Over AGE 60 PILOTS TO FLY IN UNITED STATES

[Big Beer Belly]

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!

Exactly my point! (minus all the colorful and helpful characterizations of "geezer and old fart"! )

A most excellent post overall Occam!

I just don't see it changing ... despite a few hunched-over, shuffling, oxygen-dependent, skin-peeling-off-everywhere, geriatric, geezers pounding their fist to the contrary!

BBB

 

[The Prussian]

Boy, Oh Boy!!!

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%)

Your statistics are killing me!!!:laugh: If mortality and loss of cognitive ability after age 60 are 100%...what are they after age 50....120%,...after age 40???....

Time to shut this business down before the word gets out!!!!

 

[Lear70]

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%)

That's the biggest bunch of bullsh*t percentages I've ever seen. Couched in pretty language, but lame nonetheless.

Of COURSE your cognitive ability is going to decline after 60. It may not happen until 70 or 80, but at some point yes, it will decline.

OF COURSE your going to die after you're 60 (assuming you reach 60 to begin with). We all die, that's the only certainty.

So basically, you tried to support an argument with the known facts that we all grow old, grow physically and mentally feeble, and die. Nice job. *snicker*

 

[3BCat]

Times, they are a-changin'

British Airways (BA) is raising the retirement age of its pilots and cabin crew and plans to make a payment of £500 million ($875 million) into its pension scheme in moves aimed at clearing a £1 billion pensions deficit.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/03/23/Navigation/189/205592/BA+to+raise+pilot+and+flight+attendant+retirement+ages.html

If only our domestic major airlines would follow suit and take responsibility for their pension obligations...we might find common ground on which to stand regarding the future retirement age of airline pilots.

 

[Hawker800]

Why do part 121 cargo pilots have to retire at age 60? How is this not safe if no passengers are on board? If a person can legally fly large corporate jets (BBJ's and the like) past age 60 under part 91, and is considered safe regardless of age, then it must be safe at all times. All should have to retire at age 60 if it is unsafe. Seems to make more sense! After all corporate and Fracs haul passengers. Hmm!!

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Lets Talk Money

IT IS A GREAT FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE TO BE ABLE TO FLY TO AGE 65 FOR TOTAL DOLLARS EARNED AND FOR RETIREMENT.

JUST LOOK AT THE NUMBERS:


Here is how much more a person would have by working to age-60 or by working 5 extra years to age-65.

Using an example of a 40-year old new hire F/O who earns 60K and will be a captain in 5 years. Captains earn 100K at this generic airline.

By retiring at age-60 that pilot will have a career earnings of $1,800,000.

If he puts 10% of what he earns in a 401k and gets a 10% return on investment at age-60 he will have $475,513. That is all he will have to last 20 years if he dies at 80. This is no where near enough money.



Using the same 40-year old but by delaying his promotion by 5 years if age-65 (wouldn'd really be 5 years because some pilots will still leave early) becomes law for pilots, that pilot would have a career earnings of $2,100,000

If he puts 10% of what he earns in a 401k and gets a 10% return on investment. At age-65 he will have $749,324 to last that 15 years. Better but still not good enough money.



Now if the pilot was 30-years old when he started then his career earning by retiring at age-60 would be $2,800,000 and his 401k would be $1,233,533. Better but still not good enough.

Now if that 30-year old worked until he was 65 his career earnings would be $3,100,000 and his 401k would be $1,943,725 to last just 15 years. This is enough to retire.



Do you want to retire poor or with enough money. Anyone can clearly see that age-65 and starting to put money away at age-30 is the answer.


Of course one divorce with children will put even the best case into poverty.

Also, this model assumes a 10% return on investment. That number may really be 5% or less which make it even more important to work to age-65.

Questions/comments…..

 

[Huck]

If

1. His medical makes it that long, and

2. His company makes it that long.

I still got a stack of United scantron forms at home. Things change in this business. I'll take a bird in the hand thank you.

 

[Jim Smyth]

The problem gets even more complicated ( at least for me) when you consider the ramifications of having something bad health wise happen after 60 since medicare doesnt kick in until 65. Health issues can litterally wipe you out finacially.

