Age limit will increase to 67 by years end.

[Mamma]

............
mos?

We are back to my service remark again. Are you trying to see if I had an easy MoS/AFSC? You can read my profile on the side and tell. The point was to convey I earned my way just like 99 percent of the guys you speak so poorly of...your fellow pilots. Be it years flying 135, RJs or ex-pat stuff, we all earned our way. I never felt entitled to anything or had a silver spoon handed to me. This is not a career for entitlement.

I really don't know why you stay if you are so disgusted by all us greedy, selfish, money grubbing, back-stabbing, whoring pilots. If I were you, and beared such a resentment towards my fellow co-worker, I would probably leave the profession and stick to doing what I do best....organizing your "community" in your case. I've personally found just about all my co-workers are pretty much first class guys in terms of being professional and guys I'd want to have a beer with. I'm sorry you've not had that experience. I really am. Maybe it's you?

 

[Mamma]

You guys are all wrapped about a NON issue. As Mamma said, this thread is about RAISING the age to 67. ALL the evidence points to this NOT being on the table - not in Congress, not within the FAA, not in corporate offices.

Forget the ginned-up "notice" supposedly from the FAA. As has been pointed out, it's a (poorly done) remake of the FAA notice in early 2007. The docket # is bogus. There s no "notice of proposed rulemaking". There is no aviation rulemaking committee (ARC), as is required by law. You really should have able to figure that out w/o all the angst. I mean SURELY you know better than to believe some random bs from an FAA inspector. They like to hear themselves talk. They know little or nothing about what's going on in the upper offices.

Congress? Go to Thomas.gov and see if there has been a bill to change the age (again) introduced. There is nothing. Heads Up: Bookmark that site. If you hear a rumor you can dispell or confirm it there. Any bill, with ts co sponsors, will be there. If some guy says he's been in some congressional office and heard good things, maybe he did. Staffers are great at schmoozing you, telling you what you want to hear. Has the congressman introduced or co sponsored a bill? If not, it's all bs.

The various pilot unions (ALPA, APA, SWAPA and CAPA) ALL agree that there is nothing out there. That's about the ONLY time they have been in unified agreement. If their GAC committees hear nothing - well - there IS nothing.

You're being snookered. Played.

There's much that is factually wrong or misleading in this thread. But...the one thing that you can count on is that 67 is not in play any time soon.

My friend, have you forgotten this is FI.com? We know the letter is bogus but relish the argument.

 

[laker4284]

"The age 65 was pushed by industry, not pilots, when in the history of this industry has management or the business community been concerned for the welfare of its employees?"

ABSOLUTELY and irrevocably untrue. Letters from management that opposed and age change were submitted for and on the record. Management dId NOT want any mre problems with the unions (ALPA and APA) and the age change was a big problem. in fact, American sat side-by-side at the age ARC with the APA and supported it across the board.

Many managements suck but THIS issue you cannot pin on them.

The exceptions were Kelleher at SWA and the Pres of Jet Blue ((2006-2007). Both were represented on the ARC panel and Kelleher said, in response to a reporter's question, that it (an age change to 65) was the "right thing to do". Google it.

 

[laker4284]

My friend, have you forgotten this is FI.com? We know the letter is bogus but relish the argument.

Name-calling and arguing over hearsay and falsehoods benefits no one. It's an elementary school yard scuffle. We should be able to do better than this.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

"The age 65 was pushed by industry, not pilots, when in the history of this industry has management or the business community been concerned for the welfare of its employees?"

ABSOLUTELY and irrevocably untrue. Letters from management that opposed and age change were submitted for and on the record. Management dId NOT want any mre problems with the unions (ALPA and APA) and the age change was a big problem. in fact, American sat side-by-side at the age ARC with the APA and supported it across the board.

Many managements suck but THIS issue you cannot pin on them.

The exceptions were Kelleher at SWA and the Pres of Jet Blue ((2006-2007). Both were represented on the ARC panel and Kelleher said, in response to a reporter's question, that it (an age change to 65) was the "right thing to do". Google it.

