Age 60 Rule - please answer this PRO-camp

[NoJoy]

It is amazing how some pilots are crying age discrimination. Age is a big factor in flying. 16 to solo. 17 to get your pilot's license. 23 to get your ATP. 60 retire from 121 flying. Sounds simple enough. When we all started flying we knew the the FAA limitations of flying, and age is one of them. Raising the retirement age to 65 for 121 ops does not make any sence. If this rule is changed, there should be no age limitation-simuliar to 135 flying. The FAA has the age restriction for 121 flying for a reason, and I have not read a strong enough aurgument yet to have it changed.

 

[ivauir]

He got em out though, right?

We're in the safety business, so changing the age is a safety factor. (I know you agree, at least in part) In the past, we've done everything we can on the ground to stack the odds in our favor in the air. (age change departs from that thinking) In the years following a change, are you going to be OK with the low vis apch setup you've got? You OK with FOs left out on SA and the CA becoming more "Herman Munster like" every trip? I'll be watching SWA pilots if this goes through, I hope you lead on how it is implemented.

Sorry my typing was so messed up ... I was in the middle of a video game. Flop you know I am against the change, but this accident is not a good example. The reversers should have not failed to deploy, and should not have taken as extrodinary amount of force. The FAA should never have allowed Boeing to use reverse thrust in landing calculations. And we need more accurate runway slipperyness readings.

Not only was the Captain's age NOT a factor in this accident, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a part 121 accident where age was a factor. That is a result of the effectivness of the current law.

Would 65 be ok? I don't know, maybe. in a perfect world we'd have such great pilot physicals that we wouldn't need an age restriction. In this same perfect world all of the airlines would be growing and everyone would have their pensions.

In the real world the pilots who would benefit the most want us to trade one flawed system for another. They point out the flaws of the current system, but ignore the problems with the change. They minimize the the negative effects on the junior and furloughed pilots and offer no relief to the already retired. Then they whine about fairness and discrimination, but offer no compromise and fight only the discrimination that harms them.

Go ahead and fight the good fight against the change Flopgut, I'm with you, but leave MDW out of it.

 

[lostplnetairman]

I think the rule requiring someone to be 23 to obtain an ATP is illegal and discriminatory. If a 22 year old with 1500 hours can meet the PTS, he should get his ATP. Why must he wait? Why does the FAA set a minimum age?


Mr. Congressman, please support a abolishment of this archaic rule. I am 22 years old, 1500 hours, and could physically pass the PTS standards today. But I am not 23. Please convince the FAA to abolish this rule, and thus allow the skies to be safer. Also Mr. Congressman, did you know that not one accident has resulted due to "young age?" Not one. Why are otherwise qualified applicants meeting the ATP minimums being kept out of the cockpit? (etc etc etc ad nauseum)

Why has the Age Discrimination lobby not brought this into discussion?

Oh, I forgot, we are talking about the me-Generation, and as far as age 22 and ATP? I got mine, screw you. Now I am about to turn 60 and will sue, form coalitions, start websites, and write my congressman because retire at Age 60 is not fair, it is illegal, etc etc.

FOUR PAGES OF DISCUSSION AND NOT ONE VALID COUNTER ARGUMENT TO MY QUESTIONS.

HMMMMMMMM.......

Again, those younger than 40 are not protected, so it's not age discrimination.

And, again, please stop the generalizations. Not everyone in favor of change is about to turn 60. There are many that are way younger than that who believe the change is needed. And not everyone is a CA who wants to sit in the left seat another five years. Absolutes and generalizations will kill your argument because, all someone has to do is show one example of how you are wrong and your position is completely discredited.

HRDiva

 

[MalteseX]

It is amazing how some pilots are crying age discrimination. Age is a big factor in flying. 16 to solo. 17 to get your pilot's license. 23 to get your ATP. 60 retire from 121 flying. Sounds simple enough. When we all started flying we knew the the FAA limitations of flying, and age is one of them. Raising the retirement age to 65 for 121 ops does not make any sence. If this rule is changed, there should be no age limitation-simuliar to 135 flying. The FAA has the age restriction for 121 flying for a reason, and I have not read a strong enough aurgument yet to have it changed.

