Over AGE 60 PILOTS TO FLY IN UNITED STATES

[CaptainMark]

if we let guys hit 60 and then fly FO or RFO instead of captain what would the reaction be from 60+ crowd? curious?

 

[Flopgut]

if we let guys hit 60 and then fly FO or RFO instead of captain what would the reaction be from 60+ crowd? curious?

Perfect. Keeps things moving and the guys who need a job have a job.

 

[vetrider]

if we let guys hit 60 and then fly FO or RFO instead of captain what would the reaction be from 60+ crowd? curious?

Then watch the excuse and bs meter get pegged. One guy at my airline even said "there WILL be crm issues......"

I think it was obvious the only crm issue was his own ego.

 

[Lear70]

if we let guys hit 60 and then fly FO or RFO instead of captain what would the reaction be from 60+ crowd? curious?

I thought about that, too.

The question is, at somewhere like FedEx, what's the difference between Max Heavy CA pay, retirement pay based on the best 3 of the last 5 (I "think" that's the formula), or Max Heavy FO pay? What's the difference at CAL?

It might be less money as an F/O than just to retire and, worst-case scenario, based on the few A-funds left, it would ruin their retirement.

I see it as a way to keep doing something I love to do, and make a few more bones in the process, but I know the big push on the Hill is to allow pilots to work right up to the age they can draw Social Security for financial reasons alone.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Occam

Proof positive that dull razors do more harm than good.

Superb intellectual response! Let's measure weanies next!

What makes the current level of air safety sufficient? Could you explain that to the families of air crash victims?

It's never sufficient. I never said it was. What I said is that it is the safest form of transportation on the planet. Do you dispute that?

Should we dismantle the NTSB as their work here is clearly done? I'll let you mull that over.

Huh? The issue is whether changing the mandatory retirement age of Pt 121 pilots would further enhance safety. I say it won't. The FAA says it won't. You think it will. Who said anything about dismantling the NTSB, or the continuing efforts to make the skies safer?

Meanwhile, why do you suppose we enjoy this level of safety? I'll explain. It's because the FAA has adopted many recommendations from the NTSB culled from many accident investigations, none of which have been related directly or indirectly to the age of the pilot. Advances such as ILS, jet engines, GPWS, TCAS have done far more to boost the safety record than keeping qualified pilots from continuing to fly. The age 60 rule was not borne from any accident, it was and is purely political.

And I contend it doesn't matter HOW it came to be...as long as it is working. Since cognitive lapses aren't being cited as the cause of mishaps with the rule in place, it appears the rule is working. Prove to me that changing it will enhance safety.

 

[TAZ MAN]

Prove to me that changing it will enhance safety.

Prove to me it won't is a better question.

 

[dsee8driver]

So, let's say the law is changed to allow pilots to fly to 65 but one must be below the age of 60. The aviation industry is all based on seniority. This senior crewmember can hold the most lucrative, international lines. What kind of chaos will it create when one of the crewmembers will not be awarded a line choice because of his/her age. Can anyone see the can of worms being openned up here. I think it would bring grievances and possible lawsuits.
I can also see the feds getting involved on 3 man cockpits with this ruling. FE's are already allowed to fly until they die. What's going to happen when you get a 70+ FE (and we have them) and a pilot over 60 in the cockpit. I can see the feds are going to mull over details that we may not want. Personally and for selfish reasons I would want to see it increased. (I'm 35)
Any thoughts on that?

 

[Occam's Razor]

Prove to me it won't is a better question.

Ha ha. Good one!

Here's the way it works: The status quo is the way it is. Assuming we don't change rules based on the alignment of the planets, the break-up of Nick and Jessica, or because it's now the Year of the Dragon in China, there must be a reason to change.

Given:

1. The current system has not demonstrated a need for change in the Age 60 rule based on accident data, and the current system is the safest mode of transportation there is.
2. It is an indisputable fact that our cognitive abilities and reflexes do not improve as we age past age 60. In fact, each of us will experience an inexorable degradation of both.

The burden of proof rests with those who seek to change a rule that's working.

If you seek change because of $$, fine. But don't trot out "it'll enhance safety" without being prepared to prove it.

