Assoc. Press study finds older pilots=accidents

[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.

 

[T1bubba]

AP study much more factual than your contradictional account of a biased view without supporting evidence of a respresentative sample concerning older pilots.

Older pilots owning aircraft and flying a typical <100 hour year verse younger pilots attaining private pilot through CFI ratings flying >250 hours per year is the same kind of anecdotal evidence you provided above which is not as yours is not as accurate as the AP study.

The anaylsis is good it just contradicts the older view point.

Do you not understand why any valid statistical study needs to be corrected for volume? That's why the airline industry uses CASM and RASM, not just comparing overall costs.

If the U.S. had 500 GA accidents last year and the Bahamas had 10, you couldn't draw the conclusion that the U.S. was 50 times more dangerous to fly in (numbers made up to illustrate a point). You have to know how much flying was going on for the comparison to be valid.

There may be plenty of studies out there that show older pilots are more dangerous, but this isn't one of them.

The auto safety advocates are another group that constantly ignores volume corrections. They say that the number of auto accidents has started to rise since the national 55 mph speed limit was raised. They never mention the fact that the rate of accidents per mile driven has continued to decline.

 

[3BCat]

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?

I say if you can pass the PC, the oral, the ground school, the line check and the medical, you are competent to work. These are the criteria that all professional pilots, young and old, have to meet or fail. They are the same for everyone.

You're absolutely right; 60, 65, and 70 are all arbitrary. It doesn't matter how old you are. If you don't perform to standards, you don't work. If you don't need to work, you retire.

 

[3BCat]

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.

How about a courtesy flush!?!? Thats a bunch of crap!

 

[Big Beer Belly]

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.

...an old pilot

LOL!!!!!!!!

Now there's an unbiased opinion. :laugh:


BBB

 

[Uppercrust]

[

quote=matt1.1]
For Bob Loo, who regularly soared above Michigan’s rugged Upper Peninsula counting wolves for the state natural resources department, the cause is clearer. He suffered an apparent heart attack in mid-flight in June 2002 and died in the crash that followed.
“That’s the way he wanted to die, I guess,” said his longtime companion, Clarice Arnell of Iron River, Mich.
But the 78-year-old former World War II pilot concealed from the FAA a long history of ailments that included blocked arteries, gout and congestive heart failure so that he could keep flying his Cessna 182.
Every year from 1978 to 2002, Loo obtained a Class 2 medical certificate from the FAA.
In the medical history section of each application, he checked “no” when asked if he had been admitted to a hospital or suffered dizziness, fainting or heart trouble.
M.D. signed forms
He was lying, according to the report on his crash prepared by the National Transportation Safety Board.
The NTSB investigation found that Loo’s aviation medical examiner from 1988 to 1994 — such doctors are certified to determine whether pilots are fit to fly — treated Loo for his gout, heart disease and diabetes. The examiner then signed the FAA applications, the NTSB said in its report.
Anonymous tipsters twice told the FAA that Loo shouldn’t fly. An unsigned letter in July 1978 prompted an FAA review, but that was dropped in December of that year after Loo insisted that his health was “excellent,” according to the NTSB report.
Living alone in a small cottage, Loo was most comfortable in the solitude of the sky. “That was his love. As long as he could be in a plane, he was happy,” Arnell said.

[/QUOTE]

Good for him. He died doing what he loved.

 

[Purpledog]

"I've got 58,370 hours. I'm safe. Let's go to 70" etc.

More realistically," I just bought a $58,370 boat/airplane because I'm a dumba$$ and I now need to work until 70 to pay for it". It cracks me up when I fly with these guys that think they are rich Captains. How does a pilot become a millionaire? Give him 2 million to invest.

 

[3BCat]

Age a factor for pilots

Study shows older pilots crash more
By Ryan Pearson
Associated Press
Posted Sunday, March 26, 2006

Thank God for the press. We wouldn't have any grasp on reality if it weren't for the media! Like this, for instance...

A photographer for CNN was assigned to cover southern California's wildfires last year. He wanted pictures of the heroic work the firefighters were doing as they battled the blazes.

When the photographer arrived on the scene, he realized that the smoke was so thick it would seriously impede, or even make impossible, his getting good
photographs from the ground level. He requested permission from his boss to rent a plane and take photos from the air. His request was approved and he used his cell phone to call the local county airport to charter a flight. He was told a single engine plane would be waiting for him at the airport.

Arriving at the airfield, he spotted a plane warming up outside a hanger . He jumped in with his bag, slammed the door shut, and shouted, "Let's go!"
The pilot taxied out, swung the plane into the wind and roared down the runway.

Once in the air, the photographer requested the pilot to, "Fly over the valley and make two or three low passes so I can take some pictures of the fires on the hillsides."

"Why?" asked the pilot.

"Because I'm a photographer for CNN," he responded. "And, I need to get some close-up shots."

The pilot was strangely silent for a moment, finally he stammered, "So, you're telling me you're not the flight instructor?

 

[matt1.1]

UpperCrust- you did read the pilot lied on his medical report didn't you?

Good for him. He died doing what he loved.

In the medical history section of each application, he checked “no” when asked if he had been admitted to a hospital or suffered dizziness, fainting or heart trouble.
M.D. signed forms
He was lying, according to the report on his crash prepared by the National Transportation Safety Board.
The NTSB investigation found that Loo’s aviation medical examiner from 1988 to 1994 — such doctors are certified to determine whether pilots are fit to fly — treated Loo for his gout, heart disease and diabetes. The examiner then signed the FAA applications, the NTSB said in its report.
Anonymous tipsters twice told the FAA that Loo shouldn’t fly.

Thanks for making my point why over 60 pilots should be grounded. Lairs do not add credibility to your cause. More over 60 pilots may just lie on their reports to obtain a new medical. That is not a good thing to promote.

 

[flx757]

As opposed to all the younger guys who lie about their DUIs? I guess it just helps if we ALL generalize and stereotype. That way, we can prevent actual facts from clouding the issue.

Maybe you should accept your latest of many attempts to incite with this issue has failed and you go away and try yet again at a later date.

After all, we all appear too passive and disengaged for your agenda. Right?

 

[matt1.1]

3bcat dug this thread up not me so it must be interesting someone.

As opposed to all the younger guys who lie about their DUIs? I guess it just helps if we ALL generalize and stereotype. That way, we can prevent actual facts from clouding the issue.

Maybe you should accept your latest of many attempts to incite with this issue has failed and you go away and try yet again at a later date.

After all, we all appear too passive and disengaged for your agenda. Right?

And I hope those that lied about their DUI get caught as well. Lying is not the right thing to do in any situation.

And as far as clouding the issue, old pilots are kings of the red herring. ie. young pilots lying about DUI reports.

Thanks for your support 3bcat for bring this thread back and flx757 for making my point.