Over AGE 60 PILOTS TO FLY IN UNITED STATES

[crosscut]

Well since current Professional Airline Pilots cant fly past 60 they wouldnt be included in that report now would they? General aviation has always been and will always be way more dangerous than Airline flying with its many layers of protection. The maintenance isnt there plus the skill level isnt there with usually a single Pilot operation. Besides, we have super Co-Pilots like Triple "BBB" to keep us out of trouble.

No, they wouldn't be included but there was a highly skilled 59-year old who recently (as the pilot-flying) went off the end of the runway in Midway & had to have his "jet jock f/o" deploy his TR's for him (as per their story).

On another note, the Undaunted Flyer wants to compare the risks of flying past 60 to India but why stop there (when using India for contrast) & not include their human right violations, executions, & torture? Just because it's OK to rape a detained women in India, it is not & will not be so in the ole U.S. of A. Likewise, comparing the fragment of the infrastructure of Mexico without regard for the rest of their culture would not be equitable. There might be much more interconnected to this change in the U.S. than elsewhere (such as the retirement funds, as has already been beaten to death in this thread alone). Rhetoric is still a good bludgeon to continue to silence the criticism.

 

[Flopgut]

I'm in the same boat as you are, my friend. I'm 35, have a wife and two kids (3 probably by next year) and, when this law goes into effect, it will probably delay my upgrade.

That's a small price to pay to right a long-standing age disrimination practice.

You see, I get to see things from both sides. I will realize lost income because of this, but my father retired USAirways and is bored to tears, doesn't like the charter / corporate game, and wants to get back into the small 121 Supplemental operators out there flying cargo or some other type of Boeing position, but can't because he turns 60 in a couple months.

If he was still at USAirways I don't think I'd be telling him, "Sorry Dad, but I want my upgrade sooner." Especially with his pension shot to hell and back. It's personal on both sides for me, and I have my entire life to make back up for a delay in upgrade money; he doesn't. For me it's that simple.


It should.


They SHOULD be worried about their A fund, unless they've already stashed away between $1.5 and $2.0 Million for retirement (very rare).


Be careful, lest the sins of your youth come back to haunt you (loosely paraphrased). In other words, don't scream to other people when you get screwed in your last flying years by the young "cutting you loose" and changing legislation or contract terms that screw YOU.

Payback's a b*tch. Easier to magnanimously say, "I hope you enjoy your last years of flying," go home, enjoy your family, and find other ways to make up for the shortfall of cash. At least you can pay your bills... Life's just too short to stay hung up on it.

OK. Not a bad post, we have a lot in common. My father is 67 and lost his airline job at 53. Deispite how tough the business was on us, he believes it is a bad idea to change the age. He flies a King Air and enjoys it, he would like to fly a Boeing, but his position is that it is someone elses turn. Furthermore, the concern he has shared with me is that if we change it once, they will probably change it again. Not necessarily increase it again, but perhaps even lower it or restore it to 60. This has not been completely thought out. It is bad policy run amok. We don't know what the medical standards are going to be, we don't know what the effect will be on each airline or pilot group. All we know is it is immediate satisfaction for a small group of pilots who could punch out at anytime. For the rest of us it is just the start of a series of problems.

My father left the airline business and became a director at a publicly traded company and flew part time. He rebuilt his wealth after the airline took everything. At one point we celebrated Christmas without exchanging gifts and had no insurance. Now, for the most part, he does not worry about money. Would he like to go fly a Boeing for 150K/yr? Sort of, that would be the easiest thing to do. But to do that, someone else will have to do with less than was afforded him.

At some point, you and I and our peers cannot continue to be enablers for these pilots. Example: The recent UAL stock debacle. 80% of UAL pilots could not figure out they were supposed to sell their stock. 20% new enough about money to go ahead and take a profit. The 80% now want to file suit, there has been a conspiracy, they were mislead, this is unfair, blah, blah ,blah. Isn't that a bunch of airline pilots for you? Can't get the dollars right, or just can't get enough so they need to beg some relief. That is just about the same thing as this age 60 deal. If CAL comes back for more cuts from the pilots, it will include ending 100% lump sum payouts to retirees. They will want to give them an annuity that they will eventually want to dump on the PBGC. But not before they use the A plan as a rock to smash everything else in our contract against. I don't want to have to continue to do with less in my career to enable these bad decisions.

No disrespect to your father. I know he's lost a lot of money, I know what that is like. What would he tell these CAL pilots to do?

 

[Lear70]

OK. Not a bad post, we have a lot in common. My father is 67 and lost his airline job at 53. Deispite how tough the business was on us, he believes it is a bad idea to change the age. He flies a King Air and enjoys it, he would like to fly a Boeing, but his position is that it is someone elses turn.

That's certainly one opinion; a minority opinion in his age group I believe, but he's unaffected by the currently-proposed change so it's easy for him to be magnanimous about it.