I have not read a strong enough argument to KEEP it.

 

[ivauir]

Again, those younger than 40 are not protected, so it's not age discrimination.

And, again, please stop the generalizations. Not everyone in favor of change is about to turn 60. There are many that are way younger than that who believe the change is needed. And not everyone is a CA who wants to sit in the left seat another five years. Absolutes and generalizations will kill your argument because, all someone has to do is show one example of how you are wrong and your position is completely discredited.

HRDiva

So because the law only protects folks over 40 it isn't age discrimination? Sounds like a bad law. Sounds like the age disrimination law discriminates.

 

[Flopgut]

Sorry my typing was so messed up ... I was in the middle of a video game. Flop you know I am against the change, but this accident is not a good example. The reversers should have not failed to deploy, and should not have taken as extrodinary amount of force. The FAA should never have allowed Boeing to use reverse thrust in landing calculations. And we need more accurate runway slipperyness readings.

Not only was the Captain's age NOT a factor in this accident, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a part 121 accident where age was a factor. That is a result of the effectivness of the current law.

Would 65 be ok? I don't know, maybe. in a perfect world we'd have such great pilot physicals that we wouldn't need an age restriction. In this same perfect world all of the airlines would be growing and everyone would have their pensions.

In the real world the pilots who would benefit the most want us to trade one flawed system for another. They point out the flaws of the current system, but ignore the problems with the change. They minimize the the negative effects on the junior and furloughed pilots and offer no relief to the already retired. Then they whine about fairness and discrimination, but offer no compromise and fight only the discrimination that harms them.

Go ahead and fight the good fight against the change Flopgut, I'm with you, but leave MDW out of it.

Yes, I should leave this specific incident out. I beg your pardon.

Going forward, poor wx and slick runways will remain a constant. Let's say you're flying FO for a guy/gal over age 60, shooting a very low apch, and your laptop thing says you have only 400' to play with. You aren't flying, you have no HUD and no tiller. You going to feel pretty good about this? Think about it: You're the FO, your authority level has not changed, but your responsibility has gone up enormously! The airplane departs pavement and guess what? You're responsible and age is a contibuting factor, your age is the only thing enabling this flight! Capts won't share the money with you, they won't share any seniority, but they'll share some additional blame all right.

Now I know, you and I are going to do the same thing. If we had any doubt about the safety of the operation, we'll get a new plan, go elsewhere, etc. After that happens a few times, you and I will be doing a carpet dance in front of some flight standards guy like 3BCat. Who despite his claims is as eager to hear junior FOs speak as listen to the inner marker for an hour! Guy is brimming with contempt for junior pilots; how bad is an age 60+ pilot going to have to screw up before he lends any credence to some junior pilot?

I won't back down from trying to keep things safe, none of us will I'm sure. But, it would be nice to have some additional authority and some additional pay to go along with the responsibility of flying with an age 60+ pilot. Maybe at SWA you guys could get the ball rolling on something like that and set a standard for all of us?

 

[lostplnetairman]

So because the law only protects folks over 40 it isn't age discrimination? Sounds like a bad law. Sounds like the age disrimination law discriminates.

Yes, it's not unlawful. It may seem unfair, but it is not against the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. If you think it should be changed, you should write your Representative and Senator!

HRDiva

 

[2Aoff1Bon]

One question on the safety angle, if safety is the reason to keep age 60 (and I don't believe it is): If under 60 is safer than over 60, then why isn't there any talk of LOWERING the age? 50, anyone? 45? Using the age/safety logic, if safety is the biggest factor in keeping it at 60, it seems a lower age for mandatory 121 retirement would be something up for consideration to improve safety any more.

Yes, I am being a bit sarcastic. I really think that the argument turns on money. If you support age 60 because you want the old farts out of your way you are at least being honest about it. I have a lot more respect for that than for the "safety" group. Yeah, the older captains who want to fly longer may be greedy, but no more so than the young F/Os who want to make captain sooner or young narrowbody captains who want to upgrade to widebody.