At Southwest we can turn in are sick bank for extened health coverage for ourselves and our wife. But if say you have some down time near the end of your career with broken bones, back/neck issues etc and have to use a huge bulk of your sick bank. They when you need it the most when you retire it wont be there. This may be a non issue for the military guys but it is an big issue for the civillian guys.

How do other airlines handle this problem? Do all the other airlines have extended medical benefits until you get to age 65?

 

[Occam's Razor]

Your statistics are killing me!!!:laugh: If mortality and loss of cognitive ability after age 60 are 100%...what are they after age 50....120%,...after age 40???....

Time to shut this business down before the word gets out!!!!

Ouch! I don't think you understand.

All of us (the "100%" figure) will experience some decrease in cogntive ability as we age past 60.

I didn't say a 100% loss of ability.

No Child Left Behind....too late for some?

 

[Occam's Razor]

That's the biggest bunch of bullsh*t percentages I've ever seen. Couched in pretty language, but lame nonetheless.

Of COURSE your cognitive ability is going to decline after 60. It may not happen until 70 or 80, but at some point yes, it will decline.

OF COURSE your going to die after you're 60 (assuming you reach 60 to begin with). We all die, that's the only certainty.

So basically, you tried to support an argument with the known facts that we all grow old, grow physically and mentally feeble, and die. Nice job. *snicker*

Thank you.

It would've made sense to you if you hadn't carved out the effects of aging from the issue of trying to establish a means to ensure that we can self-certify our cognitive ability.

You agree that we all (100%) lose mental skills as we age.

Good!

Now tell me the age that your cognitive ability and reflexes will fall below the level you think is the minimum for a safe operation. It will vary by individual, but you agree that it will happen...no exceptions.

Now suppose you were interested in aviation safety and concerned about the ability of pilots to self-certify their ability to fly. How do you prevent a pilot from flying after he/she reaches the point where they can't keep up?

You acknowledge it will happen at some age. ["Of COURSE your cognitive ability is going to decline after 60. It may not happen until 70 or 80, but at some point yes, it will decline."] So tell me:

1. What is the minimum ability we must have?
2. How do we test for it?
3. How do we self-certify it?

My argument is that you don't have an answer to any of those.

 

[Lear70]

Now tell me the age that your cognitive ability and reflexes will fall below the level you think is the minimum for a safe operation. It will vary by individual, but you agree that it will happen...no exceptions.

Like you just said, it varies by individual. My grandfather was razor-sharp until his 75th birthday, then slid downhill very quickly by developing Alzheimer's and died at 81. My grandmother on the other hand, started deteriorating at age 70, but held on much longer; she died last Tuesday, 1 week shy of her 85th birthday (tomorrow).

For most healthy Americans WHO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES, they will be fine into their early 70's in terms of cognitive ability. Physical capability is fine as well, as long as they exercise regularly. If not, they begin to deteriorate in their early 60's.

THIS IS WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO HAVE MORE STRINGENT MEDICAL STANDARDS. Everyone is different and keeps themselves in different standards of health.

Now suppose you were interested in aviation safety and concerned about the ability of pilots to self-certify their ability to fly. How do you prevent a pilot from flying after he/she reaches the point where they can't keep up?

The same way we do NOW. There are several 55+ age pilots who scare the ratsh*t out of me. They self-certify and the FAA signs off on them, then they have to take the recurrent PC's and PT's. If they can't pass, they can't pass.

You can't tell me that the CURRENT way we self-certify is fool-proof FOR AGING PILOTS IN THE COCKPIT NOW...? Why would 59 be any better or worse for self-certifying than 61? Do you have the medical research data to support those exact age differences? How about 63? 64? 65? 67?

You acknowledge it will happen at some age. ["Of COURSE your cognitive ability is going to decline after 60. It may not happen until 70 or 80, but at some point yes, it will decline."] So tell me:

1. What is the minimum ability we must have?
2. How do we test for it?
3. How do we self-certify it?

The same way we do now, only with more stringent physical standards and some of the mental cognitive tests that major airlines have had on and off for many years.

Aging pilots will have to practice 5 times as hard to keep up on these tests, but medical research HAS CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN that if the brain is constantly worked, it will not degrade, but will maintain its ability to work and, in some cases, even improve.

We ALL have the ability to grow our brain's ability to utilize brain cells, even at 40, 50, 60+ years old. Yes, I do have the medical research to back that; my entire family is in the medical profession; my dad and I are the only "black sheep" in aviation. We as a family went all through this over the last decade as my grandmother deteriorated.

