Please vote NO on S.65!

[CoATP]

darn mouse

 

[CoATP]

really darn mouse

 

[CoATP]

Mouse problem fixed .. got computer cat .. back to the subject at hand


Let's see .. arguments against
- That's the way it is ... they should have known that
- It'll delay my upgrade
- We won't be able to hire more lower time people for low wages

... arguments for
- The pilots have experience why lose it
- Mgmt/circumstance has shafted away planned savings
- It's that way in the rest of the world, are US pilots different?


It doesn't say you HAVE to work past 60, it says you can. So if you 1000 hr guys with the ATP written done (maybe) get to be 60 in 2040 (or so) you can just drift away even if the rule has changed. You might even get some decent experience before you upgrade.

I've emailed and had others email an enthusiastic yes.

My personal guess is there will be a deal to set it at age 62 and six months when the dust clears.

 

[batsky2000]

The age 60 rule makes no sense, us that fly in the 135 world fly all over the globe, and have no schedule of where we are going from 1 day to the next like most 121 operations have, and 135 rules are not that much different from 121 rules, in some ways they are more stringent, and there are pilots that are in their 70's that fly heavy iron corporate jets all over with no problems, so what is the big deal to do the same at the airlines? NONE

 

[hr2eternity]

The age 60 rule makes no sense, us that fly in the 135 world fly all over the globe, and have no schedule of where we are going from 1 day to the next like most 121 operations have, and 135 rules are not that much different from 121 rules, in some ways they are more stringent, and there are pilots that are in their 70's that fly heavy iron corporate jets all over with no problems, so what is the big deal to do the same at the airlines? NONE

What do you mean "heavy iron corporate jets"? What's your definition of heavy? Mine is an A380 going down with 600 pax onboard and a 65 year-old Captain and 59+ FO at the controls. That's heavy.

Call your senators and ask them to vote NO!!

TH>

 

[miles otoole]

What do you mean "heavy iron corporate jets"? What's your definition of heavy? Mine is an A380 going down with 600 pax onboard and a 65 year-old Captain and 59+ FO at the controls. That's heavy.

Call your senators and ask them to vote NO!!

TH>

Mine's an A380 going down with 601 pax onboard and a 50 year-old Captain and 45+ FO at the controls. That's heavier. I called Senator Clinton and asked her to vote YES!! (BTW, I am 35 and want the option).

 

[sf260pilot]

Vote yes and preserve your career. Soon U.S. citizens will be the only in the world with this restriction. But people in this country don't like senior citizens anyway. Right?
ALPA is opposed to this in the USA but is supporting it in Canada.

 

[hr2eternity]

Mine's an A380 going down with 601 pax onboard and a 50 year-old Captain and 45+ FO at the controls. That's heavier. I called Senator Clinton and asked her to vote YES!! (BTW, I am 35 and want the option).

Your profile says you're 39, and "your senator" speaks volumes about you. Do you have a job at a major yet? I suspect not--because a young guy like you ought to know this can only stymie your potential and delay your chance to upgrade. HERES THE DEAL--near 60'er' listen up: you knew the story when you signed on. quit your moaning and get out of my seat.

TH

 

[batsky2000]

What do you mean "heavy iron corporate jets"? What's your definition of heavy? Mine is an A380 going down with 600 pax onboard and a 65 year-old Captain and 59+ FO at the controls. That's heavy.

Call your senators and ask them to vote NO!!

TH>

Sorry, I thought that most people knew or could figure that out, you must be the 1% that could not figure that out, Heavy Iron in the corporate world or 135 world are aircraft like Gulfstreams,Global Express,BBJ(Boeing Business Jet,aka B737-700),etc. they don't hold 600+, but they have ranges that go from 4800 NM to almost 7000 NM, there are pilots who are in their 70's flying these all over the world, we fly into places so remote that the airlines would never ever consider them places, and fly into high terrain airports all of the time, so if you are worried about a 65 year old pilot flying from New York to London and back, think about the 70 year old flying a $50 mil. airplane into a high mountain airport down to minimums with no problems, all I can say is that I have seen guys in their 40's and 50's that need to retire let alone some pilots that are 65

The whole 60 thing was a big political thing nothing else, otherwise they would have imposed the law for part 135 pilots also, our rules are more stringent than 121 anyways, and most of our flying requires much more carful planning, so vote YES

 

[TIS]

Someone said something about facts so let’s look at some facts.

I am acquainted with someone who is presently conducting a long-term study on pilot skills and their deterioration with age. The study is task oriented and uses subjects from across the pilot spectrum so that the results pertain to HUMANS doing pilot things, so it’s not just about airline or otherwise professional pilots. Since it is as yet unpublished the results are not “official” but here’s what they’ve found.

The most important (and surprising) thing they’ve found is that our skills begin to take a SIGNIFICANT dive at an average age of 48. It matters not whether the person is a 747 CA or an owner pilot of a C-182 – the slide begins at 48. Assuming that this is the statistical norm, the age 60 rule starts to take on a little different hue, as it places retirement a full 12 years after skills normally begin to become seriously degraded.

On publication it is very possible that this study may be used to argue for a 55 rule rather than a 65 rule. In the alternative there is very solid evidence from the study that suggests that at a minimum, cognitive testing should become part of the medical certification process north of 50 – probably on a biennial basis.

Now, do I think that this means we should kick all our senior CAs to the curb? Of course not! The skills that diminish can be offloaded to the autopilot or the younger guy. The study does not examine multi-pilot dynamics nor does it examine autopilot assistance with taskloading at all and the truth is that accumulated wisdom is also a critical element in the safety equation. That’s one of the reasons the public is justified in wanting more “grey” in the cockpit. In other words, what we lose in multi-tasking ability we make up for with calm, cool, collected, and well-reasoned decision making in tough, high-pressure situations.

Now, this other thing has been raised already but I’ll sound off here too. There is an assumption afoot in this industry that guys actually want to stay beyond age 60. Now, while that may be true of some guys, in my experience the ones that make it to 60 are ready to be done. They often seem to start considering early retirement at around 55. So I think that the assumption that everyone who can, would choose to remain past 60 if the opportunity arose is an erroneous one. A change to the rule would certainly change the retirement term of the overall seniority equation – it would make retirement dates far less certain for projection purposes – but I don’t think the overall net effect would be all that significant.

Anyhow, just a couple of things germane to the discussion at hand.

TIS