FAA Age 60 debate

[3M1900FO]

Plan Ahead Sell Real Estate Be A Sim Instructor Etc Etc. Guys Above 55 Dont Want To Be There Anymore. Its Not Our Fault That They Have Four Divorces And Lost Every At Age 54 And Take It Out On The F.o. Theres An Emery Guy Who I Flew With In His Last Month What A Horrible Experience Of Bitterness And Lets Play The Pathetic Victim.

 

[ivauir]

Whoa!! I'm 28 and in the bottom 15% of my seniority list. I have no problem letting the guys who are 60 stay five more years.

.

I am not going to turn this into a math lesson, but if you are 28 you need to consider the impact this will have. You won't get an extra 5 super productive years, your extra years will just start later. The majoity of folks pushing for the change are 50+ and have questionable motives. I think it is a bad rule and should (and will change). But every one I know who is personaly pushing for the change has a lot to bemefit. Sometimes they get upset when I do not share their enthusiasm.

 

[Fly-n-hi]

"I am not going to turn this into a math lesson, but if you are 28 you need to consider the impact this will have. You won't get an extra 5 super productive years, your extra years will just start later."

I realize that I will not upgrade for an additional 5 years. I don't have a problem with that. You are completely wrong in this regard: I will get an extra 5 years of FO pay...and at 75K to 85K for those 5 years that is fine by me. And my time in the left seat over the span of my career will not be any less if I retire at 65...I will just have to wait 5 more years before I get there (assuming that every pilot senior to me opts to continue flying past age 60).

Now, to steal your line, I don't want to turn this into a math lesson but that five years will get me an additional $400,000 to $450,000 (before taxes). If I invest 20% (pre-tax) of what I make into my 401k (or IRA), plus the 3% the company (AWA) matches, plus the 7% that they (AWA) give me regardless of what I invest, and then factor in compound interest...that comes out to alot of money by the time i'm 65. 20% + 3% + 7% of $80,000 = $24,000 a year for 5 years...earning compound interest for 20 or more years = alot. It certainly will get me quite a bit more money in the long run. Plus, I have the choice to retire whenever I feel that my retirement saving are enough to live on.

Now, I already know your next argument. You will say this: You could get CA pay five years sooner and therefore invest more 5 years sooner. That only matters if I stop receiving paychecks at age 60. If I retire at 65 that's 5 more years of paychecks that I will receive and 5 more years of compound interest...even if those 5 years happen to be at FO salary.

I get the impression that you would rather upgade sooner so that you can get a bigger paycheck sooner even though it means making less in the long run. I don't understand that at all.

"The majority of folks pushing for the change are 50+ and have questionable motives."

This statement is pure speculation. There is no possible way that you can know the motives of the majority of pilots unless you have interviewed every one of them, or unless you have interviewed enough of them to declare a majority.

"I think it is a bad rule and should (and will change). But every one I know who is personaly pushing for the change has a lot to benefit."

I have no problem admiting that I have much to benefit from the change. And I believe you do to. There is nothing wrong with being motivated by personal benefit. My finacial position will benefit incredibly.

The only drawback that that you seem to be considering is that you will have to wait a few extra years to upgrade to captain. That seems like a small price to pay if you ask me. And believe me, I want to upgade like everybody else.

"Sometimes they get upset when I do not share their enthusiasm"

I hope you can tell by my tone that I am not upset or confrotational...just passionate about what I believe, my well being, and my future.

 

[filejw]

3m1900fo,
i just few with two 40 yr olds and you know what? with skills like that we better go back to 12 yr olds......

 

[turbodriver]

All you old farts get the bunk out!! I wanna upgrade before I retire!!!

 

[Paradoxus]

It has been my experience in this business that the older guys generally suck. Unfortunately, the opinions of the laypeople that both exist as passengers and aviation management correlate an elderly pilot with automatic demi-god proficiency as a pilot.

Ahhhh...the folley of popular misconception....

 

[pilotyip]

para I can see with 3000 hours you have it all figured out. Right?

 

[spinproof]

Both the APA and ALPA say that the age 60 rule hasn't resulted in any medical accidents, and that changing that rule could lead to one. I agree.

...So there haven't been any medical related accidents to anyone under age 60??? ...another Duane Worthlessism.

To presuppose one has more of a chance of failing at ones duties, at a pre-determined age, negates the fact that it is stress and not age which determines the life expectancy of man and equipment!

 

[V1andgo]

Here is an idea!
We raise the retirement age to 65. But all the guys above 60 will downgrade to FO. All the folks above 60 will still make money and enjoy medical benefits while younger guys and girls can upgrade and not suffer finanically, because of it.
Or, we change the hourly pay difference between Captain and FO. For example, if the Captain makes $100 per hour the FO should make at least $85. Which I guess, comes out to a maximum pay gap of 15%.
Now people who want or have to work longer can do so, while those waiting for their chance to upgrade can make a living in the meantime.
Just an idea.

 

[semperfido]

It has been my experience in this business that the older guys generally suck. Unfortunately, the opinions of the laypeople that both exist as passengers and aviation management correlate an elderly pilot with automatic demi-god proficiency as a pilot.