My argument is that you don't have an answer to any of those.

Sure I do.

The FAA will have to get off their duff and create an all new testing standard for aging pilots. They won't like it, but too freakin' bad! That's their JOB!

It can be done, and it can be done safely, it's just going to take YEARS to work out the dynamics, and by the time we retire (30-something guys and gals), it'll be old-hat.

p.s. I think this is the best debate you and I have had, Occam. I love a good philosophical / cerebral debate, keep it coming!

 

[Bringupthebird]

I just don't see it changing ... despite a few hunched-over, shuffling, oxygen-dependent, skin-peeling-off-everywhere, geriatric, geezers pounding their fist to the contrary!

BBB

I think your vision is going to improve immensely in the next year or so.

I'm 41 and have supported a change to the rule since I was a 31 year old new-hire, and so have many of my contemporaries, especially the one's who can look beyond themselves.

See, you not as smart as your mom says you are.

 

[Clyde]

Why Do You All Want To Fly Past 60?

- Multiple alimony payments/child support
- No money saved for retirement
- $90,000 sports car financed on an interest-only loan
- Current wife number 4 just had a baby. (she is 40, he is 55)
- Current wife number 4 soon-to-be ex-wife number 4
- Rent expected to increase in coming years

 

[The Prussian]

Ouch! I don't think you understand.

Probably not the sharpest razor in the drawer,...but I get it.

 

[Occam's Razor]

For most healthy Americans WHO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES, they will be fine into their early 70's in terms of cognitive ability. Physical capability is fine as well, as long as they exercise regularly. If not, they begin to deteriorate in their early 60's.

There is a difference between physical health and mental ability. Since the FAA can't find a credible source to give them the exact minimum age when they should start worrying about the cognitive ability and reflexes of airline pilots, they think 60 is a safe, conservative age to use.

The data supports it. The absence of accidents attributable to cognitive lapses by Pt 121 pilots under the current rules (ie: no minimum standard set for cognitive ability, and no testing), tells them they are doing a good job. FAA witnesses have testified that there is no compelling reason to "test the envelope" to determine the exact one-size-fits-all age.

THIS IS WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO HAVE MORE STRINGENT MEDICAL STANDARDS. Everyone is different and keeps themselves in different standards of health.

Whoa! Do you really feel that way? You advocate more stringent medical standards?

Not me. I don't think we need astronaut physicals to fly airliners.

And that still doesn't resolve the issue of self-certification. Can a pilot self-certify their cognitive ability if it requires cognitive ability to do so? The standards can be very high, but if I can't tell that my cognitives are lapsing because...well...because my cognitives have lapsed...what good are those high standards?

There are several 55+ age pilots who scare the ratsh*t out of me. They self-certify and the FAA signs off on them, then they have to take the recurrent PC's and PT's. If they can't pass, they can't pass.

You make my point!

You're already seeing problems with pilots skirting the lower fringes of the envelope. How smart then is it to raise the age?

You can't tell me that the CURRENT way we self-certify is fool-proof FOR AGING PILOTS IN THE COCKPIT NOW...? Why would 59 be any better or worse for self-certifying than 61? Do you have the medical research data to support those exact age differences? How about 63? 64? 65? 67?

It's not better. It's reasonable. The FAA hasn't seen a lot of airliners plummeting to earth due to 59-year old pilots at the controls...and there is no minimum standard or testing for that standard. A factor that would prompt the FAA to reconsider Age 60 would be a shortage of pilots. Seen any of that?

The same way we do now, only with more stringent physical standards and some of the mental cognitive tests that major airlines have had on and off for many years.

Which airlines conduct recurrent cognitive testing? I'm not aware of any.

And exactly what is the minimum? Should it vary by aircraft type?

Aging pilots will have to practice 5 times as hard to keep up on these tests, but medical research HAS CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN that if the brain is constantly worked, it will not degrade, but will maintain its ability to work and, in some cases, even improve.

Huh?

I think the only conclusively proven fact is that we'll all go downhill at some point. Some sooner. Some later. Even you agree: "Of COURSE your cognitive ability is going to decline after 60. It may not happen until 70 or 80, but at some point yes, it will decline."

