Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Age limit will increase to 67 by years end.

  • Thread starter pave driver
  • Start date
  • Watchers 42

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
As has been stated before on this forum, the Federal Air Surgeon (at the Age 60 ARC held by the FAA in 2006) noted that the present aero medical was functioning without need for change - the system catches problems before they are cockpit issues. As was also previously noted, those talking of stricter medicals (for older pilots one presumes) are thus addressing a non-issue AND simultaneously opening the door for thousands of younger pilots being disastrously exposed to the same enhanced medical standards. I'm sitting on an aircraft right now (as a pax) and watched a very fit 55+ year-old Captain board standing tall and looking alert. The 30-ish co-pilot, on the other hand, is badly overweight (monster gut hanging over his belt) , shuffled when he walked? He was lacking in posture, fitness, attitude and alertness. Whom might you suppose is monitoring whom on this flight? If the Air Surgeon says there is no issue, why open Pandora's Box?
 
As has been stated before on this forum, the Federal Air Surgeon (at the Age 60 ARC held by the FAA in 2006) noted that the present aero medical was functioning without need for change - the system catches problems before they are cockpit issues.

With all due respect to the FAS, I don't think his saying that makes it true.
 
With all due respect to the FAS, I don't think his saying that makes it true.

Well, it's nice to know that "expert" pilots on these forums are more knowledgeable than a doctor (who's also an accomplished pilot) sitting in the top aeronautical medical seat in the nation.

Perhaps you should send him a series of pithy e-mails to set him straight? ;-)
 
Last edited:
Well, it's nice to know that "expert" pilots on these forums are more knowledgeable than a doctor (who's also an accomplished pilot) sitting in the top aeronautical medical seat in the nation.

Perhaps you should send him a series of pithy e-mails to set him straight? ;-)
Again this is not about safety, it about greed and get out of my seat because I want your money. But that would sound greedy from the anti age 65 crowd, so they wave the safety flag because no one can be against safety. But they never want to apply the enhanced standards to anyone under 60 becuase it might effect them.
 
There is plenty of greed on BOTH sides of the issue...really if 65 years is not enough time, 67 won't be either...the younger pilots need a shot...
 
Again this is not about safety, it about greed and get out of my seat because I want your money. But that would sound greedy from the anti age 65 crowd, so they wave the safety flag because no one can be against safety. But they never want to apply the enhanced standards to anyone under 60 becuase it might effect them.

You don't see it as greed from the older crowd? Take your blinders off man! You say a young guy with a family and college debt is greedy because he wants to move up from an RJ after 10 years? The system is built around guys moving on at age 60. They got 5 more years and the young guys paid for it with stagnation, crappy pay and furloughs. Now the gummers say its not enough. They want the young guys to pay again for their greed. To top it all off, the young guys have to babysit many of them. You have some nerve to call the young guys greedy.
 
You don't see it as greed from the older crowd? Take your blinders off man! You say a young guy with a family and college debt is greedy because he wants to move up from an RJ after 10 years? The system is built around guys moving on at age 60. They got 5 more years and the young guys paid for it with stagnation, crappy pay and furloughs. Now the gummers say its not enough. They want the young guys to pay again for their greed. To top it all off, the young guys have to babysit many of them. You have some nerve to call the young guys greedy.
Your greed is somehow different than any of the other greed? How's that entitlement thing working out for you?
 
Again this is not about safety, it about greed and get out of my seat because I want your money. But that would sound greedy from the anti age 65 crowd, so they wave the safety flag because no one can be against safety. But they never want to apply the enhanced standards to anyone under 60 becuase it might effect them.

Bull********************. You guys knew your entire careers that 60 was where you were done. You built your career expectations on it, you always knew it was coming. Then when the goal posts get moved, you guys get a 5 year/multi million dollar windfall, you don't get to say "it was always mine you greedy little turds" It was never yours, it ALWAYS belonged to the guys behind you until. Just like it belonged to you when the guys ahead were forced out at 60. Nevermind the ruined careers and families of those guys behind you that were planning on the same progression who were then furloughed.
 
Bull********************. You guys knew your entire careers that 60 was where you were done. You built your career expectations on it, you always knew it was coming. Then when the goal posts get moved, you guys get a 5 year/multi million dollar windfall, you don't get to say "it was always mine you greedy little turds" It was never yours, it ALWAYS belonged to the guys behind you until. Just like it belonged to you when the guys ahead were forced out at 60. Nevermind the ruined careers and families of those guys behind you that were planning on the same progression who were then furloughed.
Do you need a hug? Ribbon?

Here's an excerpt from the recent Time Magazine article entitled "The Me Me Me Generation":

"The incidence of narcissistic personality disorder is nearly three times as high for people in their 20s as for the generation that?s now 65 or older, according to the National Institutes of Health; 58% more college students scored higher on a narcissism scale in 2009 than in 1982. Millennials got so many participation trophies growing up that a recent study showed that 40% believe they should be promoted every two years, regardless of performance."

You want the brass ring, stomp your feet and whine like a puppy fresh off the teat, that will make it happen quicker.....
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top