You realize you work in the largest Kabuki theater in the world. Management has never said one thing and done another, have they?

 

[laker4284]

You realize you work in the largest Kabuki theater in the world. Management has never said one thing and done another, have they?

When you are on-the-record in word and deed, it is hard to pay both sides (or the opposite side). Credibility matters, lies matter, etc. Management is not the enemy in the age issue. The majority of them were supporting NO change. You can believe differently if you'd prefer. But you'd be running on anti-management emotion and not facts. And you'd be wrong.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

When you are on-the-record in word and deed, it is hard to pay both sides (or the opposite side). Credibility matters, lies matter, etc. Management is not the enemy in the age issue. The majority of them were supporting NO change. You can believe differently if you'd prefer. But you'd be running on anti-management emotion and not facts. And you'd be wrong.

Every single Airline Pilot has been lied to at one time or another in their career. Every airline I have worked for has lied or misrepresented their position at one time or another, more often than not. Ford & Harrison councils most of the large transportation firms, air, rail ect, scour the 10Qs. I don't hate them or anybody, I understand them. If you think that your airline management is "on your side", well good luck with that. They are looking after their interests, which may not parallel yours.

 

[laker4284]

Every single Airline Pilot has been lied to at one time or another in their career. Every airline I have worked for has lied or misrepresented their position at one time or another, more often than not. Ford & Harrison councils most of the large transportation firms, air, rail ect, scour the 10Qs. I don't hate them or anybody, I understand them. If you think that your airline management is "on your side", well good luck with that. They are looking after their interests, which may not parallel yours.

Suit yourself. On the pilot age (circa 2006-2007) the major airlines (wbthevexception of Jet Blue and SWA)were supporting ther pilots and against an age change. Those are the facts. Do the research. It's out there and available if you care to do the grunt work to fnd it. Or you can live with your preconceptions/misconceptions. Makes no diff to me.

 

[Mamma]

Suit yourself. On the pilot age (circa 2006-2007) the major airlines (wbthevexception of Jet Blue and SWA)were supporting ther pilots and against an age change. Those are the facts. Do the research. It's out there and available if you care to do the grunt work to fnd it. Or you can live with your preconceptions/misconceptions. Makes no diff to me.

Don't destroy his image of us pilots being greedy, self-serving, back-stabbing trust-fund babies. Fly till 90!

 

[laker4284]

Lost the header with ICAO logo, etc but here's the info re allowing the second pilot to ALSO be 60-64. There is NOTHING on tap at this ICAO session indicating a revision of age further upward. Note that toward the end ICAO comments on lack of medical issues for the over 60 group, as well as its method of calculating probability. #5-7 are the heart of the issue.(Broken into two parts)

