Assoc. Press study finds older pilots=accidents

[matt1.1]

Fruitloops?

What does apples and oranges have to do with anything here?

This was a study statistically showing older pilots flying aircraft. Whether those aircraft are gliders, helicopters, GA, or jets it is still flying with the same type of decisions and reactions required.

This age relevant study was about flying not older pilots driving cars, boats, or operating heavy machines.

It is completely relevant.

 

[Benhuntn]

Matt

Trust me I don't see any of the older capts. I fly with having any decision problems or demonstrating any other issues in the cockpit. If anything its the young bulls that are out there letting their egos write checks their hands can't cash. When you fly 75 hrs a month you can stay on your "A" game for along time. Been there, done that bought the T-shirt...an old pilot

Cheers

 

[FN FAL]

Matt

Trust me I don't see any of the older capts. I fly with having any decision problems or demonstrating any other issues in the cockpit. If anything its the young bulls that are out there letting their egos write checks their hands can't cash. When you fly 75 hrs a month you can stay on your "A" game for along time. Been there, done that bought the T-shirt...an old pilot

Cheers

We have a retrired Eagle EMB captain flying for us in single pilot 135 Caravan freight operations. At first I didn't know if he was going to make it or not, but he seems to be fitting in pretty good now. There's a learning curve for this job and a lot of people have some stumbling blocks in their first few months of working for us...but if "pops" can make the transition and fly safely on this job, I would think that the AP study left quite a few variables out of their statistical study.

 

[Dave Benjamin]

What does apples and oranges have to do with anything here?

This was a study statistically showing older pilots flying aircraft. Whether those aircraft are gliders, helicopters, GA, or jets it is still flying with the same type of decisions and reactions required.

This age relevant study was about flying not older pilots driving cars, boats, or operating heavy machines.

It is completely relevant.

How many college level statistics classes have you taken?
Do you work for a Part 121 carrier? Any experience in 121 ops?

Your comments about decisions and reactions makes me wonder. Although decision making is very important there are few situations in a Part 25 aircraft that require any sort of lightning fast response. Most of the incidents in the study involved pilot incapacitation and falsified medicals. How many Part 121 accidents have been attributed to pilot incapacitation or a fradulent medical? Obviously it's a common factor in GA according to the study.

Let's talk about some other basic facts.
VFR is more hazardous than IFR
Single pilot is more hazardous than crew.
Part 91 (GA) is more hazardous than Part 121.
Training and checking in Pt 121 ops is far more stringent than GA
Air carrier aircraft are inherently much safer than GA aircraft
First class medicals every 6 months versus third class once every 2 years

Final reality - Anyone who has been in this business for any length of time will tell you there are many GA pilots that shouldn't be flying or are operating equipment far beyond their abilities (100 knot pilot in a 300 knot aircraft)

 

[Gorilla]

I know this has been beaten to death, year after year, but you guys who support raising the age, that's fine; but how high? If you go 65, in 5 more years, those at 65 will be saying "I've got 58,370 hours. I'm safe. Let's go to 70" etc. The bar will be continually raised. If 60 is "arbitrary", then so is 65.

Will there be a motor-skills test? If that happens, you'll get some 80 yr old guys passing, and some 35's failing. So be it, but be prepared to be subject to some IBM PC coordination test every 6 months at your flight physical.

Cut to the quick - who decides if an individual is safe?

 

[matt1.1]

Were is your evidence? I have read your stories and will dodge your attacks

Without getting personal as this is not a friendly open intelligent site to let your gaurd down, I will not be answering those creditial questions as there is nothing to gain.

This thread is not about who or what I have to say but instead what the AP said as a result of its research. I am just reporting the facts that older pilots flying aircraft are more likely to crash.

