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.

 

[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.