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...

 

[TAZ MAN]

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...

The 64 yr old may hve it strapped to his leg and keep it there....but he will make a more sound decision....the 23 yr old will leave it in the seat.....in my opinion.

I don't think Dash was questioning your abilities at 36 Mark.

 

[Flopgut]

Boeingman

If everyone on here knew the real story about CALALPA I think they would see that your failing a cognitive test right now! You are clueless. Look, you are probably a decent enough pilot and probably a fair guy to fly with. You are probably safe and well studied etc. However, figuratively speaking, with regard to your ALPA/career/retirement/leadership perspective, you are at 1000agl, IMC, unconfigured, indicating 340 kts, with the GPWS blaring. And by golly, you ain't goin to listen to NO ONE! "I'm not worried about my A plan!" sounds a lot like: "whats that mountain goat doing at this altitude?"

I stand by my earlier comments. CAL and other legacies will benefit from the age 60 rule staying in place. We need renewal; new standards and philosophies. I wish you the best, but your generation needs to go. Your generation has done more damage to this world than any previous socio-ecomically, environmentally, politically...you name it. It is going to be a huge burden for me and my kids to pay for. Keeping you all for five more years is bad enough, let alone you get to stay at the top of our seniority lists in our most esteemed positions. This industry, and CAL especially, is a good example of this. Most of our Captains were hired in a seniority coup and took a place in this business that, one could argue, really never belonged to them. (Not you though, right? You said your old CAL, you have friends that never returned after the strike I'm sure)

The retirement age increas effort is really just another seniority coup! It looks like its going to have the same players as the first coup [strike] of 83. Everybody can rationalize why they are going to covet the system, believe me I have heard ALL the reasons it was OK to cross the picket line. Most are desparate, just like the guys coming up on retirement who aren't ready. They don't care how a change might end up bad. "Just shake it up! Something may change and I can pick up a few more months Captains pay, might ruin it for everyone else but I don't care". Or you got guys like Lear70 who obviously feels like he's advantaged with better health than most. A change might wash out a few senior to him and he likes that! Jim Smyth is scared to death a hang nail will turn septic and he might be caught less than incredibly well insured, placing himself precariously close to mortality without the first dollar SWA paid him. (I'm sorry Jim, no one is answering your earlier question about what do other cariers do for bridge medical to medicare. All I know is the way it used to be: airlines had pensions! That pretty much took care of pilots until SWA came along. I'm not right? Ask your dad.) Bringupthebird is just one of those clingers that will get in line for anything free. And then there are the genious types that want to overproduce some scientific answer that will suit their own desire to take something. They go even further and attach the argument to a more powerful one like discrimination and try falsely assume more credibility. Dr. Occam is the only one with a correct diagnosis. But all that science does not outweigh the more moral question: Should one group get a windfall at anothers expense? What if the resultant effects of the age change had to be arbitrated? Do you age 65 proponents think you would get everything you stand to get in a simple change scenario? No way! You would have to give up something up. It would probably be something like Ivauir is talking up (putting age 60+ guys in the right seat).

What I would like to see at CAL is one of these bonds like UAL now has and DAL is negotiating. UAL got 550 million and DAL is probably going to get around 1 billion. This would work for lots of us if you think about it, even SWA. Negotiate, with your employer, for your monetary gains (Jim!). DO NOT mortgage or re-amoritize the career progression of your fellow pilots. We don't want to be your bank and you should know better than to ask! These bonds have the potential to create a lot of money. I don't know what the DAL 1 billion bond would do, but if CAL could do that it would probably double Boeingmans retirement monies. But trend-forward thinking like that might actually benefit BOTH Boeingman and me so he isn't going to dig that. This guy would rather lose it all than acknowledge a better way or better thinking.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

If anything happens on one of OUR flights, I call Pro Standards.

That said, it's only happened 3 times, once on our aircraft and twice on Northwest, so they're relatively isolated events and the above-described channels have worked for me.

So, did you get any feedback on those pilots? Or are they still flying? What did the Professional Standards folks say to them, specifically?

And its only happened 3 times? In how many years?

Tejas

 

[Quack]

This age 60 thing is rediculous. If they try to up our age limits, how about lowering that of those 75 year old FA's who need their walkers out to get up and down the isle. If our's becomes 65 (God Forbid), then theirs should be somewhere around 40.

 

[TAZ MAN]

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

Yes it is. I see the point. If 65 is a concern, then why not 23? If you are to step outside the box and look at objectively safety should be a concern at both ends.

Just because its not much of a concern of 23 year old 737 captains..it makes a valid point into the selfishness of the argument.

You can't judge safety on the rule change.