific studies that support the fact that the negative effects of aging outweigh pilot experience beyond the age of 55. The available safety data is very clear on that point.