Over AGE 60 PILOTS TO FLY IN UNITED STATES

[Occam's Razor]

Says who?

The FAA, in their testimony in court, and in their presentations to the A.T.A.

 

[Boeingman]

The FAA, in their testimony in court, and in their presentations to the A.T.A.

I was speaking more from a position that nothing has been decided on how they will proceed.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Any safety issue regarding age must be viewed as a health issue. If these Age 60 proponents champion the cause of safety (actually, " the world would be safer if I was captain") then they must also advocate stricter medical standards for all pilots.

Ok...you don't understand the argument. That's cool.

Here's the part you're missing: The current system is working. It is not broken. Need proof? - The safest form of transportation on the planet is provided by US airlines operating under Pt. 121 .

One of the rules that ensures this ne plus ultra safety record is Age 60...even without specific standards for cognitive ability and reflexes, and without testing for same.

Before you start cutting-and-pasting a reply, please be sure you include admission that the current system is producing the safety record desired...the best. Also, please include empirical evidence that safety would be enhanced by changing the rule.

As simplistic as it may seem, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is tough nut for you to crack. If you can't provide a compelling argument for change that includes benefits for the system (ie: enhanced safety), then it's simply a "What's best for ME!" issue.

Why stop with just kicking out the old guys? Why not fat guys with high cholesterol? Why not disallow all special issuance medicals and waivers? Why not bring back 20/20 vision?

There are rules for cholesterol and vision. There is a rule for Age 60. Together, the result has been the safest model for transportation in the world.

When the feds grounded Bob Hoover, they hit the issue head-on...there is no standard for cogntive ability. It would be nice if the traveling public accepted the ability of a pilot to perform dead-stick acro as proof that he can fly them safely, instead of relying on his ability to recite a spoken 9-digit number sequence backward (one of the cog-screen tests given to airline pilots returning from LOC or depression-related suspensions). But that's not the way rules work, is it?

The sixty-year-old of today in no way resembles the sixty-year-old of 1958. In fact to gain an actuarial equivalent you would have a retirement age of 71, so 65 is no great stretch.

Using the same logic; since the air transportation system is safer than is was in 1958, we should do whatever it takes to continue the trend. Why change something that has made us safer?

 

[FN FAL]

Did anyone stop to think that it's safer when you have a young guy and an old guy in the cockpit?

The young guy says, "Let's fower one oh it dude!"

The old guy says, "No, lets not!"

Safety is achieved, lives are saved and the old man doesn't forget to put the landing gear down on approach, because the hand-eye coordination of the child pilot saves the day.

Teamwork.

 

[Dash Power]

Using the same logic; since the air transportation system is safer than is was in 1958, we should do whatever it takes to continue the trend. Why change something that has made us safer?

Quantifying whether today is safer than 1958 because of the age requirement is difficult to do. Many other factors such as technology and experience of time may cloud the water so to speak. If 55 years old is more safe than 65 years old then 50 years old should be safer than 60 years and so on and so on. If there is a maximum age that is safer then shouldn't there be a minimum age as well? I know I'm a better pilot now in my forties as I was in my twenties. Not judgment based on experience, but judgment based on maturity.

I believe that the people who do not want the reg change use safety as an argument that is simply not clearly proven. And on that note, the people who do want the reg change automatically say it is not a safety issue when in all reality, it really is not the issue on hand. The issue is about seniority and money.

Not admitting this is truly denying this to yourself.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Quantifying whether today is safer than 1958 because of the age requirement is difficult to do.

Agree.

I was questioning the logic, not stating a thesis. Here is is: "Using the same logic; since the air transportation system is safer than is was in 1958, we should do whatever it takes to continue the trend. Why change something that has made us safer?"

If there is a maximum age that is safer then shouldn't there be a minimum age as well?

I believe there is. You must be 23 to fly as Pt 121 PIC. You must also have 1,500 hours TT. Based on the safety record of Pt 121 carriers, it appears those rules are doing their part too.

I know I'm a better pilot now in my forties as I was in my twenties. Not judgment based on experience, but judgment based on maturity.

Unfortunately, the FAR's aren't written for you...or for me. They are written for all of us. Many of them are written in blood. What is the compelling reason to change something that is working?

I believe that the people who do not want the reg change use safety as an argument that is simply not clearly proven. And on that note, the people who do want the reg change automatically say it is not a safety issue when in all reality, it really is not the issue on hand. The issue is about seniority and money.

Agree!

 

[Phaedrus]

Rock on Dash.

 

[Dash Power]

I believe there is. You must be 23 to fly as Pt 121 PIC. You must also have 1,500 hours TT. Based on the safety record of Pt 121 carriers, it appears those rules are doing their part too.

After reading my statement I apologize for not being
more clear.

If safety is the issue...would you rather ride in the back of a 737 with a 23 year old Captain...or a 64 year old Captain? If we are going to question the reg of 60 years old, then naturally we should question the age of the 23 year old? That is my point.

Why change something that has made us safer?"

Doesn't this statement directly infer that the age change is a safety issue?

 

[Phaedrus]

Easy. 64. But that isn't really the question, is it? Those aren't, in reality, my choices.

 

[CaptainMark]

Obviously the 23yr old has his sh$t together...the 64 yr old has his sh$t in a bag strapped to his leg..i will go with the 23yr old...