AE/ns
K:\MED\NADIA\Upper_Age_Limit_Nadia\Upper Age Limit State Letter_2013\Final\SL _AN_16.1-13_33.docx
Tel.: +1 514-954-8150
Ref.: AN5/16.1-13/33 28 March 2013
Subject: Proposal for the amendment of Annex 1,
concerning the upper age limit for pilots engaged in
international commercial air transport
Action required: Comments to reach Montr?al by 2
July 2013
Sir/Madam,
1. I have the honour to inform you that the Air Navigation Commission, at the sixth
meeting of its 192nd Session on 29 January 2013, considered a proposal, developed by the Secretariat on
the basis of a survey conducted in 2012, to amend Annex 1 ? Personnel Licensing, paragraph 2.1.10
which, if adopted, would:
a) permit two pilots aged 60-64 years and engaged in international commercial air
transport to be simultaneously at the controls; and
b) upgrade the upper age limit of 65 years for co-pilots engaged in international
commercial air transport from a Recommendation to a Standard.
The Commission authorized the transmission of the proposal to Member States and appropriate
international organizations for comments.
2. Background information on the proposal is included for your convenience in Attachment
A. The proposed amendments are contained in Attachment B, and the rationale is contained in
Attachment C. A response form has been provided in Attachment D.
3. In examining the proposed amendments, you should not feel obliged to comment on
editorial aspects as such matters will be addressed by the Air Navigation Commission during its final
review of the draft amendment.
999 University Street
Montr?al, Quebec
Canada H3C 5H7
Tel.: +1 514-954-8219
Fax: +1 514-954-6077
E-mail: [email protected]
www.icao.int
International
Civil Aviation
Organization
Organisation
de l?aviation civile
internationale
Organizaci?n
de Aviaci?n Civil
Internacional
Международная
организация
гражданской
авиации
- 2 -
4. For your information, the proposed amendment to Annex 1 is envisaged for applicability on 13 November 2014. Any comments you may have thereon would be appreciated.
5. May I request that any comments you wish to make on the amendment proposal be dispatched to reach me not later than 2 July 2013. The Air Navigation Commission has asked me to specially indicate that comments received after the due date may not be considered by the Commission and the Council. In this connection, should you anticipate a delay in the receipt of your reply, please let me know in advance of the due date.
6. The subsequent work of the Air Navigation Commission and the Council would be greatly facilitated by specific statements on the acceptability or otherwise of the proposals. Please note that for the review of your comments by the Air Navigation Commission and the Council, replies are normally classified as agreement with or without comments, disagreement with or without comments or no indication of position. If in your reply the expressions ?no objections or no comments are used, they will be taken to mean agreement without comment and no indication of position, respectively. In order to facilitate proper classification of your response, a form has been included in Attachment D which may be completed and returned together with your comments, if any, on the proposals in Attachment B.
Accept, Sir/Madam, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Raymond Benjamin
Secretary General
Enclosures:
A ? Background
B ? Proposed amendment to Annex 1
C ? Rationale
D ? Response form
ATTACHMENT A to State letter AN5/16.1-13/33
UPPER AGE LIMT FOR PILOTS
BACKGROUND
1. On 14 March 2006 the Council adopted Amendment 167 to Annex 1 ? Personnel Licensing (C-DEC 177/10) pertaining to pilots engaged in international commercial air transport operations. The Amendment resulted in the current wording of paragraph 2.1.10, ?Limitation of privileges of pilots who have attained their 60th birthday and curtailment of privileges of pilots who have attained their 65th birthday.
2. In the case of operations with more than one pilot Amendment 167 increased the upper age limit from 60 years to 65 years for the pilot-in-command (PIC), as a Standard. The same change, from 60 to 65 years, was made for the co-pilot, but as a Recommendation. The current Standard requires that, if the pilot-in-command is 60 years or above, the co-pilot shall be under 60 years. Conversely, if the co-pilot is over 60 years, the PIC must be under 60 years. This requirement is colloquially known as the one over one under provision. The limit for pilots undertaking single pilot international commercial air transport operations remained at 60 years.
