Age 65

[C-150ETOPS]

You an always drop a dime on him to the anonymous FAA safety hotline. You don't have to provide a name.

Well let me tell you what happens in real life even if you got a FAA Inspector interested enough to follow it up.

Even if the issue was pursued to it's extreme end and the FAA guy sat in a SIM session, the old geezer will more than likely be performing at 10 am after a good rest and a nice cup of coffee in a unfatigued condition. He will probably have had a couple of warm up sessions doing the same things for the FED the day before, and the FED is more than likely a non-current crappy jet pilot who probably would make a fool of himself if he asks anything other than "when's lunch, or what color is the sky?"

After that, it's back to flying with the unrespectful young "whippersnapper" and further demonstration that a 14 hour duty day until 3 am generally proves that 90% of the geezers are worthless.

Except for the FED, that was my life with 3 geezers in Lears 20 years ago. REF minus 15-20 in a LR-25D at 100' and a 40 Degree bank is a fugly place to be. (and yes, the word Go Around is too complicated to process too)

Cue in the geezer chant "I have youngsters falling asleep too!!!!"

 

[gutshotdraw]

Another reason why the age 65 rule needs to be applied to Part 135/91/91K. We still have about 300 at NetJets over age 60 (some over 70!!!) even after the 200 that took the early buyout. Many (not all) of these guys can't pull their own weight as far as loading bags, staying awake in the cockpit, etc that fractional flying demands. Guess who does all the work then? Pretty frustrating considering 495 of us (myself included) are hitting the street in January. I personally feel a line needs to be drawn somewhere in the best interest of safety.

Ding! Winner, Winner. Chicken dinner!

It would actually be quite simple: change Part 61. No 1st or 2nd Class medicals issued to anyone that has reached their 65th birthday. Hence, no compensated flying of any type past that age.

Yes, yes I know. There are guys in their 60's that run marathons and can fly the Space Shuttle and guys in their 40's you wouldn't trust with chopsticks let alone a 40 million dollar jet but the world is ruled by generalities because it has to be. You can't regulate by the exception.

 

[PsubS]

I find it enlightening to read your post in inverse order....

Yes, yes I know. There are guys in their 60's that run marathons and can fly the Space Shuttle and guys in their 40's you wouldn't trust with chopsticks let alone a 40 million dollar jet but the world is ruled by generalities because it has to be. You can't regulate by the exception.
__________________
Benford's Law of Controversy: Passion in any argument is inversely proportional to the amount of real information advanced.

It's rather typical for FI...Lot's of complaining, very little science to back up your viewpoint.

 

[gutshotdraw]

Actually, there is plenty of science on age-related cognitive skill degradation. And I'm not complaining since my career hasn't been directly impacted in a negative way by the age regulations. I'm only stating my opinion as is everyone else on this board.

 

[filejw]

Another reason why the age 65 rule needs to be applied to Part 135/91/91K. We still have about 300 at NetJets over age 60 (some over 70!!!) even after the 200 that took the early buyout. Many (not all) of these guys can't pull their own weight as far as loading bags, staying awake in the cockpit, etc that fractional flying demands. Guess who does all the work then? Pretty frustrating considering 495 of us (myself included) are hitting the street in January. I personally feel a line needs to be drawn somewhere in the best interest of safety.

Careful what you ask for. Two of the late 40's guys Im flying with on this 13 day trip were pulling zzz at 2 hrs after T/O...and they are good guys too. Except you are supposed to say some thing first....

wrong quote....sorry

 

[fullsail]

We need to be vigilant of Age 70. These same guys who pushed Age 65 will reload and push for Age 70 when the time is right. Same agenda, same arguments will be used in my opinion. Granted, it will be a much harder "sell" this time but they must be stopped.

 

[Nindiri]

All this talk about age 65 and safety makes me laugh. Nobody here is worried about safety, they're worried about their upgrade being delayed. At least some people here are honest enough to admit it without all the "safety" bs. :laugh:

 

[LearLove]

All this talk about age 65 and safety makes me laugh. Nobody here is worried about safety, they're worried about their upgrade being delayed. At least some people here are honest enough to admit it without all the "safety" bs. :laugh:

I don't (and never have) think it is a safety issue. If you can pass the medical and checkride(s) then by all means.

