Age 62.5 Rule?
 

As I was pontificating on my throne this morning about the seamingly endless swim I have in front of me, I started to wonder if a change to the age 65 rule might stimulate some much needed movement in this industry. Call it a compromise or the age 62.5 rule.

I'm just a dumb pilot but wouldn't some movement in this industry be a good thing. I'm hoping this doesn't start a war but Im curious as to what folks who are much smarter than me think the effects of something like this might be.

That would be great if it wouldn't take years to push through congress

I think by the time 2012 hits it will be a mute point. The change to age 65 took years to finally become a change and I personally can't see them changing back with the retirement age by the time 2012 rolls around.

Besides are government is busy trying to figure out what to spend all of our wonderfully tax-donated stimulus package dollars, and we all know how demanding a job like that can be. :rolleyes:

It will go the other way. The age limit will be removed via court action. You might see more stringent medical examinations and requirements but don't look for the age limit to ever be lowered.

"Much needed movement" is a matter of perspective. There's plenty of pilots who had the rug yanked out of them when their pensions evaporated; I'm sure they'd like to have the option to work as long as they're medically capable. Let's face it . . . they got here first, and their career expectations have been unalterably changed for the worse already. I'm more on their side, even if it means a little more waiting for myself.

It's a bit of a con game now anyway. Aren't Part 135 operators able to fly with no age limit as long as they can hold a medical? So you can shuttle passengers part 135 on aircraft of all shapes and sizes, but if your employer is a 121 operator, now you're totally unsafe for some strange reason at age 65.

I'll split the difference and go for an age 63.75 rule.........or we could remove the rule entirely and change it to read, "all pilots shall be subject to retirement no later then 1 week (7 calander days) before they drop dead".

Some would have to retire much earlier then the current 65 and some much later.

Fly til you die.

Just like F/As in the US.

So what about those pilots who didn't have the "rug yanked out of them" and kept their pensions? Should they be required to still retire at 60?

Personally? I think the feds should devise realistic medical evaluations for pilots and as long as you can pass them, you should be able to work in your profession as long as you want. Clearly, the current medical exam is a throwback to the 1950's and needs to be addressed, but I suspect many pilots (particularly the grey-haired variety) would probably fail. To them, an arbitrary age 60/65 rule is in their best interest as it keeps them in the cockpit longer . . .perhaps too long.

Not a big fan of federals telling private citizens what they can and cannot do. Remember, unions are perfectly capable of negotiating work rules that are MORE stringent than federal laws. If pilots want to restrict their group from working past some arbitrary age, more power to them, I guess. What's so hard with pilots taking responsibility for their own?

Isn't that what being a "professional" is all about?

(note: this is my "ideal". There are federal laws about age discrimination that come into play, I suspect.)

It's ICAO and it's worked for everyone else for quite a while.

Don't expect any changes because someone flops over once in a while.

Exactly, if the "Old Guard"( and I dont mean that derogatory) are the consumate Professionals (like Prater says they are at the majors, as opposed to us at the regionals) then they would openly admit to themselves when they know they are medically no longer fit to fly. That is a true professional, unfortunatly some are only still here past 60 because of money, once again the true root of all evil..

Or maybe just accept the fact that Age 65 is here to stay and get over it.

No way is it ever going to get rolled back...no need to waste any energy thinking about it.

A couple of issues...

A more thorough exam would require more technology and be more expensive...who's going to pay? $120 every six months could easily become $1800 every six months to pay for MRI's, treadmill tests, etc.


There are two medical concerns:

- Gradual degradation of ability due to illness or age. This can hopefully be detected at a routine medical before it reaches dangerous levels, or at least it will get caught within a few months, minimizing the risk window.

- Sudden incapacitation. The risk of this can predicted:

1. Age: The risk goes up with age, and it increases in a non-linear fashion after age 55 or so. For this reason it makes perfect sense to have an age limit and I think 65 is about right. REGARDLESS of how well you do on physical exams, body-fat tests, cardio tests, cognitive tests, and simulator checks a 75-year old has a very high chance of sudden incapacitation compared to a 55-year old.

2. The presence of certain diseases (cardiac, diabetes, etc).



The current exam is probably good enough in that there are very few sudden incapacitation events in the 121 world.

What they could do to improve it would be to require a military-style cardio fitness test (run, swim, bike, your choice) and establish body-fat standards. This would not cost much and could be administered by the airlines coincident with SIM or recurrent events. This would treat the root cause instead of using expensive tests to detect the symptoms after the damage is done. A little invasive? Sure, but I would be all for it because the unfit, overweight pilots would be better off and happier once they got in shape anyway.

I would probably also be OK with an annual blood panel to check cholesterol and a few other things...the benefit of that would be more to inform the individual in time to do something about it, with disqualification only for extreme cases.

Are you and I the only two people who realize this? Apparently...

It's totally age discrimination and if it was a policy created by anybody other than the govt, it would be verboten.

But, it is a govt policy and it is totally acceptable for the govt to discriminate in very limited circumstances provided they are applied in a uniform manner. Yes, it would be better for the individual if the govt elected to come up with some complex medical/mental examination to indicate whether an individual could continue to fly 121 safely-but, it's not required to do so.

SO, age discrimination for pilots, police officers, fire fighters, ATC controllers, etc, is highly likely to continue.

For the life of me, I can't figure out how people think the Age 65 restriction is going to suddenly be ruled un-constitutional and thrown out when Age 60 lasted for so many years as the law of the land.

If more pilots die at the controls (and they will), I think that will be enough to keep the age at 65. Age 65 was a bad rule that was established because pilots lost their pension. It is not based on safety, just economics. If there was no issue of safety, why have a guy under 60 in the seat to baby sit?

That said, it is the law. It is unfortunate they don't require more stringent medical standards for over 60 individuals. We all know the current system is a joke.

Here in the land of heat and sand, our physical does include a BMI measure. A horrible measurement to be sure, but nevertheless, it is there. Anything over, I think, 33 requires monitoring and some sort of awareness training. I do think you guys are right, many guys will finally say, enough already. It is simple really, give them there pensions back and many will say adios. Not all, but many will. And the guys that have their pensions, will get tired after awhile. So hang in there young ones. It won't be as bleak as it appears now.

Yeah, like that money is sitting on a shelf somewhere.

The previous guy to die at the controls was mid-40s.

One before him was mid-50s.

I don't worry about a guy dropping at the controls. I worry about a guy whose reaction time has slowed to that of the acceleration rate of a Pinto. One whose Golden Hands have turned to Stone. But, that's what the training department and fellow pilots have to be pointing out. Have to be cruel to be kind if the dude just can't hack it anymore, regardless of his current age.


Pilot dies on flight from Manchester to Cyprus - Telegraph

Health vs. experience central to pilot-age debate - CNN.com

Yeah, guys who want stricter medical standards to "eliminate" over 60 guys better be careful what they wish for. How many of THEM cannot pass a stricter medical?

Kronan,

Age 65 just recently took effect. Give it time. There will be others. I'm not trying to be callous, I just think it will happen. Schedules are getting harder and it is hard on any of us, but very difficult for older folks.

I agree with your views on training failures. But we both know how difficult it is to lose people in initial training (200% training or more). It is virtually impossible to get rid of folks on recurrent. You get a quick peek during office hours. How many of these old guys have real problems being alert in flight?