APAAD regrouping to challenge age 60

[luckytohaveajob]

Bringupthebird's is senile

OR-
Logic is not your strong suit, is it? How can a limit of 60 be safer than any other number only because it's been that way "forever"? Your argument would favor doing away with all age limits and introducing a series of tests that would truly represent the physical and mental health of all medical applicants; a so-called "astronaut physical".

So save your breath defending the status quo and embrace the freedom that medical technology offers. And should you flunk the new physical standards (should any be determined as necessary) then it's been a good run and you've made way for the new generation whose cause you have so tirelessly championed.

You quote O.R. about wanting a minimum medical standard and the inherit problem of the airman daily knowing he meets the standard. And then you put words in his statements saying he wants an "astronaut physical" and then in your next paragraph you want us all to embrace "the freedom that medical technology offers."

Contradictions from one sentence to another sure does not make you look logical.

The tide has not risen to want an age 60 change. The votes are in at ALPA and the MAJORITY are OPPOSED. And soon another vote will occur at SWAPA and now that everyone has recognized the threat you and your cohorts have tried to slip by us, the same results will occur at SWAPA as ALPA.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Bringupthebird hasn't done much in aviation

Bringupthebird, how is it that a near 60 pilot such as yourself has such little flight time, 12,500? 12,500 indicates you must of started flying as a second career late in life and are selfishly wanting more because you were a late bloomer.

 

[Freight Dog]

O.R.... see what I'm saying?

Gotta say it again:

You're trying to reason with the same people who are suffering from the gray matter paradox.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Deleted

 

[Occam's Razor]

OR-
Logic is not your strong suit, is it?

Maybe my cognitive skills are slipping. Oh course, I self-certified today that they were "good to go!".

How can a limit of 60 be safer than any other number only because it's been that way "forever"?

That's not my argument. The logic is in the conservatism of the limit. 60 is just a number, and I accept that.

Given that aircraft are not plummeting to Earth because of cognitive lapses by pilots, the FAA is comfortable with not setting a different age limit, which would lead to the unanswerable paradoxes of empirical minimum standards and self-certification of cognitive ability. The arbitrary limit (60) just happens to be working, since it's conservative enough to preclude (according to safety data) 100% of the age-based cognitive lapses by Pt. 121 pilots.

Your argument would favor doing away with all age limits and introducing a series of tests that would truly represent the physical and mental health of all medical applicants; a so-called "astronaut physical".

That ain't my argument either. My argument is that the rule is a safety issue, and that changes to Age 60 would lead to two requirements that can't be done with any degree of certainty...namely Standards and Self-Certification.

Right now we have an arbitrary age that is grating to some pilots. They seek to change it without concern that it may lead to even more arbitrary numbers (the standards), and subjective tests to ascertain compliance with those numbers.

I don't that's good for our profession.

So save your breath defending the status quo and embrace the freedom that medical technology offers.

What sort of "medical technology" are you advocating? An implantable "cog-tester"? A tin-foil hat with Alpha-wave readouts downlinked to a white-coated technician? A preflight analogies test for all pilots?

The hypocrisy in many of the arguments I've heard from the pro-change crowd has been their desire to change one "arbitrary number" (their term), with another arbitrary number! The rest in that crowd advocate no age limit, but rather the ability to pass the physical and the checkride. When that argument is countered with the gray matter paradox...they start mumbling and staring at their feet.

And should you flunk the new physical standards (should any be determined as necessary) then it's been a good run and you've made way for the new generation whose cause you have so tirelessly championed.

If I were to flunk any new physical (or the current one for that matter), I wouldn't start screaming "discrimination!". I'd throw a retirement party at the O'Club with the theme, "Not All The Little Turtles Make It To The Sea", and take up my fallback career: porn star.

 

[chase]

SWA is the problem. And SWA can fix the problem.

So is this news article quoting Ike Eichelkraut correct that 80% of the SWA pilots want an age change?


"This particular rule is arbitrary, discriminatory, and it needlessly throws out experienced pilots," said Southwest Airline Pilots Association president Joseph "Ike" Eichelkraut.

While Frontier and United Airlines do not have a position on the rule, Southwest Airlines backs a change to raise the retirement age.

"We just feel that forcing our most experienced pilots to retire because of a rule that as far as we know is not based on any data or medical history is just unfair," said Southwest spokeswoman Paula Berg.
At Southwest Airlines, which doesn't have a pension plan, pilots are 4 to 1 in favor of changing the rule, according to Eichelkraut.

luckytohaveajob,

those figures are correct....polling for the last few months confirm when posed with the general question regarding Age 60, if it is wrong & should it be changed, the ratio to those believing change should occur vs. those who don't are running around that percentage listed by Ike.

While I am not familiar with the polls or specific MECs within ALPA, in speaking to senior persons there, the tide would appear to be turning within ALPA also. ----------------

I spoke to SWAPA's congressional lobbyist today today in DC. He confirmed that the Age 60 issue has been rolled into the appropriations bill that Congress will review in the next session's congress will occur most likely in Jan/Feb '07. Failure to do so would result in another continuing resolution to fund Congress & the government, something the Democrats are likely to resist. There are some minor legal technicalities about renaming the bill & such the entire process of getting sponsorships, sending it through committees & the normal hoops attached with getting a new bill up & before congress will not occur.