3. Article 33 of the Chicago Convention, Recognition of Certificates and Licenses, provides, in part, that: ?licenses issued or rendered valid by the contracting state in which the aircraft is registered, shall be recognized as valid by the other contracting states, provided that the requirements under which such certificates or licences were issued or rendered valid are equal to or above the minimum standards which may be established from time to time pursuant to this convention.? Since such recognition of licenses applies only to those issued in accordance with ICAO Standards (and not Recommendations) the upper age limit of 65 years for foreign licenced co-pilots need not be recognized by States.
4. In order to obtain the current views of States and international organizations concerning the upper age limit for pilots and in accordance with the review mechanism by the ICAO Council and Air Navigation Commission (C-DEC 177/10 and C-WP/12615) ICAO undertook a survey of States and international organizations during the first half of 2012. Seventy-six responses were received and analysed and the proposal in Attachment B was subsequently developed.
5. The proposal in Attachment B does not amend the current upper age limit of 65 years for the PIC, but would permit two pilots aged 60-64 years to be simultaneously at the controls. The medical rationale for this is based primarily on a numerical approach to aeromedical risk assessment, since ICAO guidance supports an acceptable maximum risk of incapacitation for an individual pilot of 1% per annum. This is equivalent to a risk of 1 x10-6 per flight hour (for background see the ICAO Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine (Doc 8984), Part I Chapter 3). The risk of a double incapacitation of two pilots, each having a 1% per annum risk of incapacitation is 1 x 10-12 per hour (1 x10-6 x10-6).
6. A risk of double incapacitation of 1 x10-12 per flight hour is well within an acceptable maximum risk tolerance for other types of risks such as a catastrophic (resulting in multiple fatalities) airworthiness failure in commercial air transport operations, which should be extremely improbable (1 x10-9 per flight hour) according to aircraft design standards established by the European Aviation Safety Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration, or the risk of a fatal accident due to loss of vertical separation (5 x10-9 per flight hour) as described in the ICAO Manual on a 300 m (1 000 ft) Vertical Separation Minimum Between FL 290 and FL 410 Inclusive (Doc 9574).
A-2
7. With respect to potential performance degradation with increasing age, the current upper age limit of 65 years for aircraft requiring two pilots is regarded as acceptable by the great majority of States. Up to this age States have not reported any observed decrease of flight safety. This has been supported by nine major operators based in five different regions who have reviewed performance of pilots over 60 years with younger age groups and not found any important degradation in pilot performance up to age 65 years. In addition, any pilot who is having difficulties can be expected to be identified by routine simulator and operational (line) checks.
8. The upper age limit for co-pilots is currently 65 years, the same as for PICs, but as a Recommended Practice rather than a Standard. To ensure recognition of 65 years under Article 33 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, for foreign licensed co-pilots operating in another State?s airspace it is proposed to amend this Provision to a Standard.
9. The proposal in Attachment B does not oblige States to amend their own regulations, only to accept foreign licensed pilots from States adopting the new provision.
10. Consequential to the proposed amendment would be increased flexibility of pilot rostering.
? ? ?? ? ?? ?
ATTACHMENT B to State letter AN5/16.1-13/33
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
AND RECOMMENDED PRACTICES
PERSONNEL LICENSING
ANNEX 1
TO THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION
NOTES ON THE PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The text of the amendment is arranged to show deleted text with a line through it and new text highlighted with grey shading, as shown below:
Text to be deleted is shown with a line through it.
Text to be deleted New text to be inserted is highlighted with grey shading.
New text to be inserted
Text to be deleted is shown with a line through it followed by the replacement text which is highlighted with grey shading.
New text to replace existing text
B-2

