APAAD regrouping to challenge age 60

[Occam's Razor]

Far more harm is done to air safety when straw man arguments against age 60 are passed off as a "safety issue".

Prove it!

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.

Can I add another category? Those who brush-off legitmate safety issues because they are blinded by personal financial concerns.

Thankfully those in a position to change this lousy rule can easily see through the veil.

You got that right! The FAA doesn't want to change a rule that's working just because momma don't like daddy's paycut.

 

[apdsm]

Age 60 is there for that reason.
FJ

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

 

[Andy]

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

Start with the Doolittle Commission study from 1952 where it specifically brought up the issue that, at some point, aging begins to offset a pilot's experience and judgment. The Commission recommended setting up a committee to study the issue of pilot aging. A committee was set up in 1953.
All of that occurred WELL before Quesada was appointed Administrator of the FAA. Were you referring to the urban legend of the Quesada/Smith conspiracy?

 

[Falcon Jet 1]

Andy, whats up? People are saying this whole thing has rolled over and they are quoting lobbyists. Any info would be appreciated

 

[Andy]

Andy, whats up? People are saying this whole thing has rolled over and they are quoting lobbyists. Any info would be appreciated

*koff, koff* Bull *koff* sh *koff* it.

All legislation from the 109th is dead; clean slate for the 110th.
That said, the 110th will take the appropriations bills from the 109th and run them back through subcommittees (those subcommittees are now controlled by Dems) before rolling everything into one big omnibus appropriations bill. It's a dicey call; the Dems need 60 votes to pass an omnibus bill.
As for the Transportation appropriations bill, it's highly likely that the age 65 text would be stripped out; Congress does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT, like including legislative actions in appropriations bills. If the Dems go the omnibus route, they will make the omnibus bill as unoffensive as possible.

The subcommittee that allowed S 65 to be attached to the transportation appropriations bill will no longer have Conrad Burns or Mike DeWine on it. Christopher Bond (R-MO) will no longer be the Chairperson; it will be Patty Murray (D-WA). The membership will now be a majority of Dems; Ted Stevens (aka Sen Bridge to Nowhere) who sits on the subcommittee will have a HARD time keeping the text of S 65 in the appropriations bill.

Here's a fairly good newsletter by a pro-change guy:
http://www.ppf.org/newslet.htm

The CR merely keeps the federal govt funded. It doesn't give life to the appropriations bills from the 109th. But those bills will be used as templates for the now Dem controlled subcommittees.

 

[jhill]

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.

huh? Go have another beer

 

[jhill]

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

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.

 

[Flopgut]

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.

OK, decent post. Maybe we could agree that ANY safety concern, no matter it's agreed upon degree of "legitimacy", should NOT be decided based on ANY fiscal consideration? Using that as a baseline we shouldn't change the age. Discrimination does not trump safety, and age 65 cannot be proved safer. Plus, age 65 is just as discriminatory as 60.

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.

 

[Occam's Razor]

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.

The FAA opposes it...and they don't give a hoot about seniority. I oppose it, and am senior enough to not care.

Remember, all generalizations are false...including this one.

 

[vtwo]

WHat about??

for those who are forced out at sixty. what do you guys/gals do for health insurance?

 

[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?