We ALL have the ability to grow our brain's ability to utilize brain cells, even at 40, 50, 60+ years old. Yes, I do have the medical research to back that; my entire family is in the medical profession; my dad and I are the only "black sheep" in aviation.

I'd be interested in seeing a link to the medical research you mention. It's ipse dixit without it.

My dad's a farmer. He can tell when a sweet potato is ripe based on the fuzziness of the leaf stem, but he's a crappy driver. His reflexes and judgement on-the-move aren't as sharp as they used to be. For that reason my mom won't let him fly anymore. He passed his 3rd Class medical, but my mom has the final say.

The FAA will have to get off their duff and create an all new testing standard for aging pilots.

Self-certifying congnitives and reflexes ain't the same as a broken leg or chest pains.

I think it would have an adverse impact on safety.

 

[Clyde]

IT IS A GREAT FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE TO BE ABLE TO FLY TO AGE 65 FOR TOTAL DOLLARS EARNED AND FOR RETIREMENT.

JUST LOOK AT THE NUMBERS:


Here is how much more a person would have by working to age-60 or by working 5 extra years to age-65.

Using an example of a 40-year old new hire F/O who earns 60K and will be a captain in 5 years. Captains earn 100K at this generic airline.

By retiring at age-60 that pilot will have a career earnings of $1,800,000.

If he puts 10% of what he earns in a 401k and gets a 10% return on investment at age-60 he will have $475,513. That is all he will have to last 20 years if he dies at 80. This is no where near enough money.



Using the same 40-year old but by delaying his promotion by 5 years if age-65 (wouldn'd really be 5 years because some pilots will still leave early) becomes law for pilots, that pilot would have a career earnings of $2,100,000

If he puts 10% of what he earns in a 401k and gets a 10% return on investment. At age-65 he will have $749,324 to last that 15 years. Better but still not good enough money.



Now if the pilot was 30-years old when he started then his career earning by retiring at age-60 would be $2,800,000 and his 401k would be $1,233,533. Better but still not good enough.

Now if that 30-year old worked until he was 65 his career earnings would be $3,100,000 and his 401k would be $1,943,725 to last just 15 years. This is enough to retire.



Do you want to retire poor or with enough money. Anyone can clearly see that age-65 and starting to put money away at age-30 is the answer.


Of course one divorce with children will put even the best case into poverty.

Also, this model assumes a 10% return on investment. That number may really be 5% or less which make it even more important to work to age-65.

Questions/comments…..

One comment: live below your means. Something that this hypothetical situation does not address is whether this person retires broke or not. I am a firm believer in eliminating debt as early in your career as you can, and a very firm believer in retiring completely debt free.

If I decide to work past 60, it is 100% by choice. I make 3 times the average U.S. income, and have 25+ years left in this industry. There is no reason why I should have to work past 60, or even 55 for that matter. The only logical reason is if I take a penalty for retiring early.

It's not about how much one makes in their career, it's all about how one MANAGES their personal finances throughout their career.

 

[CaptainMark]

- Multiple alimony payments/child support
- No money saved for retirement
- $90,000 sports car financed on an interest-only loan
- Current wife number 4 just had a baby. (she is 40, he is 55)
- Current wife number 4 soon-to-be ex-wife number 4
- Rent expected to increase in coming years

i agree...except for legacy guys getting screwed out of the pensions..these are the majority of the reasons...sad but true

 

[Lear70]

There is a difference between physical health and mental ability.

I already said that.

Since the FAA can't find a credible source to give them the exact minimum age when they should start worrying about the cognitive ability and reflexes of airline pilots, they think 60 is a safe, conservative age to use.

So you say the FAA is guessing. I'd agree with that. I think their guess is wrong.

The data supports it. The absence of accidents attributable to cognitive lapses by Pt 121 pilots under the current rules (ie: no minimum standard set for cognitive ability, and no testing), tells them they are doing a good job.

And on the other side of that we have THOUSANDS of fractional pilots flying for NetJets, Citation Shares, Flight Options, Flexjet, and a bunch of other mom and pop fractionals that have many pilots over 60. Haven't heard any accidents attributable to cognitive lapses from them yet either, have you?

That's what I thought.

FAA witnesses have testified that there is no compelling reason to "test the envelope" to determine the exact one-size-fits-all age.