Now the debate whether or not GA is representative of part 121 is moot as this study is the only one I am aware of that show US pilots, age, and accident satistics. I also don't have to debate without evidence as the last few posts have the merits of GA flying verse part 121. If there are other studies out there showing US pilots and age reprint them here. Otherwise your stories and personal experiences are just biased unrepresentative irrelevant stories that should not affect the realities of pilots and age.

Produce some countering evidence or accept that which is given.

 

[matt1.1]

I agree with every point you've made

I know this has been beaten to death, year after year, but you guys who support raising the age, that's fine; but how high? If you go 65, in 5 more years, those at 65 will be saying "I've got 58,370 hours. I'm safe. Let's go to 70" etc. The bar will be continually raised. If 60 is "arbitrary", then so is 65.

Will there be a motor-skills test? If that happens, you'll get some 80 yr old guys passing, and some 35's failing. So be it, but be prepared to be subject to some IBM PC coordination test every 6 months at your flight physical.

Cut to the quick - who decides if an individual is safe?

The FAA decides and has decided that the variables above age 60 are not in the publics best interests concerning safety.

But short side ALPA pilots that have refused to step up to the plate and make a stand in the last five years have pushed this issue in the slippery slope of the political world that does not always deal in reality and has no moral compass concerning safety and the lives of the traveling public.

This is not a political issue as it is being framed by those wanting change. It is a safety issue that has a black and white cause and affect. But those arguing against will have some personal story showing old joe blow did fine and holding him up as some example for us all.

The FAA is in the safety business, Congress is in the funny money business.

 

[pilotyip]

Remember the now 121 regional carrier used to be known as the 135 scheduled commuter certificate. Over 60 pilots were flying 121 type airplanes until 2000, when the last grandfathered 135 Sched commuter pilots was forced to retire at age 69. Are there any statistics on how these pilots did their jobs?

 

[Dave Benjamin]

Without getting personal as this is not a friendly open intelligent site to let your gaurd down, I will not be answering those creditial questions as there is nothing to gain.

This thread is not about who or what I have to say but instead what the AP said as a result of its research. I am just reporting the facts that older pilots flying aircraft are more likely to crash.

Now the debate whether or not GA is representative of part 121 is moot as this study is the only one I am aware of that show US pilots, age, and accident satistics. I also don't have to debate without evidence as the last few posts have the merits of GA flying verse part 121. If there are other studies out there showing US pilots and age reprint them here. Otherwise your stories and personal experiences are just biased unrepresentative irrelevant stories that should not affect the realities of pilots and age.

Produce some countering evidence or accept that which is given.

The only reason I can imagine you not addressing the questions regarding your credentials is you may lack them. Anotherwords no airline experience and little or no college. I've taken a couple of statistics classes and one in Quantitative Analysis. I'm far from an expert but the classes I took help me differentiate good studies from poor ones. I also question whether the organization funding the "study" has an agenda.

This so called study conducted by a media organization is of little value because it fails to take into account the volume of operations conducted by pilots in the different age groups. If the older pilots are flying more because they are retired and have the time and money to enjoy their hobby then they are exposed to risk more often. In order for the conclusions to be valid a statistician would apply a corrective factor to determine if older pilots are more likely to have an accident when viewed on a per flight hour basis.

Here's a simplified example for you to consider. Assume we have 3 groups of pilots.
Group A - flys 10 hours per month
Group B - flys 20 hours per month
Group C - flys 30 hours per month
If Group C pilots have 10% more accidents than Group A and B pilots what conclusions could be drawn?

Incidentally I'm not a supporter of raising the retirement age. I'm happy with things the way they are. However I can't support my argument of keeping the retirement age at 60 using this article. It is incomplete.

 

[Dave Benjamin]

Remember the now 121 regional carrier used to be known as the 135 scheduled commuter certificate. Over 60 pilots were flying 121 type airplanes until 2000, when the last grandfathered 135 Sched commuter pilots was forced to retire at age 69. Are there any statistics on how these pilots did their jobs?

Good point Yip. I wonder if there have been studies of how older pilots fare in the Part 135 environment.