 

[laker4284]

There are some random formatting anomalies scattered through this PDF conversion (such as lots of question marks). I taken most out but don't have time to completely clean these to posts up. Sorry 'bout that.

CHAPTER 2. Licences and Ratings for Pilots
. . .
2.1.10 Limitation of privileges of pilots who have attained their 60th birthday and curtailment of privileges of pilots who have attained their 65th birthday.
2.1.10.1 A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, shall not permit the holders thereof to act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot, where the other pilot is younger than 60 years of age, their 65th birthday.
2.1.10.2 Recommendation.? A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, should shall not permit the holders thereof to act as co-pilot of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 65th birthday.
Note.? Attention is drawn to 1.2.5.2.3 on the validity period of Medical Assessments for pilots over the age of 60 who are engaged in commercial air transport operations.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
ATTACHMENT C to State letter AN5/16.1-13/33
Proposed change
Rationale
Chapter 2
2.1.10.1, 2.1.10.2
Rationale
For permitting two pilots aged 60-64 years and engaged in international commercial air transport operations to be simultaneously at the controls:
1. The flight safety risk is acceptable, calculated as likely to be no more than 1 x10-12 per flight hour for a double incapacitation of two pilots aged 60-64. This is a lower risk than ?extremely improbable? and significantly below the maximum acceptable risk per flight hour for a ?catastrophic? airworthiness failure in commercial air transport operations (1 x10-9) or the risk of a fatal accident due to loss of vertical separation (5 x10 -9).
2. Data from major airlines in a number of different regions does not indicate that performance falls substantially between 60 and 65 years, and should an individual pilot have difficulties this would be identified by routine simulator and operational checks.
For amending the 65 year upper age limit for co-pilots from a Recommendation (2.1.10.2) to a Standard, incorporated into paragraph 2.1.10.1:
1. Ensure recognition by States of 65 years as the co-pilot upper age limit.
? ? ?? ? ?? ?
ATTACHMENTD to State letter AN 5/16.1-13/33
RESPONSE FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED TO ICAO TOGETHER WITH ANY COMMENTS YOUMAY HAVE ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
To: The Secretary General
International Civil Aviation Organization
999 University Street Montreal, Quebec Canada, H3C 5H7
(State)
Please make a checkmark () against one option for each amendment. If you choose options ?agreement with comments? or ?disagreement with comments?, please provide your comments on separate sheets.
Agreement without comments
Agreement with comments*
Disagreement without comments
Disagreement with comments
No position
Amendment Annex 1 ? Personnel Licensing
(Attachment B refers)
* ?Agreement with comments? indicates that your State or organization agrees with the intent and overall thrust of the amendment proposal; the comments themselves may include, as necessary, your reservations concerning certain parts of the proposal and/or offer an alternative proposal in this regard.
Signature Date
?END?

 

[pilotyip]

I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong point. This thread is about increasing the retirement age to 67....not rehashing 65. I will say again, I have no issue with age 65. I am against increasing it. I bear no malice towards the guys who stay until 65. They got a windfall and we paid for it. The young guys you berate as selfish and greedy should not have to pay again.

which turns out to be a hoax, but original thread has drifted into the ole anyone over age 60 is unsafe and everyone under 60 is astronaut candidate thread. BTW Neither of which is true.

 

[waveflyer]

That's what YOU say yip because you're a troll who refuses to hear what's actually being said

You say that we say <60= astronaut, and >60 diaper wearing mind slush

What we actually say- <60 pilots are pilots, we all age at varying rates depending on lots of factors, but age is a factor. I was sharper at 27 then at 43- my experience more than makes up for it-
>60- 65% are fine, 15-20% are marginal- it's annoying, but no less annoying than anybody of any age serving as captain that's less than sharp. And 15-20% are flat out incompetent in their jobs at this point. Meaning up to 85% are not a problem- so again I ask? We as FOs, without political power in our airlines are seeing these trends and correlations-

HOW MUCH OF A PERCENTAGE OF BAD PILOTS SHOULD I HAVE TO SERVE UNDER BEFORE WE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?

It's acceptable to you that 1 out of every 5 or 6 gummers that I fly with I'm doing their job in the safety compromised awkwardness of no authority and for less money? That's acceptable to you?

Or is it like Asiana- not a REAL safety issue to a management pilot like you until I let one crash?

Is that your standard yip?. Got to die or trash an airplane to be deemed unsafe or inappropriate?

Fly til you die if you can, no capts after 60.

 

[laker4284]

"HOW MUCH OF A PERCENTAGE OF BAD PILOTS SHOULD I HAVE TO SERVE UNDER BEFORE WE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?"

The flip side of the coin, of course, are the younger pilots (20s -40s for example) who flail when the auto systems fail - blow through the loc on intercept, cannot fly a back course or VOR with a cross wind, etc. Or who are so busy trying to be party animals or trying to get laid (some of them even do!) that they cannot keep their eyes open and nod off. The list goes on.

Point is - the finger pointing at " gummers" can easily be balanced by finger pointing at irresponsible or inept pilots wearing not Depends but Pampers. It's all quite pointless. And shallow.

