FAA should think twice about not having a retirement rule in 135 flying

[cldsfr79]

Here we go with another age battle.

I decided to look through the NTSB archives in accidents involving pilot incapacitation. Search included dates from 1993 to present and for the search criteria I just typed "pilot incapacitation". Reports involved all categories of aircraft including helicopters. I found over 50+ incidents of pilot incapacitation.

And what were the results? The vast majority of incidents showed pilots of the age 60+ dying in flight do to heart attacks and strokes. Many accidents sited undiagonsied issues. I'm glad the AME doctor "Dr. Handshake" does a great job. To bad the primary care doctors aren't used when you get older to find health issues. There was another sizable percentage of pilots over the age of 50 dying in flight. And how about the young pilots (under the age of 40)? Less than a handful. I guess the myth about older people not having health issues has been settled.

And this search doesn't include pilots of the age 60+ who were spatially disoriented, confused or using poor decision making (definitions used by the NTSB as contributing factors to an accident).

This is the stuff that keeps me up at night.

One accident that involves a pilot, who was 66, said to the controller "my defibrillator just went off on me."....the pilot declared "mayday" and reported that he was losing his eyesight.

Or the 64 year old instructor who had a seizure due to a brain swell from undiagnosed cancer. Sadly the NTSB concluded that his seizing body blocked the flight controls and the student was unable to recover the plane.

Speaking honestly and not humorously, I do worry about the guy sitting next to me who is in their late 60s. I hope he is healthy, that he isn't hiding health problems, and that he doesn't slump against the controls on short final if he passes.

Does the FAA deny that there is a problem or issue? Yes. I have been active in writing the FAA and senators about the issue. All the replies are that the FAA says pilots, regardless of age, are healthy, fit, and have no issues. They went on to say that elderly individuals as a whole have no problem with motor skills, memory, or cognitive activity. Going on, the FAA says that they will catch those who hide medical problems. Further, they say that they don't have any intention of ever having a retirement age for part 135 flying. I'm glad that the FAA doesn't have a "tombstone" mentality about regulating and that they read medical journals about aging individuals.

Again, not joking: We'll have to wait until a high profile accident that takes out a famous person or politician which involves pilots well over 65 to have any type of change. I can see it now: Wolf Blitzer in the Situation room running the story, "Elderly pilots flying high performance turbojets...are we safe"?

 

[Pattern-Master]

I agree, I have flown with quite a few "older pilots" who needed close watching while flying. These are just the facts of getting old, it happens to everyone. Albeit some better than others. Unfortunately most of these pilots are retired with no pensions from there airlines and cannot live on social security alone because of poor saving and spending habits and must fly till they literally die at the controls.

 

[gret]

Making generalizations is a dangerous sport as some people have found out. Your research is probably flawed, and not intentiallly because you believe it.

This little piece from AIN this past Monday shows the problem with not having all the facts clearly laid out and interpreted.

AIN Digs into Part 135 Accident Data

When aviation people speak of Part 135 operations, many of us naturally assume a business jet or at least turboprop is involved. So when the NTSB released 2011 accident data a few weeks ago (“Total accidents involving on-demand Part 135 operations climbed from 31 in 2010 to 50 in 2011, while fatal accidents rose from six to 16 and fatalities rose from 17 to 41.”), the numbers appeared quite unambiguously to refer to turbine-powered airplanes.

The story behind those numbers, however, is not quite as clear as the one that evolved when AIN spent time digging into the raw data used by the NTSB. The spreadsheet actually showed something quite different from what many people might have expected. Of the 50 accidents and 41 fatalities involving Part 135 aircraft, only four actually involved turbine-powered airplanes: a Learjet 35A, an Embraer EMB-500 Phenom, a Swearingen SA227 Metroliner and a Cessna 208 Caravan. One of those, the Caravan accident, resulted in a single fatality. Eight turbine-powered helicopter accidents, however, were responsible for 15 fatal injuries. The remainder of the Part 135 accidents involved piston-powered aircraft, including 15 twins: six Piper Navajos, four twin Cessnas, two twin-Beech 18s, two Beech Barons and a Grumman G44. The 25 other Part 135 accidents involved single-engine piston aircraft. Note: The predominance of any particular airplane or helicopter should not be interpreted to mean that those aircraft are unsafe, merely that those machines are used more often in charter than others.
​

 

[pilotyip]

Here we go with another age battle.

I decided to look through the NTSB archives in accidents involving pilot incapacitation. Search included dates from 1993 to present and for the search criteria I just typed "pilot incapacitation". Reports involved all categories of aircraft including helicopters. I found over 50+ incidents of pilot incapacitation.