This has not been completely thought out. It is bad policy run amok. We don't know what the medical standards are going to be, we don't know what the effect will be on each airline or pilot group. All we know is it is immediate satisfaction for a small group of pilots who could punch out at anytime. For the rest of us it is just the start of a series of problems.

Agreed, I'm certain it will be a house full of one-legged crickets in a pickle seed kicking contest. The dust won't settle for years, but I'm ALL FOR making the medical requirements more stringent with age and letting those who can pass the medical keep flying. This is the ONLY FAIR and EQUITABLE way to do things, something about our way of life in this country, freedom to do what you want (and are able) to do, so on and so forth...?

Would he like to go fly a Boeing for 150K/yr? Sort of, that would be the easiest thing to do. But to do that, someone else will have to do with less than was afforded him.

I disagree with this idea, the number of pilots who would be adversely affected is minimal, at best. A surprisingly large number of pilots would STILL choose to retire at 60 if they could, some do it at 58, 57, even 55. The number of people "having to do with less" is probably fewer than you think, and those people will be able to work longer as well, if they so choose.

At some point, you and I and our peers cannot continue to be enablers for these pilots.

I'm not trying to be an "enabler", I'm simply trying to do the right thing, let these guys have a CHOICE they should have BY LAW ALREADY.

They will want to give them an annuity that they will eventually want to dump on the PBGC. But not before they use the A plan as a rock to smash everything else in our contract against. I don't want to have to continue to do with less in my career to enable these bad decisions.

I totally agree with you on this, I can't STAND the senior pilots selling the juniors down the tube for a pipe dream. YOUR A FUND IS GONE. I made a bumper sticker for my kit bag to walk through the Northwest terminal... They still don't get it.

No disrespect to your father. I know he's lost a lot of money, I know what that is like. What would he tell these CAL pilots to do?

He'd tell ALL the pilots to suck it up, change is coming, and it WILL benefit them at the end of their careers as well, should they choose to take advantage of it.

Can't fight the system, just have to figure out how best to work with what's coming and still enjoy life.

 

[dsee8driver]

Interesting reading....

http://www.icao.int/ICDB/HTML/English/Representative%20Bodies/Air%20Navigation%20Commission/Working%20Papers%20by%20Year/2004/AN.2004.WP.7982.EN/AN.2004.WP.7982.APPC.EN.HTM

This article has some interesting reading.....

Look at the part of medical tests Argentina proposes...it will be absurd!

STATES AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS​

Argentina
.— See appropriate partial language version of this AN-WP for original text
1. It is our opinion that psycho-physiological capacitation can eventually be granted to pilots up to the age of 63, provided that the following conditions are met:

a) No medical history of chronic, metabolic, cardiovascular and/or neuropsychotic illnesses;

b) No aviation accidents and/or incidents involving a pilot's human factors in the last five years.[/font]

2. As such, pilots must undergo a bi-annual medical examination that should consist of the following components:[/font]

Complete neuropsychiatric examination, including an electroencephalogram; echo-doppler of the neck vessels; Rey Complex Figure Test; MSG Test; Weschler Test;[/font]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]∙ Clinical examination of the heart, including a graded ergometric test; an echocardiogram; and a rectal exam;[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]∙ Laboratory: Complete routine analyses including a creatinine test; serum lipid profiling; liver function test; PSA; fecal occult blood test (FOBT); and complete urinalysis;[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]∙ Ophthalmological examination, including fundoscopy;[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]∙ Audiometric test [the result of which should be] within normal limits.[/FONT]

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Bottom line: regardless of what ICAO does, the FAA will not relax the age 60 rule. There is no compelling evidence for its overturn other than generalizations about age discrimination. The same folks are working hard to overturn mandatory age limits for air traffic controllers, reduce the age requirement for a driver license, reduce the age for full-time employment, lower the legal drinking age, lower the age of consent, lower the voting age, reduce the age for presidential eligibility, increase the age for USAF pilot candidates, etc... after all, those are all examples of un-american, egregious age discrimination. What? You old geezers aren't trying to lower the drinking age? Why not? It's age discrimination, pure and simple!

Age 60, despite all the rhetoric and jaw-flapping, ain't going nowhere! The FAA is firmly on record as being opposed and the political danger of reducing a safety factor makes it un-palatable in Washington. The old farts can dream all they want ... fact is this rule will stay. Can you old dudes say, "Welcome to Wal-Mart."

BBB

 

[Lear70]

OK, I was withholding judgment, but... you're officially a tool.

Bottom line: regardless of what ICAO does, the FAA will not relax the age 60 rule.

About a year from now remember you said that.

Hint: the FAA doesn't have a choice in this matter if it's mandated by Congress, the Senate, and the White House as a matter of federal law. The FAA isn't some super-powerful organization above the mandate of an executive order.