Just as non-FAA witnesses, medical professionals in fact, have testified that there is no compelling reason NOT to allow pilots fly up to age 65. Since the FAA Aeromedical personnel are just as qualified as the medical personnel testifying against them and vice-versa, I'd say there's no compelling evidence that the FAA doctor's testimony is any more "sound" or "admissable" than the doctors advocating an increase in the age limit. It's a wash, which is why the FAA is going to lose this one.

Whoa! Do you really feel that way? You advocate more stringent medical standards?

For over age 60 applicants, you betcha. I'd like to see the standards increase after 50.

Not me. I don't think we need astronaut physicals to fly airliners.

Didn't say that, just said I believed they should be progressively harder as we age.

And that still doesn't resolve the issue of self-certification. Can a pilot self-certify their cognitive ability if it requires cognitive ability to do so?

Just as much at age 40 as at age 50, 60, and 65. Your using circular logic, you can't argue cognitive self-certification problems for a 60 year old are inadequate and still try to say they're adequate for a 40 year old. If they're good for one age group, they're good for all because you have NO WAY OF KNOWING where an individual's ability to recognize their own degradation of cognitive skills begins. Since we have no way to determine that, the test is either valid for EVERYONE or INVALID FOR EVERYONE.

Pick one.

You're already seeing problems with pilots skirting the lower fringes of the envelope. How smart then is it to raise the age?

Extremely smart, as long as the testing keeps up with the aging process. If they can pass the test, they'll be the most experienced and able pilots in the air. Period.

It's not better. It's reasonable. The FAA hasn't seen a lot of airliners plummeting to earth due to 59-year old pilots at the controls...and there is no minimum standard or testing for that standard.

Nor have they seen a lot of Boeing Business Jets at Netjets (or any other jet in their fleet or any fractional fleet for that matter) plummeting to the earth due to 64 year-old pilots at the controls. Minimum standard or testing for those guys either now? Nope.

A factor that would prompt the FAA to reconsider Age 60 would be a shortage of pilots. Seen any of that?

Again, you're missing the point. THE FAA DOESN'T HAVE ANY FREAKING CHOICE IN THE MATTER NOW. It's up to Congress, the Senate, and the President to sign it. Once that's done, the FAA will have to come up with a way to implement it. Period. Unless you have a way for the FAA to tell the President to go pound sand. If I remember correctly, the head of the FAA is an appointed position.

Which airlines conduct recurrent cognitive testing? I'm not aware of any.

FedEx still does during their initial interview.

Like I said before, use cognitive testing that a number of airlines USED to use. United and Delta are a few that used to have the 3-day testing if I remember correctly back in the 80's. Time to resurrect some of that for the age 50+ group.

Huh?

Read it again. Slowly.

The more you exercise your brain, the better it gets, similar to a muscle, only you're teaching your mind how to use the synapses to store and retrieve more data. Research has shown the mind can be kept sharp almost indefinitely until some OTHER part of the body gives out with regular and constant exercise unless you develop a disease similar to Parkinson's or Alzheimer's.

I'd be interested in seeing a link to the medical research you mention. It's ipse dixit without it.

I'll see what I can dig up from my family, I'm sure they have some links to some useful medical journals somewhere...

For that reason my mom won't let him fly anymore. He passed his 3rd Class medical, but my mom has the final say.

Sounds like someone needs to grow a pair. No WAY I'd let my wife decide that for me. "It's my house, Eddie."

Self-certifying congnitives and reflexes ain't the same as a broken leg or chest pains.

I think it would have an adverse impact on safety.

You're entitled to your opinion.

I'm entitled to mine.

That's the beauty of America!

 

[CaptainMark]

ive seen a lot of good discussion on this issue and it seems to come down to one thing...personal choice...if the rule change benefits you then u are for it...if it does not benefit you (delay of upgrade) then u are against it....we can talk all we want but it is personal choice...for me it doesn't matter as of yet...already being a widebody captain..retirement in place...24 yrs to go...hoping all goes well for fdx and my health i hope to retire early...but everyone is different with different circumstances...but i do figure that when i retire someone will get to upgrade...who knows...

 

[YourPilotFriend]

The air industry all over the world is booming and here in the US it is dismal. We can change the age rule, but not until after this industry stabilizes a little bit.