APAAD regrouping to challenge age 60

[Falconjet]

You need to study up on the history of age 60 because that is not the reason it is there.

You can say that all you want and that doesn't make it true. I've read plenty, maybe you should do some more yourself.

FJ

 

[Falconjet]

All you guys are full of sh!7. The only reason anyone opposes raising the age is because of seniority issues. It is all selfishness on both sides. At least be honest about this.

jhill: No you are full of shiat. I oppose a change because of the safety and fairness issues. Believe what you want, but that is why I oppose a change.

All this pissing up a rope on FI isn't going to make a hill of beans worth of difference, the FAA or Congress will shove this down our throats or they won't. The least of either of their concerns will be what the pilots think about the change.

FJ

 

[Bringupthebird]

Discrimination does not trump safety, and age 65 cannot be proved safer. Plus, age 65 is just as discriminatory as 60.

The argument is that 65 is EQUALLY as safe as 60. And to deny an incremental change because of the existance of the absurd extreme is ridiculous. Raising the age by 5 years with adequate oversight is not the same as acquiescing to the demands of those who want to fly to 100.

The

slippery slope here is (for example): If an FAR change were availed to pilots that allowed for 150 hours per month, a number of pilots (not unlike yourself) would like to see it become reality. Dollar signs would be all the motivation they would need to rationalize it a good idea. They would attach the arguement to one that is more powerful (like discrimination) and try to push it through. Most pilots are smart enough to know 150 hours per month is not safe, just like most of them know age 60 is a good retirement age.

Again you undermine your argument by taking it to the absurd extreme. It is unreasonable to say that the status quo is perfect and therefore superior to any change that might have even the slightest degree of uncertainty to it. To say that any solution must be perfect or it is rejected is just as unreasonable. Why should a solution that would help thousands of pilots adapt to a new reality necessarily result in all the protections offered by the FARs to be swept away? Do you really believe this and if not, why clutter the argument further?

Furthermore, I fly about 35 hours a month on reserve. Otherwise I play with my little kids as much as possible. I highly recommend it.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Furthermore, I fly about 35 hours a month on reserve.

I fly about 75 a month on Reserve. Ha! Beat you!

Otherwise I play with my little kids as much as possible. I highly recommend it.

Ok, but you should check with their mom before you bring them over to my house.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

The argument is that 65 is EQUALLY as safe as 60.

If the new proposal to change age 60 was EQUALLY safe the requirement to have an under 60 pilot with the over 60 pilot would not be necessary.

 

[Flopgut]

The argument is that 65 is EQUALLY as safe as 60. And to deny an incremental change because of the existance of the absurd extreme is ridiculous. Raising the age by 5 years with adequate oversight is not the same as acquiescing to the demands of those who want to fly to 100.

The
Again you undermine your argument by taking it to the absurd extreme. It is unreasonable to say that the status quo is perfect and therefore superior to any change that might have even the slightest degree of uncertainty to it. To say that any solution must be perfect or it is rejected is just as unreasonable. Why should a solution that would help thousands of pilots adapt to a new reality necessarily result in all the protections offered by the FARs to be swept away? Do you really believe this and if not, why clutter the argument further?

Furthermore, I fly about 35 hours a month on reserve. Otherwise I play with my little kids as much as possible. I highly recommend it.

If you want to change something that is already perfectly safe, you have to assure the same level of safety is contained with in the change. You can't. One pilot has to be under 60.

The slippery slope I'm talking about, is making changes based on what a minority number of pilots think is smart.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

If you want to change something that is already perfectly safe, you have to assure the same level of safety is contained with in the change. You can't. One pilot has to be under 60.

The slippery slope I'm talking about, is making changes based on what a minority number of pilots think is smart.

What?

One pilot under sixty is NOT as safe as two pilots under 60.

 

[Bringupthebird]

If you want to change something that is already perfectly safe, you have to assure the same level of safety is contained with in the change. You can't. One pilot has to be under 60.

The slippery slope I'm talking about, is making changes based on what a minority number of pilots think is smart.

Wait a second, PERFECTLY SAFE?? No pilot incapacitations have been recorded? No system is perfectly safe, but raising the retirement age would maintain equivalent safety, according to most experts in this field.

Didn't aircraft used to be certified with 3 crewmembers? How did the FAA reconcile this risky move? Are all passengers in danger because there are fewer FE's? What about navigators? Radio Operators? Is there some conspiracy to put passengers at risk?????

 

[Flopgut]

Wait a second, PERFECTLY SAFE?? No pilot incapacitations have been recorded? No system is perfectly safe, but raising the retirement age would maintain equivalent safety, according to most experts in this field.

Didn't aircraft used to be certified with 3 crewmembers? How did the FAA reconcile this risky move? Are all passengers in danger because there are fewer FE's? What about navigators? Radio Operators? Is there some conspiracy to put passengers at risk?????

Hey bud, plenty of pilots fought for the 3rd pilot to stay in the cockpit, weakling attudes like yours is why we lost it!

Perfectly safe? I think so. Can't recall any accidents caused by incapacitations. Am I forgeting one?

If 65 were perfect there would be NO requirement for one pilot under 60. Simple as that.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Orginal topic of this post

This thread is about APAAD and SWA.

What is the latest on SWAPA officially putting out a vote on the age 60 issue? And this question refers to a formal vote not telephone polling?