The same folks are working hard to overturn mandatory age limits for air traffic controllers, reduce the age requirement for a driver license, reduce the age for full-time employment, lower the legal drinking age, lower the age of consent, lower the voting age, reduce the age for presidential eligibility, increase the age for USAF pilot candidates, etc...

Who would those folks be? What political group is working on ALL those things. Where have they even been brought up by the same people?

Oh I forgot, you're pulling this out of your a*s. I gotcha...

p.s. The age of consent is already 16 in 1/3 of the states in the union. The legal drinking age is 18 in a couple states anyway. And oh, by the way, there's no need to increase the USAF (or any other branch) pilot candidacy age because THEY HAVE TO PASS THE FU*KING TEST, FIRST!

after all, those are all examples of un-american, egregious age discrimination. What? You old geezers aren't trying to lower the drinking age? Why not? It's age discrimination, pure and simple!

I'm 35 and have already written and called my congressmen and senator urging a change in this rule. Does that make me an "old geezer"? Can't wait until you're 58 and you get offended when someone calls you a geezer. *snicker* Remember all of this when that happens.

Age 60, despite all the rhetoric and jaw-flapping, ain't going nowhere! The FAA is firmly on record as being opposed and the political danger of reducing a safety factor makes it un-palatable in Washington. The old farts can dream all they want ... fact is this rule will stay. Can you old dudes say, "Welcome to Wal-Mart."

Again, remember you said this. All of YOUR rhetoric and jaw-flapping amounts to jack crap at the end of the day. Remember, the last time this failed to pass it did so by only a handful of votes and mainly because there was a rider bill on it that nobody wanted. The next time that probably won't happen...

"Washington", as you so loosely call them, is primarily made up of "old geezers" who don't think they're ready for the old folk's home just yet either. You got a rude awakening coming to you, boy.

 

[Lear70]

http://www.icao.int/ICDB/HTML/English/Representative%20Bodies/Air%20Navigation%20Commission/Working%20Papers%20by%20Year/2004/AN.2004.WP.7982.EN/AN.2004.WP.7982.APPC.EN.HTM

This article has some interesting reading.....

Look at the part of medical tests Argentina proposes...it will be absurd!

STATES AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS​

Argentina
.— See appropriate partial language version of this AN-WP for original text
1. It is our opinion that psycho-physiological capacitation can eventually be granted to pilots up to the age of 63, provided that the following conditions are met:

a) No medical history of chronic, metabolic, cardiovascular and/or neuropsychotic illnesses;

b) No aviation accidents and/or incidents involving a pilot's human factors in the last five years.[/font]

2. As such, pilots must undergo a bi-annual medical examination that should consist of the following components:[/font]

Complete neuropsychiatric examination, including an electroencephalogram; echo-doppler of the neck vessels; Rey Complex Figure Test; MSG Test; Weschler Test;[/font]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]∙ Clinical examination of the heart, including a graded ergometric test; an echocardiogram; and a rectal exam;[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]∙ Laboratory: Complete routine analyses including a creatinine test; serum lipid profiling; liver function test; PSA; fecal occult blood test (FOBT); and complete urinalysis;[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]∙ Ophthalmological examination, including fundoscopy;[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]∙ Audiometric test [the result of which should be] within normal limits.[/FONT]

That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

I'm ALL FOR a change in the age limit, as long as people are physically capable of doing the job and not a health factor's risk.

My dad is 59 (60 in October), is 5' 10", weighs 150 pounds, and is in decent shape although he doesn't exercise like he should.

He took almost an identical test in order to get life insurance. His initial serum lipid profile was off a bit because he doesn't eat healthily and drinks an absurd amount of coffee and likes a LOT of salt and he failed that portion. He had to modify his diet for about a week then retake the test.

He passed it all, but my best friend's dad who is a bit overweight couldn't get the same insurance - couldn't pass some of the heart tests. It's stringent, but that's what's fair. I wouldn't want someone keeling over on me with a heart attack or stroke, so if they're not at risk, they can pass the physicals and 6-month rides, bring 'em on!

 

[Flopgut]

That's certainly one opinion; a minority opinion in his age group I believe, but he's unaffected by the currently-proposed change so it's easy for him to be magnanimous about it.


Agreed, I'm certain it will be a house full of one-legged crickets in a pickle seed kicking contest. The dust won't settle for years, but I'm ALL FOR making the medical requirements more stringent with age and letting those who can pass the medical keep flying. This is the ONLY FAIR and EQUITABLE way to do things, something about our way of life in this country, freedom to do what you want (and are able) to do, so on and so forth...?


I disagree with this idea, the number of pilots who would be adversely affected is minimal, at best. A surprisingly large number of pilots would STILL choose to retire at 60 if they could, some do it at 58, 57, even 55. The number of people "having to do with less" is probably fewer than you think, and those people will be able to work longer as well, if they so choose.


