less safe = less fun
OK less safe = less fun is an oversimplification, but I stand by what I said. There are guys of all ages who are difficult to fly with and guys in both seats, but when you get some cranky old dude who expects his f.o. to show him "due deference" because "he's the captain" and he "has paid his dues and been there" and "I've seen a few things you probably haven't seen there junior" You know what? That guy gets less respect...because he is assuming that his FO isn't on his level...he's below him...and that translates to bad CRM, bad teamwork and a long trip. That trip is less fun and less safe than with a trip flown with a captain who maybe says "hey, the only difference between you and me is I got here first...please tell me if you think I'm screwing up because I probably don't realize it." You know...that guy...the second guy is more fun to fly with, more highly respected by his FO and yes...safer.
Do Something
If you have a strong opinion and you want to see it your way...whatever way that is…write or call your lawmakers. Make sure they understand that the lobby for change is a minority. And that it is an organized and vocal one. Tell them why you think changing the rule is bad.
That is exactly what precipitated this whole debate. The old farts got organized and started a grass roots effort on the hill, at the FAA, etc. Do something constructive instead of crying about your delayed upgrade on a silly internet blog. Write a thoughtful letter to the people in DC who represent you or write to the FAA and tell them this change will make the skies less safe. That's about all you can do. If enough of you do it maybe the old curmudgeons in congress won't want to let the old cranky pilots association fly past 60.
Talking points for your call:
Hello, my name is ____ from _______ calling on behalf of the young pilots who want to make sure commercial air traffic here in the US is as safe as possible. I would like to speak to the person on your staff who is responsible for aviation issues, specifically the House H.R. 65 or Senate S. 65.
Please help us keep the status quo for age 60. Please don’t allow the FAA to make a mistake and force me to fly with pilots over age 60. Please don't allow a double standard that will force pilots under age 60 in the right seat to fly with pilots over age 60 in the left seat. I know age 60 is an arbitrary age but it has served us well. If safety wasn't an issue then why does the current proposal include language that specifies if one pilot is over 60 that the other pilot must be less than age 60? It is ironic that the proposed new law gives credence to maintaining status quo. This new law actually acknowledges that there is a need to discriminate based on age because it is a safety concern and that is why we should keep the current law. It is in the interest of safety.
Pilot physicals don't really test for mental fitness to do the job. The assumption is that most 60 year olds are mentally fit enough to do the job. The truth is that probably not 100% of them are fit. Changing the law to 65 greatly increases the potential for age-related problems. As a group 65 year olds are not as mentally agile as 60 year olds. This is exactly why Age 60 is a good rule.
We have a fail-safe system with at least two pilots in a cockpit. Usually this is a Captain and a first officer. If we allow these old-timers to stay in the Captain seat the burden is now on the first officer to make sure the small mistakes made in the course of every flight are recognized and corrected. In effect, changing the rule to 65 will make the first officer's job more hazardous. However, don't look to the airlines or the Captain-dominated unions to offer up hazard pay for those first officers. This is because these same people who want the law to change are doing it purely because of greed. This is the predominant reason they are arguing for change to this rule--they have talked to their financial planners. That is a bad reason for change.
The FAA and the airlines testing and training regime does not screen for fatigue and mental alertness that is "on-the-line" at an airline. A checkride may last several hours. This is a poor replication of what happens in day-to-day operations as an airline pilot. This is where the old timers have a really tough time because they simply don't have enough energy to do the job. This is when they make mistakes...not in the simulator during training.
Please don't change the rule. If you do our skies will be less safe for our children and grandchildren.
http://www.senate.gov
http://www.house.gov
Write to the FAA address on the other age 60 thread.
DO SOMETHING...it's almost too late.
OK less safe = less fun is an oversimplification, but I stand by what I said. There are guys of all ages who are difficult to fly with and guys in both seats, but when you get some cranky old dude who expects his f.o. to show him "due deference" because "he's the captain" and he "has paid his dues and been there" and "I've seen a few things you probably haven't seen there junior" You know what? That guy gets less respect...because he is assuming that his FO isn't on his level...he's below him...and that translates to bad CRM, bad teamwork and a long trip. That trip is less fun and less safe than with a trip flown with a captain who maybe says "hey, the only difference between you and me is I got here first...please tell me if you think I'm screwing up because I probably don't realize it." You know...that guy...the second guy is more fun to fly with, more highly respected by his FO and yes...safer.
Do Something
If you have a strong opinion and you want to see it your way...whatever way that is…write or call your lawmakers. Make sure they understand that the lobby for change is a minority. And that it is an organized and vocal one. Tell them why you think changing the rule is bad.
That is exactly what precipitated this whole debate. The old farts got organized and started a grass roots effort on the hill, at the FAA, etc. Do something constructive instead of crying about your delayed upgrade on a silly internet blog. Write a thoughtful letter to the people in DC who represent you or write to the FAA and tell them this change will make the skies less safe. That's about all you can do. If enough of you do it maybe the old curmudgeons in congress won't want to let the old cranky pilots association fly past 60.
Talking points for your call:
Hello, my name is ____ from _______ calling on behalf of the young pilots who want to make sure commercial air traffic here in the US is as safe as possible. I would like to speak to the person on your staff who is responsible for aviation issues, specifically the House H.R. 65 or Senate S. 65.
Please help us keep the status quo for age 60. Please don’t allow the FAA to make a mistake and force me to fly with pilots over age 60. Please don't allow a double standard that will force pilots under age 60 in the right seat to fly with pilots over age 60 in the left seat. I know age 60 is an arbitrary age but it has served us well. If safety wasn't an issue then why does the current proposal include language that specifies if one pilot is over 60 that the other pilot must be less than age 60? It is ironic that the proposed new law gives credence to maintaining status quo. This new law actually acknowledges that there is a need to discriminate based on age because it is a safety concern and that is why we should keep the current law. It is in the interest of safety.
Pilot physicals don't really test for mental fitness to do the job. The assumption is that most 60 year olds are mentally fit enough to do the job. The truth is that probably not 100% of them are fit. Changing the law to 65 greatly increases the potential for age-related problems. As a group 65 year olds are not as mentally agile as 60 year olds. This is exactly why Age 60 is a good rule.
We have a fail-safe system with at least two pilots in a cockpit. Usually this is a Captain and a first officer. If we allow these old-timers to stay in the Captain seat the burden is now on the first officer to make sure the small mistakes made in the course of every flight are recognized and corrected. In effect, changing the rule to 65 will make the first officer's job more hazardous. However, don't look to the airlines or the Captain-dominated unions to offer up hazard pay for those first officers. This is because these same people who want the law to change are doing it purely because of greed. This is the predominant reason they are arguing for change to this rule--they have talked to their financial planners. That is a bad reason for change.
The FAA and the airlines testing and training regime does not screen for fatigue and mental alertness that is "on-the-line" at an airline. A checkride may last several hours. This is a poor replication of what happens in day-to-day operations as an airline pilot. This is where the old timers have a really tough time because they simply don't have enough energy to do the job. This is when they make mistakes...not in the simulator during training.
Please don't change the rule. If you do our skies will be less safe for our children and grandchildren.
http://www.senate.gov
http://www.house.gov
Write to the FAA address on the other age 60 thread.
DO SOMETHING...it's almost too late.
