APAAD regrouping to challenge age 60

[Falconjet]

Its not a "physical" wellness issue, its a mental wellness issue. Flying 121 isn't exactly physically demanding, but you do need the mental acuity to make decisions and stay awake.

You can't quantify that, so you need a limit that will be safe for the majority of pilots and their passengers. Age 60 is there for that reason.
FJ

 

[Occam's Razor]

Were aircraft plummeting in 1958 solely because of the age of the pilot? If so, the Age 60 rule should be lauded as a tremendous benefit to safety. If not, it should be seen for what it is.

The accident rate for Pt. 121 carriers was higher in 1958 than it is now. I can't prove that it was solely due to the Age 60 restriction, and you can't prove it wasn't.

How can you quantify the degree of safety that would be degraded by allowing 65 year-olds to act as PIC?

I can't, and I haven't tried to. (You need to pay better attention!) I have pointed out the factors that make changing the age problematic. They are two issues that can't be ignored: Standards and Self-certification.

What is the evidence that in other countries and in other types of flight operations, that the bulk of accidents are age-related?

1. "Other types of flight operations" is not germane. The traveling public doesn't care what the Zimbabwe Air Force's accident record is, or the number of fatal mishaps suffered by French ag pilots. They aren't sitting in the back of one of those aircraft.

2. US operated Pt. 121 airline travel is the safest mode of transportation in our solar system. Period. I contend that it is the safest because we have the most stringent regulations and restrictions. I believe Age 60 is just such a restriction. It's hard to argue with success. Are you sure you still want to?

Why demand the burden of proof now, even though it would be an acceptable risk.

You are not the "decider". You don't get to guess if the risk is "acceptable" for everyone. There is an agency in place that determines risk for the traveling public. Since it's the safest form of travel around, it appears their ideology is working properly.

Why not allow the travelling public to decide if they feel it is safe for them to fly with 60+ pilots or choose a carrier that does not employ such pilots.

You're kidding, right? If not, you should have your body cryogenically frozen so it can be defrosted in 100-years, when hopefully they've discovered a cure for Sudden Stupid Statement Syndrome.

Are you the self-appointed gaurdian for them as well?

On the flights where I'm the PIC, you bet yer hiney! (And it wasn't so much I was "self-appointed", I think it was more like King Arthur and Excaliber...it was my destiny)

Medical technology has improved and increased the lifespan of millions.

We're not talking about lifespan! We're talking about reflexes and cognitive ability. And let me repeat, both of them degrade as we age...no exceptions!

Cholesterol lowering medication, diabetes medication, blood pressure medications have staved off or reversed much of what caused the average life expectancy in 1958 to be 67 years. Now we are looking at average life expectancies approaching 80.

Each of those items addresses conditions that can be clinically measured and have a minimum/maximum standard in place. There are no minimum standards for reflexes and cogintive ability...nor are their non-subjective tests to measure them.

If it could be proven that periodic cognitive testing would enhance safety, then it might be considered.

Ok, now I KNOW you're not paying attention! Testing to what standard? What is the absolute minimum cognitive ability you can have and still fly an airliner safely? It's not exactly like measuring blood lipids or visual acuity.

If there was evidence that a pilot was suffering from dementia in the cockpit, it would be the moral responsibility of his fellow crewmembers to restrict him from the flight deck and notify the appropriate authorities.

Was that a joke? It is the moral and legal responsibility of the airman himself/herself to self-certify that he/she is fit for duty. The safety of our passengers should not depend on the ability of another crewmember to tell if the other pilot is processing data a little too slowly.

If this became commonplace, perhaps the FAA could justify a retirement age where these episodes no longer occurred. If it did not become commonplace, then the advocates of the elimination of a discriminatory law would be vindicated, albeit many years too late.

Good one! Using that logic, we should have manadatory alcohol testing of all pilots prior to every flight because we've had several incidents where pilots self-certified they weren't drunk...yet they were. (Not to worry...in each case the fellow crewmembers exercised their moral responsibility and turned them in....right?)

 

[Flopgut]

I believe if it was voted on it would fail. We must vote on this soon, just to get the true number of pilots that support spending dues money on it.

Why don't you guys recall this Ike guy? Can you do that sort of thing in SWAPA?

 

[Falcon Jet 1]

His term ends in less than thirty days, thank God. His whole term as swapa president he has done nothing but this age 60 bs, and of course spend tonnes of our money.

 

[Flopgut]

Many years ago I watched a corporate pilot face down his boss over one (1) foot of runway. The pilot set the runway requirement at 3000' for this particuliar airplane and his boss wanted to go into 2999'. I was impressed that the pilot stood his ground. The boss said "what's ONE foot a$$hole?", the pilot said: "off the end, sir".

I'm concerned about what happens next? If minority opinion is allowed to form policy on retirement age, we got problems. What happens when some guy like Bringingupthebird decides he's "discrimanted" against because he can't fly 1400 hrs per year like FAR 135? Or what if a new minority group of pilots (example: SWA, JB) wants to fly 1800 or 2000 hrs per year cause flight attendants can? Before you know it, we'll have pilots swapping all manner of safety protections for pennies.

Retirement age moving from 60 to 65 may not seem like much, However, IMHO, it's off the end.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Pilots should not run airlines or make policy

Airline pilots have proven over and over they have no idea how to run an airline or make aviation policy. They will always put the airline into the ditch doing either.

 

[jhill]

SWAPA will no longer support change of age 60 after the leadership change in January. There will be another vote and we all know which way it will go. 99% of FOs and a surprising number of captains are against change.

I seriously doubt this but in any case if age 65 was phased in one year at a time it would have little impact on upgrade times and be a big benefit to the vast majority of this pilot group. I don't want my upgrade delayed either but I also would like the option to continue working and contributing to my mostly self-funded retirement plan.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

I seriously doubt this but in any case if age 65 was phased in one year at a time it would have little impact on upgrade times and be a big benefit to the vast majority of this pilot group. I don't want my upgrade delayed either but I also would like the option to continue working and contributing to my mostly self-funded retirement plan.

The age 65 SWAPA crowd is NOT trying to do the right thing. SWAPA is trying to create a windfall for senior SWA pilots.

Age 65 will make 20 year pay caps, zero retirement benefits-B plans or 401k, furloughes during mergers, more complex intregration issues, increased medical testing, forced retirement as a result of the increased medical testing, unaffordable LTD options, and bidding issues with over 60 pilots.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Before you know it, we'll have pilots swapping all manner of safety protections for pennies.

Far more harm is done to air safety when straw man arguments against age 60 are passed off as a "safety issue". The credibility of those people who bring forth real safety issues is compromised by the grandstanders and soon no one listens to either of them.

Legitimate safety concerns should not be undermined by those who are pressing a thinly veiled attempt to move the seniority list on a little faster. Thankfully those in a position to change this lousy rule can easily see through the veil.

 

[Freight Dog]

Far more harm is done to air safety when straw man arguments against age 60 are passed off as a "safety issue". The credibility of those people who bring forth real safety issues is compromised by the grandstanders and soon no one listens to either of them.

Legitimate safety concerns should not be undermined by those who are pressing a thinly veiled attempt to move the seniority list on a little faster. Thankfully those in a position to change this lousy rule can easily see through the veil.

Why don't you refute O.R.'s remarks? You're just trying to hold on to your
seniority and your seat for economic reasons, not safety reasons.

There is no reason to change a safety rule that served us well for decades only for the benefit of the few minority malcontents who were unable to financially plan their retirement.