I'm not trying to be an "enabler", I'm simply trying to do the right thing, let these guys have a CHOICE they should have BY LAW ALREADY.


I totally agree with you on this, I can't STAND the senior pilots selling the juniors down the tube for a pipe dream. YOUR A FUND IS GONE. I made a bumper sticker for my kit bag to walk through the Northwest terminal... They still don't get it.


He'd tell ALL the pilots to suck it up, change is coming, and it WILL benefit them at the end of their careers as well, should they choose to take advantage of it.

Can't fight the system, just have to figure out how best to work with what's coming and still enjoy life.

You have a reasoned and sensible outlook. Good for you.

The point I'm trying to make about my father is this: One might not agree with his position on an issue, but if you wanted a money tip he is the one you would listen to. (easily top 1% for financial accuity among pilots) Remind yourself this is a business. What he is saying: we can't continue to tolerate stupid behavior from anyone and that includes our most senior pilots. If CAL pilots risk their lump sum, if UAL pilots can't figure out to sell (or live with not selling), if retirement age policy gets messy, whatever the issue the foolishness has to end. The mistakes will just end up costing you and I money. This is business, you can try to adapt all you want but it needs to be fixed.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Lear ... you ok? You nearly blew a gasket with your little typing tantrum.

You think age 60 will change and I don't ... pretty simple difference of opinion so far. The FAA is on record as strongly opposing any change. Congress will obviously listen to both sides, but in the end the political liability to go against the FAA (THE agency charged with aviation SAFETY in the US) will be too great.

Next, we also disagree that there is even a need to change the age 60 rule. In the interest of SAFETY, I believe the old geezers should be put out to pasture before they hurt anyone, including your old-timer dad. Though that may not have been the original motivation for the rule, it has clearly proven (in my mind, and those of many others) that 60 is an appropriate age to retire from airline flying.

Now go tell your old man to hang up his airline hat, break out the dominoes, play with his grandkids, and let the furloughed come back. He had his time; let the young guys have theirs.

PS It won't be but a few years and you'll be helping him shop for nursing homes anyway. If the rule changes we'll be wheeling these old farts out of the cockpit and directly to an assisted living facility! Fly till you die!!

BBB

 

[Occam's Razor]

BBB - I think you've rendered the issue down to it's ideologic core: The need for a change. Some of us think there is a need. Some of us don't think there is a need. (A few of us don't think...period)

Left alone, the FAA will make decisions that keep them off the skyline. According to John Kern, former top regulatory wonk at the FAA (Later our VP-Flt Ops. Now back working with the FAA), they oppose changing the rule due to the Catch-22 of self-certification.

All pilots self-certify. No AME in the land is going to proclaim you "fit to fly". They merely determine, in large part based on your self-disclosure of recent history, that you are free of impairments that the FAA has set restrictions for, wants them to check.

Every time we fly, we're certifying that we don't have any known impairments or symptoms of possible impairments. Having chest pains? Dizzy spells? Untreated alcoholism? Only WE can determine those...and each can be disqualifying for operation of an aircraft.

So here's the catch: Degradation of cognitive skills can prevent a person from being able to determine that his/her cognitive skills are degraded! Since each of us will, if we live long enough, experience degradation of our cognitive skills and reflexes, the issue of self-certification becomes problematic. The FAA doesn't mind testing us for cognitive ability, but they are very concerned about the self-certification aspect of our medical certificates.

Before someone jumps in here to remind me that we undergo check rides and physical exams to ensure that we're "sharp"...that ain't the issue.

None of us feels or flies exactly the way we did on the day we took the check ride. If we were rested, well-fed, and happy (ie: at the top of our game) on that day, we might have been "satisfactory". A few months later, flying with our FNG F/O when we're hungry, tired, and pi$$ed, our borderline cognitive impairment may make us "unsatisfactory".

The other tricky element of this problem is the difficulty in setting the "minimum" cognitive ability that we need to fly passengers in all conditions. The age that each of us will experience a significant loss of ability varies. Good physical health doesn't mean your brain is working properly.

The FAA considers 60 to be a "safe enough" age. The number of pilots under 60 that have lost their mental edge enough to cause safety concerns is statistically insignificant. The number of pilots who will experience a significant loss of cognitive ability after 60 is 100%, assuming some other part of their body doesn't give out first. (The percentage of pilots over 60 who will die at some point is also 100%)

The FAR's are "one size fits all", even when we all know each of us is different. Some people are ready for a Private ticket at 30-hours...and some aren't ready at 100. Having a total cholesterol level of 120 doesn't mean you aren't going to experience arrythmia.

If you're calling for change based on purely financial circumstances, have the integrity to admit it. But please don't dismiss either the safety aspect, or the regulatory Catch-22, of the issue.