Urgent Action Required To Keep Age 60!

[FD109]

What'd you say?

I said earlier, the majority should be heard and we all know who they are. Nowwhere did I say that the majority will be listened to. At least half of all seniority lists are made up of FOs and FEs but who really runs the show?

Michael,

I don't mean to be rude, but what the he11 did you just try to say?

I don't know what you tried to say, but what you actually said could be twisted around to mean almost anything. Have you considered going into politics?

 

[skydash]

I will always support the elimination of the age 60 rule. Why?? I will not tolerate a group of cluless politicians who could'nt even figure out how to open the window on my 737 telling me when I have to quit. I fly from BWI to SEA 10 minutes before my 60th birthday and am legal,but 1 minte after 12:00,I'm not?? BULL S*IT!!If I have to retire at 60,then by God so do they!!By what cockpit experience do they base this rule on??How much time behind the controls do they have to formulate their ruling concerning me??If you can pass a full medical&checkride at 59,then what the hell differnce does 60 make?? NONE!! I guess all medical doctors will have to retire at 60 then too,huh?? Give me a break.

 

[DoinTime]

Over the past ten years I have had the privilege of watching my father grow through retirement (age 55-65). The man is as healthy as a horse. He still runs his annual marathon within 20 minutes of what he was running it ten years ago and could probably maintain a first class medical for another 15 years. The thing about him that I have been baffled by over the past ten years is the rate of mental degradation. My father has gone from what I consider mentally quick and open to new ideas to slow and stubborn. He is also the first one to tell me that my observations are unfounded and that he is twice the man he was ten years ago.

Being fit to captain an airliner goes way beyond the ability to fend off a heart attack. Until testing of mental capability is available, and enforced, I am sticking with age 60 as a dividing line.

 

[FD109]

My father has gone from what I consider mentally quick and open to new ideas to slow and stubborn. He is also the first one to tell me that my observations are unfounded and that he is twice the man he was ten years ago.

Being fit to captain an airliner goes way beyond the ability to fend off a heart attack. Until testing of mental capability is available, and enforced, I am sticking with age 60 as a dividing line.

I don't know your father, and I don't know if your opinion of his mental capabilities is accruate or not. Could he pass a PC or a line check?

I do know that I have given PC's to some young pilots who weren't as mentally sharp as some older pilots. Trying to ensure competence by picking a random number like 60 years, or 48 years and 3 months, or whatever meaningless, random number you want to pick, doesn't work.

I have never seen one single instance where a pilot's competence could be determined by his/her age.

 

[tdvalve]

DoinTime :

You need to insist that your father receive a complete medical evaluation. Loss of mental agility does not normally result from aging until reaching the late eighties.

 

[asacap]

The age 60 rule has been around for a long time. Don't tell me you had no idea about it when you started flying. Now that you are close to 60, you wan't to change the rules to benefit yourself and screw others.

To DairyAir,

Your statement about corporate aviation being the safest is false. According to the NTSB, in 2001, the airlines (scheduled 121) averaged an accident 0.20 every 100,000 hours flown. Corporate has 2.118 (scheduled 135). Thats almost eleven times as many accidents. These statistics are on the internet at www.ntsb.gov.

This is a safety issue! This rule must not change.

 

[cdog]

We don't have a thing to say about it, they (121, ALPA, gov.) just let us think we do. It has nothing to do with health, it's all economics. 121 managment will never let it happen.

I work with alot of guys in the ag business that are way past 60, it's way more demanding than any 121/135 operation and they do just fine. I know several firebomber pilots that are way past 60, they do just fine, also way more demanding than airline ops, age has nothing to do with it.

I'm not far off myself, but I'll quit when I feel like it.

 

[FD109]

I try not to let people piss me off!!!

The age 60 rule has been around for a long time. Don't tell me you had no idea about it when you started flying. Now that you are close to 60, you wan't to change the rules to benefit yourself and screw others.

To DairyAir,

Your statement about corporate aviation being the safest is false. According to the NTSB, in 2001, the airlines (scheduled 121) averaged an accident 0.20 every 100,000 hours flown. Corporate has 2.118 (scheduled 135). Thats almost eleven times as many accidents. These statistics are on the internet at www.ntsb.gov.

This is a safety issue! This rule must not change.

I hate to tell you this, I guess you haven't been around very long, but people have been fighting the age 60 rule since the first week in went into effect. I guess YOU didn't know that.

Age 60 is not a safety issue and you know it. You present one, just one, valid reason to conclude that people suddenly become unable to fly an airliner safely because they have just passed their 60th birthday and I'll shut up about it.

If you want to protect your seniority by continuing the discrimination against others, fine. Be honest though, just say it like it is.

 

[RJFlyer]

I just find it interesting that virtually EVERY Part 121 pilot flying today was hired under the "Age 60 Rule," knew it was there, and reaped its benefits. Yet now the old farts want to change the rule to benefit them some more. The rule was there, they knew it, and should have planned for it.

Age discrimination? If you put ANY age as a dividing line, it technically becomes 'discrimination.' I'm in my 30s, I want all that money I put into Social Security. What? I have to wait til I'm 65? That's discrimination! I go to the movies, and demand my senior discount. What? I have to be over 55? That's discrimination! Get real. There is discrimination everywhere, if you want to get picky.

Everyone who was potentially discriminated against (those who were flying when the age 60 rule went into effect, and were subsequently forced to retire) are long gone. Everyone flying today is playing under the same rules, and has been since they were hired. Therefore, nobody is being discriminated against.

 

[Jeff G]

The age 60 rule has been around for a long time. Don't tell me you had no idea about it when you started flying. Now that you are close to 60, you wan't to change the rules to benefit yourself and screw others.

asacap (and RJ flyer):

I am 34. I think the age 60 rule is a bad idea, even though I knew when joined this industry that the rule was there. None of that precludes me from trying to change what I perceive as an injustice. I'm willing to do this even if it hurts me in the short term. In the long term it will have no effect; things will adjust.

By your logic, we should never try to change the status quo, rather we should just never initiate anything that has any aspect we don't agree with. Tell you what, the next time you're up for a contract, don't argue for higher wages. After all, you knew what the pay was when you signed up. Why do you want it to change now?

To DairyAir,

Your statement about corporate aviation being the safest is false. According to the NTSB, in 2001, the airlines (scheduled 121) averaged an accident 0.20 every 100,000 hours flown. Corporate has 2.118 (scheduled 135). Thats almost eleven times as many accidents. These statistics are on the internet at www.ntsb.gov.

This is a safety issue! This rule must not change.

You strike out here too. Since when is scheduled 135 corporate flying? Part 135 is air taxi.

The NTSB doesn't break out corporate flying here; it's all lumped under part 91, so this stat is meaningless. But you're right, corporate flying as a whole isn't quite as statistically safe as the airlines. However, operations like Netjets and other large corporate entities have an accident rate indistinguishable from airline flying. The difference in accident rates in corporate flying has to do with variations in standardization and risks associated with ad hoc flights to far flung small airports. There is no documentation to suggest that pilot age is related to the corporate accident rate. Your strident calls for status quo ante on the basis of preserving safety are just unsubstantiated blather. It has never been about safety, only politics and career expectations.