 

[Falconjet]

One question on the safety angle, if safety is the reason to keep age 60 (and I don't believe it is): If under 60 is safer than over 60, then why isn't there any talk of LOWERING the age? 50, anyone? 45? Using the age/safety logic, if safety is the biggest factor in keeping it at 60, it seems a lower age for mandatory 121 retirement would be something up for consideration to improve safety any more.

Yes, I am being a bit sarcastic. I really think that the argument turns on money. If you support age 60 because you want the old farts out of your way you are at least being honest about it. I have a lot more respect for that than for the "safety" group. Yeah, the older captains who want to fly longer may be greedy, but no more so than the young F/Os who want to make captain sooner or young narrowbody captains who want to upgrade to widebody.

You lose your credibility when you say that the young guys are greedy becaue they want to move up "sooner". Nobody wants to move up sooner. They just want the opportunity to upgrade when their turn comes, which is when the 60 year old guys retire. They just want the same opportunity that those ahead of them received. It is the pro-change older guys who are greedy because they want the younger guys to move up "later" than they got to.

FJ

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Heck, I'll give this a stab....answers in bold...

What do you think about lowering the driving age?--->Never thought about it Nebraska and Kansas allow kids age 14 to get their license. Do you favor that for every state?--->Really, I don't care about Kansas and Nebraska...I live in Texas Europe allows kids to drink beer. Do you think we should follow their lead, just like we should follow ICAO's lead with age 65?--->Beer and flying have never mixed well... (even though it is because of LCC expansion in Europe and a shortage of pilots) Are you a follower?--->Never have been...I am a graduate of USAF "Leadership School" Did you know the constitution has age discrimination? It states a MINIMUM age for President of the United States. Is that wrong? ---->Yes Do you want to rewrite the Constitution?--->Me? Myself? Alone? No...I got enough trouble keeping up with my Jepps, but I'll leave the re-write to others...then we as United Americans..can vote on it...

Adios,
Tejas

Please answer the questions.
Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Tejas-Jet]

They were very old and senior--the L1011 was the senior plane back then.

Soooo, why didn't the F/O or the S/O speak up? What do you guys teach over there in terms of monitoring?

Tejas

 

[Tejas-Jet]

You OK with FOs left out on SA and the CA becoming more "Herman Munster like" every trip? I'll be watching SWA pilots if this goes through, I hope you lead on how it is implemented.

I really don't think you have much experience with the HGS system and how it is implemented. As far as the record with the HGS....between airlines like the old PSA, Alaska, Morris Air, SWA and others, the safety record of those using the HGS vs. and auto-land low vis system is the same.

Don't like it? Think it lowers the safety margins?....call the FAA.

Tejas

 

[ivauir]

Yes, I should leave this specific incident out. I beg your pardon.

Going forward, poor wx and slick runways will remain a constant. Let's say you're flying FO for a guy/gal over age 60, shooting a very low apch, and your laptop thing says you have only 400' to play with. You aren't flying, you have no HUD and no tiller. You going to feel pretty good about this?

The short answer is yes.

The data in the laptop has been changed due to FAA guidance (we were in compliance before - the guidance changed). There are (of course) other operational factors that I'd rather not discuss on a public forum, but in the end if it looks good on the OPC, it will be good when we touch down (given a properly reported ATIS and an accuratlly flown approach).

I do not need a HUD to monitor the approach, during a HUD approach my instruments get more sensitive. If the Captain is not on the numbers we are going around, even if I don't catch it the system includes an approach warning feature, so that if the Capt is out of paramters, we are going around.

Think about it: You're the FO, your authority level has not changed, but your responsibility has gone up enormously! The airplane departs pavement and guess what? You're responsible and age is a contibuting factor, your age is the only thing enabling this flight! Capts won't share the money with you, they won't share any seniority, but they'll share some additional blame all right.
An excellent point.

Now I know, you and I are going to do the same thing. If we had any doubt about the safety of the operation, we'll get a new plan, go elsewhere, etc. After that happens a few times, you and I will be doing a carpet dance in front of some flight standards guy like 3BCat. Who despite his claims is as eager to hear junior FOs speak as listen to the inner marker for an hour! Guy is brimming with contempt for junior pilots; how bad is an age 60+ pilot going to have to screw up before he lends any credence to some junior pilot?

