Assoc. Press study finds older pilots=accidents

[3BCat]

You're welcome. You're also way off base. Data regarding accidents with older pilots at the controls is skewed due to the Age 60 Rule.

Liars start lying long before they are 60.

People that support discrimination, will reap what they sow.

If you can pass the PC, the Oral, the Recurrent, the Line Check, and the Physical requirements, I say you remain competent to work...regardless of age.

 

[flx757]

Yep Matt. I made your point. The point that all you are attempting to do is take an emotional, highly polarized issue and incite it. Period. You have tried it numerous times on this board.

Have fun with it.

By the way...at what point do I become an "old" pilot? Is there some "magic" age? Maybe when I eventually pass 50? Or 55? Or when I passed 40? When it it, Matt? Just curious. I want to know so I can be sure and retire before then so I can assure myself I will retire while still superior and mistake-proof.

 

[enigma]

matt1.1, Until you find some data that shows the accident stats for over 60 pilots who: fly for a US based 121 carrier following 121 rules/regs, pass a first class every six months, pass a PC every six months, attend recurrent every year, pass a line check every six months, fly aircraft maintained up to 121 standards, and have a partner (co pilot) continually observing their performance......You will have only proven that you have a personal bone to pick. Let it go man.

enigma

BTW, the way my eyes went south after 40, I don't know if I even make sixty, but those who want to fly and are able to continue to pass the tests, should not be arbitrarily pushed out.

 

[matt1.1]

What bone? Changing age 60 or keeping it?

You will have only proven that you have a personal bone to pick. Let it go man.

The bone was picked when the issue became an issue. Defending the current rule is important just as some think changing it is. The problem I am having is the radical changing of something without any regard for those that it affects. Changing it over a 30 year period would be one thing. Changing it overnight is another. Keep it the same and I don't have an issue.

Let it go as you say- stop forcing a change-keep age 60.

 

[joevollers]

The bone was picked when the issue became an issue. Defending the current rule is important just as some think changing it is. The problem I am having is the radical changing of something without any regard for those that it affects. Changing it over a 30 year period would be one thing. Changing it overnight is another. Keep it the same and I don't have an issue.

Let it go as you say- stop forcing a change-keep age 60.

You guys are tards ..............

That Article does not have enough info in it to provide someone with an informed opinion on age 60

Matt1.1... you do not have enough statistical data to say whether there are safety pros or cons.. that article you posted was weak and should not even be on the majors board as it has no relevance to AGE 60. There was not enough info in it to for someone to even form an opinion....
Let's be honest, You want AGE 60 to stay because(now here's the guess) you are nowhere near age 60 and would like some speedy advancement of you carreer... which is a perfectly justifiable opinion for you to have... Just call it what it is and stop pretendin you care about safety... If safety was your true concern; you would be for a detailed study that would present a finding of an appropriate retirement age for airline pilots... that may be 50,45, 67,63, or 80... but I'm guessing that this is not your motivation...

 

[matt1.1]

FAR 61.3 j 1

The issue concerns an FAR. FAR's are about safety. FAR's are only created to improve safety. The FAA is in the safety business. Anything in the discussion past safety is not important to the FAA. And those that have taken this beyond the FAA to Congress have the motivation and agenda problems.

Those wanting to change FAR 61.3 (j) (1) are wanting to decrease safety.

61.3 (j) (1)- Age limitation.....no person who holds a pilot certificate issued under this part shall serve as a pilot on a civil airplane of US registry in the following operations if the person has reached his or her 60th birthday....

 

[joevollers]

Wow.. FAR"S are about safety huh?... You obviously do not understand why the age 60 rule was implemented in the first place... and the FAA has not provided statistical evidence to show that this rule is about safety.. So why not show us why this is in fact safer??

IF you are , in fact, so concerned about safety... Then why not promote a study on when safety should dictate retirement... as opposed to being for a rule that there is no hard evidence to prove is safe... Why not just be for trying to prove it through sound LOGIC.. Instead of circular logic like in the article you posted

 

[pilotyip]

matt, Age 60 was forced on the pilots back in 1958. ALPA was still fighting to get it repealed up until about 1970. This rule had nothing to do with safety; it was a deal between two W.W.II USAF Generals, AAL's C.R. Smith and Pete Quesada (sp.?) the first head of the FAA. It was to get rid of high paid pilots at the top of AAL the seniority list. It was done in the name of safety, because who can be against safety. It is like motherhood and patriotism

 

[TAZ MAN]

matt, Age 60 was forced on the pilots back in 1958. ALPA was still fighting to get it repealed up until about 1970. This rule had nothing to do with safety; it was a deal between two W.W.II USAF Generals, AAL's C.R. Smith and Pete Quesada (sp.?) the first head of the FAA. It was to get rid of high paid pilots at the top of AAL the seniority list. It was done in the name of safety, because who can be against safety. It is like motherhood and patriotism

And that is the bottom line.

 

[Gorilla]

How about a grandfather clause? "All ATP holders as of this date, if operating 121, will retire at 60. Those without an ATP as of this date, if/when they fly part 121, will be allowed to fly to 65."

In other words, you knew what the rules were when you signed up. Now abide by them. I include myself in that group.