My beef is that these guys/babyboomers (121 airline) knew all too well over the past 30 years when their time would be up. They moved up in a big part because the generation (WW2 and Korean war era pilots) before them had to retire at 60. Now they want their cake an to eat it too. BS they knew the rules going in.

 

[pilotyip]

Did we never have an-in-flight incapacitation prior to the age 65 rule? Was anything done then to reduce the age of a pilot? How about a rule we lower the retirement age to the age of the last pilot whom had the in-flight incapacitation. If he was 58 years old then that will be the new retirement. If the next guy is 48 that becomes the new retirement. That would really be the safest way to do it. Wouldn’t it? Age 60 was forced on the pilots back in 1958. ALPA was still fighting to get it repealed up until about 1970. This rule had nothing to do with safety; it was a deal between two W.W.II USAF Generals, AAL's C.R. Smith and Pete Quesada (sp.?) the first head of the FAA. It was to get rid of high paid pilots at the top of AAL the seniority list. It was done in the name of safety, because who can be against safety. It is like motherhood and patriotism

 

[Smarta$$]

We need to be vigilant of Age 70. These same guys who pushed Age 65 will reload and push for Age 70 when the time is right. Same agenda, same arguments will be used in my opinion. Granted, it will be a much harder "sell" this time but they must be stopped.

I just crapped my pants.

 

[C-150ETOPS]

All this talk about age 65 and safety makes me laugh. Nobody here is worried about safety, they're worried about their upgrade being delayed. At least some people here are honest enough to admit it without all the "safety" bs. :laugh:

BS,

I got my upgrade and don't really give a crap about flying to NRT. The geezer can have that seat until he dies.

I've got a problem with it because I flew with enough guys over age 60 and near age 60 in Learjets, Hawker, GII along with 5 airline types up to a B777 to have a large enough of a statiscal sample to say that a significant number of that group experiences a significant decline in cognititve and motor skills as time progresses. Before I put my family on a flight, I will check the age of the crew and if it's planned for crap weather along with a fatiguing duty day, they'll take another flight.

I do have stories of flying with amazing specimens who outside of their weathered faces, are as sharp and as as physically fit as the day they graduated with an advanced engineering degree 35 years previously. I also have many more of others who fade after any long day and stare blankly at a locked up FMS just like they stare at a directory map at the local shopping mall. This included a guy who did run marathons and railed against Queseda's and CR Smith's Age 60 introduction as unfair. He also couldn't think his way out of a paper bag when anything went sideways in the cockpit. He ran 2 marathons in 2 days home from the airport after his final Age 60 flight. He was also dead 2 years later.
Throw in a few more of the old guy collecting the accolades outside the Learjet while the guy who flew the leg is buried in the back tossing bags. The same guy who flew the NDB approach to mins at 2 am in the snow, because the oldster said he was too tired to fly and too old to toss bags.

Yes, it is about safety.

 

[Falconjet]

Hard to argue that its not about safety when you have to have an under 60 year old in one of the seats on an international flight.

It has always been about safety, that and the greed and ego of a bunch of old coots who can't imagine the world not revolving around their captain's seat.

FJ

 

[pilotyip]

safety

Hard to argue that its not about safety when you have to have an under 60 year old in one of the seats on an international flight.

It has always been about safety, that and the greed and ego of a bunch of old coots who can't imagine the world not revolving around their captain's seat.

FJ

hey if it is all about safety lets lower the age to about say 50 or 45, that would have to be more safe. I mean look at the old guys in their early 50's who over flew MSP, look at the under 60 guys who landed on a taxiway at a major airport. Nan as per above this sure looks like it is all about "me" and the "F" get out of my seat.

 

[inline]

Thank you President Bush for signing this law into effect. It was long overdue.

 

[WolfManPack]

No it's about.....

hey if it is all about safety lets lower the age to about say 50 or 45, that would have to be more safe. I mean look at the old guys in their early 50's who over flew MSP, look at the under 60 guys who landed on a taxiway at a major airport. Nan as per above this sure looks like it is all about "me" and the "F" get out of my seat.

...BOTH! So, the me, me, me generation is both the most selfish to ever walk the planet and will not apologize for the windfall they received contributing ot MY furlough AND generally unsafe to fly to 65.

You guys cost me a MINIMUM of 2 million dollars and you gave away my job and retirement (RJ's and A plan). Please, just take your windfall and shut up....that's the least your generation can do don't you think?

Thanks for playing though!