Ahhhh...the folley of popular misconception....

LOL...very funny

 

[pilotyip]

Here is a great idea, let the ALPA pilots have it in their contracts that age 60 is the end of flying at that airline. And let the rest of the non-union world go about their business, flying charters, boxes, even people.

 

[mdanno808]

In the UK you can continue to fly after retirement age (which I believe is 60), however, in a heavy aircraft, you can no longer fly in the left seat. I am a fairly young pilot, and agree that an age 65 retirement would affect my upgrade time, and wallet width, however, I also agree that there is no data concluding that continuing to fly past 60 is dangerous. Now, having said that, I also think that there are a lot of regulations (tail-end ferry, and supplemental carrier reg's) that I believe are in much more need of a face lift.

And for the record, I bet more 3000 hour pilots who have nothing to list under ratings other than their cfi bust PC's in big jet's than 59 year olds who have flown everything from the mad dog to the 777.

 

[FoxHunter]

In the UK you can continue to fly after retirement age (which I believe is 60), however, in a heavy aircraft, you can no longer fly in the left seat.

That is an incorrect statement. The only restriction is that the F/O must be under age 60 if the Captain is over. Only one age 60+ pilot in the cockpit. France and Italy are the only two European countries that don't allow over age 60 pilots. My understanding is that due to EU laws that this will not be the case starting in October 2006. The following is from the year 2000.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/vo000201/text/00201w01.htm

Commercial Pilots: Age Limit





Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government:

• What action they will take to protect the interests of British commercial pilots aged over 60 years currently prohibited from flying over or into France in command of public transport aircraft.[HL781]

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The Government have raised this matter both directly with the French authorities and within the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) and will continue to seek a resolution of the problem.

Under Council Regulation 3922/91 on the harmonisation of aviation technical standards, the national aviation authorities of member states are required to be members of the JAA. The Regulation also adopted some of the JAA's Joint Aviation Requirements (JARs) as the European Community's harmonised standard and established a procedure to adopt future JARs as the EC standard. Where a JAR has not yet been adopted under EC law, JAA member states implement them under national law and are obliged, under the JAA Arrangements, to use their best efforts to implement JARs by the due date.

Requirements affecting the age of pilots are contained in the Joint Aviation Requirements on Flight Crew Licensing (JAR-FCL), which was adopted by the JAA in 1996 with the implementation date of 1 July 1999.

JARs generally set standards that are compatible with those set by the International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) under the terms of the Chicago Convention, but can introduce differences, so long as member states notify the differences to ICAO. In drawing up the JAR-FCL, the JAA determined that commercial pilots can safely be licensed to the age of 65, provided that only one pilot in a multi-pilot aircraft may be over 60: this differs from the ICAO standard, under which a person can only act as a pilot in command if they are under 60. The UK and most other JAA member states are, or are in the process of, applying the JAR-FCL age limits. However, the 1 Feb 2000 : Column WA18

French authorities are continuing to apply the ICAO age limits within French airspace, although co-pilots up to the age of 65 are permitted. The French authorities have said that they are not opposed to a joint approach from the JAA member states to ICAO seeking a revision of the ICAO provisions in line with those in JAR-FCL, and we will pursue this with the JAA.

 

[727gm]

If the FAR 121 age limit is raised, there is no good reason to relegate the over-60 pilots to the right seat. The medical certification standards do not need to be tightened, as the limit as currently imposed was a corrupt act with no supporting medical data or study. I do realize that there WILL be an age limit.

It would be instructive to study the number or rates of both pilot deviations and pilot incapacition of over-60 pilots in professionally-flown corporate two-pilot aircraft, which operate in the same airspace, with similiar aircraft speeds, complexity, and pilot workloads, albeit often with only a Second Class medical certificate.

The medical standards should actually probably be relaxed. It's just airline flying; this is a sedentary job! There is no need for military-inspired superman or astronaut physicals. The creation of strict medical standards has probably rested on an assumption that the outcome is seriously in doubt if the PIC of a two-pilot airliner were to become incapacitated, and we all know that is not the case.

We shouldn't second guess those who choose to continue flying past 60, it is none of our business. One should not be forced to give up a well-paying job if one wants to keep it, as they are hard to come by, represent a lot of work and sacrifice. The desire of the young to bury their seniors is common, but is not a good reason to hold the age limit to 60 years.

At the top of a seniority list, the job can often be like a part-time job, so the refrain, "Get A Life!" by those wishing too retain the age-60 Rule rings hollow. They DO have a life.

 

[Tyro]

Agree. Don’t need stricter medical standards.


Age 60 rule actually started in the mid-50’s as a risk study. Actuarial research and statistics were utilized in an attempt to answer the question: at what age are the odds of a pilot in a critical phase of flight becoming acutely incapacitated due to a cardiac condition approximately one in a million. Actuarials came up with 55-60. But tickers keep tickin’ and the real concern as we age has become cognition – aging of the squash. But this gets thoroughly and regularly tested in the sim so, as long as sim rides are passed, good to go from a brain perspective.


But in the end like many things it will be an economically-driven decision made by the folks in DC. Science will be irrelevant.