I ve got a microphone, a flap lever, and a landing gear lever - I can (and will) abort any approach I don't like. If it ever got to that level I work for a company that I am sure would back me up.

I won't back down from trying to keep things safe, none of us will I'm sure. But, it would be nice to have some additional authority and some additional pay to go along with the responsibility of flying with an age 60+ pilot. Maybe at SWA you guys could get the ball rolling on something like that and set a standard for all of us?

I am unconvinced that there will be a safty problem with 60+ pilots. I think it is a MAYBE. But the current system does work, so why are we playing with it? The finacial impact on junior folks (and furloughed) folks) is real and the pro change crowd needs to offer a compromise in order to win our support. When I bring this up I get a great deal of attitude and contempt, but I won't be bullied in to changing my position. A change will require me to work longer to earn the same money. This legislation is going to fail in large part because ALPA and the majority of pilots oppose it. Anyone who wants the change needs to offer a unifying compromise.

 

[Cyclone]

ivauir

dude

your union is largely responsible for this age 60 rule change push. ask them:

do they think they should continue to fly in the left seat even though there is a restriction placed on crewing because of them?

wouldn't it be more fair if the rule was changed to say
if over 60 and under 60 goes through, the PIC can not be over 60?

you can just hear them belly aching. why wouldn't that be fair?

they get to work until 65 like they wanted to, they still make money, etc.

the reality is as an FO if you are with an over 60 pilot and he screws up a HUD approach or has a taxi incident, if he is the PIC, you still get it on your ticket...that is wrong...he should either retire or move over and not be "in charge" because the ICAO rule acknowledges that having one over 60 necessitates an under 60...at least let the under 60 guy be the Captain.

float that one past your senior daddy's in Dallas who want to work until they die

 

[Big Duke Six]

I agree that if it is changed at all, which I don't think it should be, it should mandate that the over-60 be in the right seat.

Fair is fair. Then they will be sharing the pain that results from their being there in the first place. In other words, there will be two guys somewhere whose career progression will be halted for 5 years. Maybe both not at that company even, but they will be out there. Yes, there will be two guys out there (the one FO that would have replaced him and one guy on the street that would have filled the vacant FO slot) getting the shaft. So if we keep the over 60 guy in the cockpit, but in the right seat, there is only ONE person adversely affected instead of two. Right? The FO still gets to move up but the guy on the street stays on the street for 5 more years.

This seems like the least painful way to implement this abomination. A side benefit would be that it would remove the complexity of scheduling these guys too. Because now they are just another FO and can be scheduled with ANY captain (who would be, by definition, under 60).

There you go. I may even support that one. I definitely DO NOT support the "Tough luck, pal, you're stuck for 5 more years" approach.

 

[satpak77]

amazing how ALPA, with XXXX thousands on the street, is against the change, but SWAPA, with zero furloughed, is for it.

funny how that works huh

un F. believable the PRO-CHANGE crownd

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Publish the results if that is true?

BTW, SWAPA surveyed this question as recently as ten days ago.

Publish the results if that statement is true. And publish the question used in the poll.

SWAPA hasn't polled it pilots in any real manner. I have heard they have used bogus questions dodging the issue related to studies with John Hopkins, with low voting turnout, to create the results SWAPA has desired regardless of what the membership wants.

SWAPA is not representing the majority of its pilots on this issue.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Publish the results if that statement is true. And publish the question used in the poll.

SWAPA hasn't polled it pilots in any real manner. I have heard they have used bogus questions dodging the issue related to studies with John Hopkins, with low voting turnout, to create the results SWAPA has desired regardless of what the membership wants.

SWAPA is not representing the majority of its pilots on this issue.

I was polled with the simple question of do you want the rule changed and do you want the union to pursue the change. If you have factual data indicating that the view of the membership has changed, you are free to publish it. I know that the majority of those I fly with are either pro-change or neutral. Is that a scientific representation? Of course not. I have no problem with another vote. I am sure that the results will be the same but, if not, the union should stop spending $ to change.

You accusations of the motives of those that are pro-change are baseless and serve no purpose.