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