newKnow

How about the "real world" of air traffic controllers, us civil servants, astronauts, priests, judges, ect???

__________________
Choice is an illusion created by those who have power for those who don't...

MoosePileit

****? Who said I wanted to work past 55 (personal goal) or 60 (career STANDARD, ex-legislated ONLY TO GET FREE LABOR WORKING TO THEIR STUPID OR POOR OR BOTH DEATHS. Sure- y'all have some seniority, sick and vacation bennies- buy you are still technically working yourself to DEATH!

You're here again because congress and your management know you need the money, are better dead rather than collecting a pension or grabbing off the PGB if you even still had one and patching over ATC's holes- they still retire on time at least and know when to back away from the scope and drop the earpiece!

Go take a nap w/ krack-ho and DO NOT attempt to speak for me or anyone else. Just go back to working to death- plus or minus 18 months.

What happens in 4-1/2 more years plus about 18 mos when the spike of age 65 retiree's kicks in... and we see that the government led you to work yourself to an 18 month lifespan post retirement? Will you sue to stop working then??? Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?

MoosePileit

Ask a part 121 inspector why the FAA didn't push for age 65. The slide was after 58... IF the slide now becomes after age 63, I'll be impressed.... But I bet there's still a death spike at 5 years plus 18 months after 12/13/2007. Those actuarians get paid a lot of money to be right about numbers.....

Klacko- thank you for bringing some amusement to my day! You are truly the Patch Adams in the clinic. Did ICAO retro pass yet? Guessing not since it would mean retraining and wasted resources...

Klako

Proof that age alone determines when a FAR Part 121 pilot must not operate aircraft in FAR Part 121 operations is something that Congress had directed the FAA to come up with but the FAA failed produce such proof. That proof simply does not exist.

The FAA fell in its scientific, fair and objective approach it normally uses in Federal Air Regulation (FAR) rule changing protocol. Succumb by the political pressures from ALPA, the FAA chose to be deceptive in promoting ALPA’s theories about aging and pilot safety. The FAA used questionable statistics to try to prove that pilots over the age of 60 are unsafe. A case in point is the fourth report in the FAA’s series that examined accident rates under 14 CFR, part 121 (scheduled commercial aviation regulations) and 14 CFR, part 135 (air taxi regulations) for professional pilots holding air transport or commercial pilot and Class I or II medical certificates for the period 1988-1997. An overall “U”-shaped trend was noted, with pilots aged 60-63 having a statistically higher accident rate than pilots aged 55-59. However, all of the accidents involving pilots over 60 occurred in FAR Part 135 air taxi operations. The stricter regulated FAR Part 121 airline pilots were not permitted to fly past age 60. Pilots flying under the less regulated FAR Part 135 air taxi operations have historically had a higher accident rate and this difference influenced the overall distribution when the data are combined. Therefore, no definitive conclusions about the relationship of age to accident rates for pilots engaged in commercial operations can be drawn solely on the basis of this study.

If the Federal government wanted a law that denies an otherwise qualified person to practice in their profession, then that government must prove that there are enough scientific reasons for such a law to exist. It is the federal government’s burden to prove that all airline pilots suffer an unacceptable decline in their ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public.

MoosePileit

Small words this time: don't sue when age 65ers drop 18 months after age 65. Sit quietly on the side for the next 6 years to await that time. Enjoy the mud to yourself... I'm done wrestlin'.

Klako

Most of us have probably made observations that people who retire early, too often die early. Early retirement clearly appears to be unnatural for active, healthy people. People tend to deteriorate faster if they stop being productive especially after an active life long profession. Several recent studies indicate that people who retire early tend to die earlier.

“Early Retirement May Mean Earlier Death”--- Primary source: British Medical Journal
Source reference:
"Age at retirement and long-term survival of an industrial population: prospective cohort study," BMJ, published online Oct. 20, 2005.
“…Study found that retiring at age 55 was associated with an almost two-fold greater risk of dying compared with employees who postponed retirement until their 60s…investigators found that embarking on the Golden Years at age 55 doubled the risk for death before reaching age 65, compared with those who toiled beyond age 60…”

flybynuts

[quote=Klako;280070]I am now 61, forced to retire from the airlines last year, now flying for the U.S. Army.

What is it that you do for the Army now? Is it that sweet?

XHooker

Just to keep this in the land of reality. The two most comprehensive studies of the life expectancy of airline pilots shows they live significantly longer than the general population after retirement. One was a Wright State study of American Airlines pilots completed in the early 90s and the other was a study of BA pilots completed in the 80s. The interesting thing about the BA study was that, contrary to what I'd have thought, long haul pilots lived significantly longer than the short haul pilots. Pilots quick demise after retirement is a popular myth. I'm actually a supporter of the age 60 retirement, but that's the reality about pilot longevity. IOW, we'll actually need some money for retirement.