Mica trying to fast-track Age 65 - 12/6/07

[XJTAv8r]

Please explain the reference to safety in your previous statement:

I don't know what exactly you're trying to ask, but I'll give it a try. The Age 60 rule (regardless what politics you think were involved) is meant to be a standard threshold for safety. This means that it's to the benefit of the flying public to have pilots retire at this age, due to the reduction of cognitive skills, etc. While I agree that there are pilots out there that are over 60 and perfectly capable of passing any physical and mental test, the standard threshold is for the greater public safety

If you want to support the FAA getting stricter with medical and pilot certification and performance that applies equally to everyone then I have no problem with that. Be careful, because in your zeal to get these old geezers, you may end up nailing yourself in the process. Not that it has anything to do with this argument, but I think if you are old enough to take a bullet for your country, you should be able to take a drink no matter what MADD thinks.

It's a known fact that many of the older pilot crowd visit "buddy-buddy" doctors that will pass them as long as they've got a pulse

The age 16 argument is ridiculous because you are talking about minors, and not adults.

Maybe you need to look at your definition of discrimination below. "Ol Daniel Webster defines it as making a distinction between persons based on age..." Isn't making kids wait 'til 16 age discrimination?? I'll bet there's some 15 year olds that will drive better and safer than many adults out there! Just come here to Jersey and see the many adult nutcases on the road.

Maybe you need to look up the definition of discrimination. Ol Daniel Webster defines it as making a distinction between persons based on age, race, sex or religion rather than personal merit.

So to say these geezers need to get retired just so you can move up the seniority food chain means you support discrimination, and are no better than those who have supported other types of discrimination in the past.

Those "geezers" benefited from Age 60 their whole careers and want it changed in the end to benefit themselves. It's called "having their cake and eating it too." I highly doubt most of them were crying "age discrimination" 10-20 years ago. I actually respect (but still disagree with) those who want the change and have supported it since a younger age or those who are young now and want a rule change. But, it's really the ones who are looking at dollar signs that are pushing hardest for this change.

 

[PCL_128]

If the age 60 rule did not exsist today, is there any way you could get it passed? Could you cite the "safety" basis by which this rule was enacted. FARs change all the time. Some make our careers easier, some don't.

Easy. From Reuters, just this week:

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Forgot where you put your keys? Or your car?

If you are over 60, it may just be a normal part of aging, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday in a study that suggests brain structures deteriorate with age in otherwise healthy people. The study, published in the journal Neuron, is part of an effort by researchers at Harvard University to understand the difference between normal, age-related declines and clinical impairment. "We're trying to understand the edge of that boundary between normal aging and Alzheimer's disease," said Randy Buckner, a Harvard professor and Howard Hughes Medical Institute researcher who worked on the study. Buckner and colleagues took brain scans of 55 adults ages 60 and over, and 38 younger adults ages 35 and younger. They used an imaging technique called PET to detect the presence of amyloid, a chemical typically associated with Alzheimer's disease, to rule out those whose memory declines were disease-related. What they found is that some brain systems become less coordinated with age. "It looks like it is an effect of normal aging independent of Alzheimer's disease," Buckner said in a telephone interview. They found brain structures called white matter tracks, which carry information between different regions of the brain, were deteriorating only in the older group. "In young adults, the front of the brain was pretty well in sync with the back of the brain," Jessica Andrews-Hanna, a graduate student in Buckner's lab, said in a statement. "In older adults this was not the case. The regions became out of sync and they were less correlated with each other." Buckner said the study suggests the cognitive decline in aging may be linked to communication problems between regions of the brain. "We are talking about an effect that is progressing in the late decades of our lives," he said. Not everyone was impaired to the same degree. This may help explain why some people who develop Alzheimer's disease succumb quickly and others decline more slowly. "Some brains may be better prepared for the assault of Alzheimer's disease," Buckner said, adding that changes related to normal aging are mild compared with those associated with the progressive, degenerative disease that robs people of memory, reasoning and the ability to communicate. "While it may mean our 80-year-old selves are not like when we were 20, it doesn't mean we are not doing extremely well compared to (the) disease," Buckner said.

 

[CA1900]

In the spirit of this discussion, I'm going to rent Logan's Run again tonight.

 

[XJTAv8r]

In 1860 the southern states essentially admitted that slavery was wrong but that the negative economic impact of abolition was a good enough reason to keep slavery on the books. No, slavery and the age 60 rule are not in the same ball park, but the principle for keeping or doing away with the rule is essentially the same.

If you saw my previous post, I actually respect (but still disagree with) those who are honestly pushing for the change based on principal and not their bank accounts. Realistically though, most are out for the cash grab.

If the age 60 rule did not exsist today, is there any way you could get it passed? Could you cite the "safety" basis by which this rule was enacted. FARs change all the time. Some make our careers easier, some don't.

If it didn't exist today, some sort of age threshold would be created (just like they're pushing for age 65 today). With today's medical standards and no limit, you'd have some of the same people flying as those who drive their cars into crowds when confusing the gas with the brakes, going unconscious, etc.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=5817350

 

[C-150ETOPS]

Nobody mentions the effects of fatigue on those 60 and older.

Any idiot can pass a sim check at 10 am, after a nice cup of coffee, and with your buddy running the sim.

I'd like a few studies of the "seasoned" pilots after a multi-leg, crap weather 13+ hour day.

I worked with two 60+ guys in bizjets. Both were great guys and experienced, skilled airman between the hours of 9 am and 3 pm. Outside of that, and on bad days, both sucked. The really bad part was that only one of the two actually realized it.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a B.S. "freedom" rally.

 

[Hypoxik]

Message Sent

 

[BigMeat]

Look at them all crowing and bitching when the guys before them retired with dignity and respect. You benefited from age 60 its our turn. Move over gramps you've been warming my seat for too long.

Dont forget it took us longer to get to the majors than you did. Oh yeah if really want to keep yourself busy Bingo is every Wednsday night make sure you get there early to get front row seats cause I know your eyesight is not exactly what it used to be.....

 

[CA1900]

Look at them all crowing and bitching when the guys before them retired with dignity and respect.

Exactly. They reaped the benefits by upgrading when they did, and now they want it on the other end?

That's BS.

As I've said before, there's only one fair way to do this if you're going to change or eliminate the mandatory retirement age: You retire based on the rule that was in place when you got your ATP.

Just as it's an unfair advantage for the 60+ guys to get 5 extra years of captain's pay, it's an unfair disadvantage for everybody stuck in the right seat for extra years, when they came into the game knowing the age 60 rules, just as the older guys did.

I'll settle for letting them warm the right seat for the remaining 5 years, at that payscale. You're welcome.

 

[Yuppyguppy]

Message sent to that chump

 

[Flopgut]

Moving this legislation promptly would save the jobs of our most seasoned commercial airline pilots at a time when a critical pilot shortage is approaching,” says Mica.

We are approaching an earnest "supply and demand" advantage for experienced pilots, and we're supposed to squander this for the needs of a minority number of pilots?

What's that say about these pilots?