FAA ATP General Requirements

[N813CA]

Airlines have pretty much taken care of the 23 age rule. The two regionals I have worked for required 3,000 hours to become captain. Most likely a 21 year old out of college won't have that time.

 

[doh]

Good moral character. I can fool some of the people some of the time!

 

[mitsdriver]

Are there any regional airlines that have recently hired 18 or 19 year old FOs...maybe Great Lakes? What happens to these guys when they're required to obtain an ATP within 3 years, and they won't even be 23 yet?

Something about an ejection seat comes to mind...

I know. It's a bad joke. Especially in light of current affairs...

 

[CesnaCaptn]

I believe the age should be 25, not 23.

There has been a scientific study that demonstrated that the specific part of the brain that accurately assesses risk is not fully developed until age 25. The military has long understood this, preferring males age 18-25 (selective service requirements) because such people feel invincible (which is very useful in combat). Auto insurance companies have hard data on this that proves that under-25 drivers have much greater numbers of accidents. Note that when you turn 25, you get a substantial cut in your premiums.

I would think that commanding a transport category aircraft should require fully developed maturity, based on actual scientific data.

How do you feel about the pilot who was hired on at a regional at 19, captain at 23 and check airman at 25. Did the airline err in this promotion? Or did the airline realize the pilot competence, ability, and maturity? I know you have to draw the line somewhere, but there have been some young pilots who have proven themselves.

 

[JustaNumber]

How do you feel about the pilot who was hired on at a regional at 19, captain at 23 and check airman at 25. Did the airline err in this promotion? Or did the airline realize the pilot competence, ability, and maturity? I know you have to draw the line somewhere, but there have been some young pilots who have proven themselves.

Sure some guys mature early, but some mature late (or never!). There is no accurate test to see if someone is more likely to take unnecessary risks when no one is looking, so like you said, you have to draw the line somewhere. Might as well put that line down consistent with scientific averages. I know that when I'm a passenger, I would feel much more comfortable with two 40 year olds than with a 23 year old and a 19 year old up front. The younger adults could be safe, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[BoilerUP]

Sure some guys mature early, but some mature late (or never!).

I know a few guys at mid-life that fit the latter part of that statement to a T.

The younger adults could be safe, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

So..."age discrimination" against pilots 60 and over in the interest of safety is bad, but age discrimination for pilots under the age of 23 in the interest of safety is acceptable?

 

[JustaNumber]

So..."age discrimination" against pilots 60 and over in the interest of safety is bad, but age discrimination for pilots under the age of 23 in the interest of safety is acceptable?

No. Discrimination for discrimination's sake is bad. Discrimination based on actual safety data is good. A 12 year old and a 92 year old should not be in command of a transport category aircraft in revenue service. The debate apparently is over the matter of exactly where you draw the line. Until more accurate cognitive tests can be developed, arbitrary age limits based on scientifically determined averages is the best we can do.

 

[BoilerUP]

No. Discrimination for discrimination's sake is bad. Discrimination based on actual safety data is good. A 12 year old and a 92 year old should not be in command of a transport category aircraft in revenue service. The debate apparently is over the matter of exactly where you draw the line. Until more accurate cognitive tests can be developed, arbitrary age limits based on scientifically determined averages is the best we can do.

So...do you think pilots over the age of 60 should be allowed to continue "being in command of a transport category aircraft in revenue service" while pilots under the age of 23 (or 25) should not be allowed to be a SIC of the same airplane?

 

[JustaNumber]

So...do you think pilots over the age of 60 should be allowed to continue "being in command of a transport category aircraft in revenue service" while pilots under the age of 23 (or 25) should not be allowed to be a SIC of the same airplane?

I would answer that if I wanted to start a 25 page thread. All I will say is that evidence has not yet disproved the ability of the average 64 year old to safely act as PIC, but it has shown that (on average) a 21 year old is not as safe as a 25 year old, and thus I believe the average 21 year old should not be a 121 PIC. SIC is obviously a slightly different story, as his or her maturity is not as critical as that of the PIC.

 

[BoilerUP]

thus I believe the average 21 year old should not be a 121 PIC. SIC is obviously a slightly different story, as his or her maturity is not as critical as that of the PIC.

But a 21 year old can't be a 121 PIC right now anyway!

The whole issue is that you have to be 23 in order to hold an ATP, which currently is only required of captains. FARs might be changed requiring all airline pilots to hold an ATP, making 23 the defacto minimum age for employment in 121...and you've already said in post #5 that you think the minimum age for an ATP should be 25, not 23.

I'm sure you can understand my confusion about your position...