That being said, though, the issue won't be voted for in this session as you said, it is over with. However, it being voted on early next year by way of an up or down vote, not on the Age 60 issue but rather an up or down vote on the appropriations is the likely way it "may" get passed. As always, it could be stripped out of the bill along with other attachments/bills. If that was to occur, the 'entire process' would begin again.

I realize that may not be popular with some folks and if I'm saying something that is offending you personally, that is not my intent...I'm only trying to pass along facts that will help others understand where the membership within SWAPA stands on the issue.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

thanks for the info chase

Thanks, for the info Chase. I am not offended but am shocked to read that such a high percentage of SWAPA members want a change to the rule. I do find it hard to believe.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

deleted

 

[FNG_that's me]

Chase, you need to have an open vote. Everybody thought ALPA was swinging pro-change two years ago based on tele-poles...they they had a vote and it came out firmly Anti-change. The vocal minority is making it look like they're the majority...the squeaky wheel gathers no moss...or something like that.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

....polling for the last few months confirm when posed with the general question regarding Age 60, if it is wrong & should it be changed, the ratio to those believing change should occur vs. those who don't are running around that percentage listed by Ike.

Is the 4 to 1 number based on phone polling? Or does that represent a membership vote?

Are the last 1500 pilots being polled and have they voted?

 

[C-21Pilot]

Not sure how the poll was conducted but I find it extremely hard to believe the numbers that Ike quoted. Let's see the actual questions asked, and the actual responses.

I just find it very hard to believe that 80% of SWA pilots want age 60 changed. It's not even remotely close to the historical numbers so not even believable to me.

 

[canyonblue]

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.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Bringupthebird, how is it that a near 60 pilot such as yourself has such little flight time, 12,500? 12,500 indicates you must of started flying as a second career late in life and are selfishly wanting more because you were a late bloomer.

Huh?? I might look that old, I sometimes feel that old, but I'm 41. And I've been on the side of eliminating the Age 60 rule since I was 21. Sorry, try again.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Given that aircraft are not plummeting to Earth because of cognitive lapses by pilots, the FAA is comfortable with not setting a different age limit, which would lead to the unanswerable paradoxes of empirical minimum standards and self-certification of cognitive ability

.

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 arbitrary limit (60) just happens to be working, since it's conservative enough to preclude (according to safety data) 100% of the age-based cognitive lapses by Pt. 121 pilots.

How can you quantify the degree of safety that would be degraded by allowing 65 year-olds to act as PIC? What is the evidence that in other countries and in other types of flight operations, that the bulk of accidents are age-related?

That ain't my argument either. My argument is that the rule is a safety issue, and that changes to Age 60 would lead to two requirements that can't be done with any degree of certainty...namely Standards and Self-Certification.

Those requirements could not have been made in 1958 either. Why demand the burden of proof now, even though it would be an acceptable risk. 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. Are you the self-appointed gaurdian for them as well?

Right now we have an arbitrary age that is grating to some pilots. They seek to change it without concern that it may lead to even more arbitrary numbers (the standards), and subjective tests to ascertain compliance with those numbers.

No, I think that reasonable people are willing to ease into raising the retirement age to placate those who shudder in fear that a pilot over 60 might be at the controls (what these safety sentinels really mean is "their rightful" controls).

What sort of "medical technology" are you advocating? An implantable "cog-tester"? A tin-foil hat with Alpha-wave readouts downlinked to a white-coated technician? A preflight analogies test for all pilots?

Medical technology has improved and increased the lifespan of millions. 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. If it could be proven that periodic cognitive testing would enhance safety, then it might be considered.

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. 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.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

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.

In 1959, the jet was introduced. CR Smith did have real concerns about aircraft plummeting into the dirt. CR had first hand reports from his training department that the old DC6/7 pilots refused to learn the new requirements of the jets such as flying a profile, staying on speed regardless of feel, and not counting on a forgiving straight wing to save their butts flying the new sweep wing jets. CR Smith saw his American Airlines going out of business entrustring the future to the unable old timers.

The military even limits the age of its aviators and pilots. How many 50 year olds do you know that are carrier qualified?

Medical technology has improved and increased the lifespan of millions. 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. If it could be proven that periodic cognitive testing would enhance safety, then it might be considered.

Medical technology is no where were it needs to be. The cholesterol drugs you are referring to only reduce the bad cholesterol and solve half the issue. I just read a news report about Pfziser pulling a new experimental cholesterol drug out of testing because it was KILLING a high percentage of the subjects. Pfzier new cholesterol drug was suppose to raise the good number. It is still 10 years off if it ever comes.

If medical technology was so good how do you explain how little is known about the human body. The brain is a complete unknown. I also just heard a radio program talking about what a GREEN SPACE brain research is today. The reference to GREEN SPACE refers to the fact that any brain research can produce new unknown knowledge about the brain. The human brain is a complete unknown.

Do you want to be the brain research subject? I don't think they would find much in examining you.

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. 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.

So you are advocating we use the public trust as an experiment because you and some of the other misguided pilots FEEL this is wrong. Take your FEELINGS and go put on a dress and find someone who cares.

This already happened in 1958. And the age limit was established at age 60 to do exactly what you just described, eliminate dementia in the cockpit.

You know just because it is 2006 doesn't mean there is anything new under the sun. Sure there have been refinements, but nothing that solves the problems you are wanting to create by increasing the age limit.