And what were the results? The vast majority of incidents showed pilots of the age 60+ dying in flight do to heart attacks and strokes. Many accidents sited undiagonsied issues. I'm glad the AME doctor "Dr. Handshake" does a great job. To bad the primary care doctors aren't used when you get older to find health issues. There was another sizable percentage of pilots over the age of 50 dying in flight. And how about the young pilots (under the age of 40)? Less than a handful. I guess the myth about older people not having health issues has been settled.

And this search doesn't include pilots of the age 60+ who were spatially disoriented, confused or using poor decision making (definitions used by the NTSB as contributing factors to an accident).

This is the stuff that keeps me up at night.

One accident that involves a pilot, who was 66, said to the controller "my defibrillator just went off on me."....the pilot declared "mayday" and reported that he was losing his eyesight.

Or the 64 year old instructor who had a seizure due to a brain swell from undiagnosed cancer. Sadly the NTSB concluded that his seizing body blocked the flight controls and the student was unable to recover the plane.

Speaking honestly and not humorously, I do worry about the guy sitting next to me who is in their late 60s. I hope he is healthy, that he isn't hiding health problems, and that he doesn't slump against the controls on short final if he passes.

Does the FAA deny that there is a problem or issue? Yes. I have been active in writing the FAA and senators about the issue. All the replies are that the FAA says pilots, regardless of age, are healthy, fit, and have no issues. They went on to say that elderly individuals as a whole have no problem with motor skills, memory, or cognitive activity. Going on, the FAA says that they will catch those who hide medical problems. Further, they say that they don't have any intention of ever having a retirement age for part 135 flying. I'm glad that the FAA doesn't have a "tombstone" mentality about regulating and that they read medical journals about aging individuals.

Again, not joking: We'll have to wait until a high profile accident that takes out a famous person or politician which involves pilots well over 65 to have any type of change. I can see it now: Wolf Blitzer in the Situation room running the story, "Elderly pilots flying high performance turbojets...are we safe"?

And this has never happened to a pilot under 60?, but a 30+ pilot runs off the runway in SC, that is OK, a 40+ pilot doesn't deice his airplane kills everyone on board, that is OK also?, a 50+ pilot takes off in his jet and runs out of gas, that is also OK. I could go on.

This is from a 69 year old 135 guy with a first class medical with no limitations, including glasses like most of the younger pilots.

Individuals do not age uniformly, there are many under 60 who are far less capable than those over 60.

 

[jtf]

I'm under 40. I want to be able to fly as long as I can hold a medical. That said, I think medicals for older pilots should probably be different. I dont know how to test for fitness for duty, but I hope it is addressed. Age usually brings experience that allows avoidance of many issues that may bite a younger, less experienced pilot. As long as the older pilot is truly fit to fly, he or she should be able to fly for money as long as they want. The young pilots who think differently will most likely change their thinking when they realize they are not prepared to retire when an arbtrary retirement age is reached.

 

[gret]

Isn't the issue really centered on mental fitness, rather than age? The former frac pilot that went wacko on Jet Blue recently, the gay flight attendant sliding down the chute, the flight attendant who started to see demons, and the crazed Egyptian Air pilot that decided to ditch the jetliner in the Atlantic weren't approaching any "age issue" that people like to point to.

Lip service is paid to making sure you're mentally together during a physical. A couple of psychology tests should make crewmembers and passengers feel more comfortable. Aviation folks are generally viewed as a card short of a full deck anyway and maybe we can weed out the worst of them with some serious testing.

Don't know how anyone could argue the merits of this view...

 

[Wankel7]

If I remember right you don't need an EKG for a 2nd or 3rd class medical.

So, of those 50+ pilots that keeled over you need to find out what their medical level was.

I bet a lot of them held 2nd and 3rd class medicals. Why bother with age and start requiring an EKG for ALL pilots that want to exercise commercial privileges?

 

[Pattern-Master]

The only flying I want to do after age 65 is putting around the country side in a piper cub or something that requires no IFR flight plans and limited ATC interaction. Now that's flying!

 

[jtf]

I agree puttering around is what I would prefer when I am 65, but I have no idea if I will be able to quit flying airplanes for money by then. I max my 401k and do a bit more into an IRA. That is probably more than the average pilot is saving for retirement, but that might not be enough.

 

[CALRepublic]

I wonder what an owner who's net-worth is several million dollars thinks when he sees a 70 year old guy in the cockpit? specially with his kids and wife aboard...

don't know why these guys keep hanging around, most are not good at this anymore, but this is all they know, they ain't going nowhere