 

[Bringupthebird]

You change the law because it's patently unfair and discriminates against fully qualified individuals. It will neither increase nor decrease the staus quo of safety because people do not become an unacceptable risk because they turn 1 day older. In fact it is incumbent on the FAA to create a set of standards and testing that will apply to all pilots, in lieu of a retirement age, if they are to carry out the safety mandate with which they are charged. This standard will weed out pilots of all ages who are physically or psychologically unfit to be in the cockpit.

Change will come regardless of polling data or hew and cry from pilots looking for the government to prop up one of their last remaining "perks" from the old days. It will change because it's the right thing to do.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Here it is.

Air Carrier Incident Rates (per 1000 pilots)
Involving Air Carrier Pilots: 1990-1999


http://age60rule.com/samschart.gif
FAA statistics show that air carrier pilots aged 60 and over have a superior safety record as compared to other pilot age groups within either Part 121 or Part 135.

 

[vetrider]

Air Carrier Incident Rates (per 1000 pilots)
Involving Air Carrier Pilots: 1990-1999


http://age60rule.com/samschart.gif
FAA statistics show that air carrier pilots aged 60 and over have a superior safety record as compared to other pilot age groups within either Part 121 or Part 135.

Looks like the socalled and much maligned Gen X actually fares the best, whod a thunk it.

 

[Phaedrus]

Occam, dammit you beat me to it. The very basics of logical reasoning are lost on most.

Prove to me it won't is a better question.

 

[TAZ MAN]

Ha ha. Good one!

If you seek change because of $$, fine. But don't trot out "it'll enhance safety" without being prepared to prove it.

My point is prove that it will affect safety.

I'm not "trotting out" anything. We all know that this issue is about greed not safety. But the ones who bring up the "safety issue" are fooling themselves.

I just don't see where there is any proof on either side of the issue.

And I personally think the burden of proof is on those to prove it won't.

Everyone can argue all day about this issue. But when it comes down to it, the ones who don't want the rule change are FO's and young Captains. The irony is that they will change their mind when they are not one of those.

 

[Occam's Razor]

My point is prove that it will affect safety.

That's what YOU must prove.

I don't have to....I like the rule!

My point is prove that it will affect safety.

 

[Phaedrus]

Good luck explaining why the onus is on him.

 

[TAZ MAN]

Good luck explaining why the onus is on him.

Give a whirl. I'm open minded.

 

[TAZ MAN]

That's what YOU must prove.

I don't have to....I like the rule!

My point is prove that it will affect safety.

After reviewing the thread with your posts, which wasn't easy, I see your point which is unique. You have said if it ain't broke don't fix it. There lies the fault in your premise. Your implying that flying past 60 may break an already safe system. There is no reliable quantifying data to say one way or the other. As well as there is no data for ages 55-60 or 20-25 or 40-45.

So therefore, why can you say with an ounce of certainity that this rule change could affect safety. How many pilots have retired at you company and you said to yourself that there is no way this age rule applied to them. To me...most. There are some that I believe should retire at 60. but I certainly felt that way when they were 55. Some there is not too early.

Even mentioning the word safety in this debate is worthless. If we are honest with ourselves we will use the word greed. Because thats whats its all about. Anyone thinking otherwise is fooling themselves.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Why do I need to prove the rule? It was a political move in the late fifties. Totally not related to safety.

I don't like or dislike the rule. At this point it makes no difference to me.

You like the rule because it benefits you.

And thats OK. You just keep trying to justify that the question of safety may be the only way to keep from changing the rule to benefit you.

(sigh)

For a while there I thought you understood.

My bad.

 

[TAZ MAN]

(sigh)

For a while there I thought you understood.

My bad.

Changed my post while you wrote this...sorry.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Whole Can Of Scheduling Worms Being Opened UP!

ICAO is going to 65 for the captain with an under 60 FO. IF (and that's a huge IF!) that happens in the US then my question is what happens when the 61-64 yr old FO holds (by seniority) a line that a 64 yr old captain is awarded? Does the captain's seniority "push" (i.e., outweigh, is superior to?) the FO's? What if the younger FO is senior to the older Captain? This happens at my airline with surprising frequency. We have no mandatory upgrade requirement and a significant number bypass upgrade for many years due to quality of life/bidding considerations. I'm sure the old geezers have thought about all these scenarios and have ready answers. I can't imagine anyone proposing a change to a nearly 50-yr old regulation without having thought through the many challenges that are sure to be illuminated.

BBB