The tit for tat could go on forever and my hope was that bringing the subject back to the thread title might mellow things out. Guess I hoped for too much. :-(

 

[pilotyip]

"HOW MUCH OF A PERCENTAGE OF BAD PILOTS SHOULD I HAVE TO SERVE UNDER BEFORE WE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?"

The flip side of the coin, of course, are the younger pilots (20s -40s for example) who flail when the auto systems fail - blow through the loc on intercept, cannot fly a back course or VOR with a cross wind, etc. Or who are so busy trying to be party animals or trying to get laid (some of them even do!) that they cannot keep their eyes open and nod off. The list goes on.

Point is - the finger pointing at " gummers" can easily be balanced by finger pointing at irresponsible or inept pilots wearing not Depends but Pampers. It's all quite pointless. And shallow.

The tit for tat could go on forever and my hope was that bringing the subject back to the thread title might mellow things out. Guess I hoped for too much. :-(

Thank you Laker, I think we have pretty well established this about perceived greed, the younger guys want the money the over 60 guys are making.

 

[waveflyer]

"HOW MUCH OF A PERCENTAGE OF BAD PILOTS SHOULD I HAVE TO SERVE UNDER BEFORE WE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?"

The flip side of the coin, of course, are the younger pilots (20s -40s for example) who flail when the auto systems fail - blow through the loc on intercept, cannot fly a back course or VOR with a cross wind, etc. Or who are so busy trying to be party animals or trying to get laid (some of them even do!) that they cannot keep their eyes open and nod off. The list goes on.

Point is - the finger pointing at " gummers" can easily be balanced by finger pointing at irresponsible or inept pilots wearing not Depends but Pampers. It's all quite pointless. And shallow.

The tit for tat could go on forever and my hope was that bringing the subject back to the thread title might mellow things out. Guess I hoped for too much. :-(

40's? Really?

Here's the difference- one is a first officer. One is a captain. Which one gets paid to mentor the other? Which one doesn't?

 

[waveflyer]

Thank you Laker, I think we have pretty well established this about perceived greed, the younger guys want the money the over 60 guys are making.

ATFQ yip or just shut it- you're a one trick pony.

And yes- if I'm doing their job, and making the decisions in spite of them- I ought to be making the money they are. Why do you refuse to admit that pilots like all people decline with age?

I asked you a very straightforward question many posts ago: you highlighted your cargo schedule where pilots in their 20's and 30's were catching naps to make it through. And I asked, "true, but who could handle that schedule better, yip at 30 or yip at 60?

Says volumes that you won't answer.

 

[Flopgut]

The tit for tat could go on forever and my hope was that bringing the subject back to the thread title might mellow things out. Guess I hoped for too much. :-(

You want the tit for tat to stop? What needs to happen is for a well spoken, knowledgeable pilot like yourself to step forward an issue a bit of social enforcement. Something to the effect: "Age 65 was enough and it's time to get out guys".

Younger guys aren't playing a game; They have to take this sort of thread seriously. If the age gets raised again overnight, the same pilots furloughed the last two times will be furloughed again. There is no way in hell an increase in retirement age (one meant to correct age discrimination) should result in 7+ years of unexpected furlough for one age group, and 7 unexpected years of work for an older age group.

Second issue: If the age gets increased again, and like the last time it is absent any sort of way to allocate the experienced pilots who will be furloughed, it is a huge safety issue. If the age increase to 65 had been done without the seniority aggression, panic and greed of the older pilots who wanted it, there were at least two opportunities to have insured experience would have been kept on more flightdecks. Not just in the ones where an over age 60 pilot sat. Those opportunities were squandered last time in the old guy haste and Colgan happened. That can't be allowed to happen again.

 

[pilotyip]

ATFQ yip or just shut it- Why do you refuse to admit that pilots like all people decline with age?.

Still don't what the question is? BTW Something we agree on, ability declines with age, just not uniformly. To set one age as a the cut off ignores the more rapid decline of some of the younger pilots. One standard for all regardless of age.:laugh:

 

[densoo]

..........