Originally Posted by pangolin (Post 2931763)

Bravo. Agree.

Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver (Post 2931788)

Then go fly corporate. If you can find a rich guy willing to hire you, go for it.

But operators who hold out to the public owe a higher duty of care to the passengers. Part 135 and 91K need a limit.

Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver (Post 2931788)

But operators who hold out to the public owe a higher duty of care to the passengers. Part 135 and 91K need a limit.

Originally Posted by OceanCrosser (Post 2932054)

You are correct, there is a need to provide a higher duty for the care and safety of our passengers, our crew and others.

This is why we have a:

1) medical exam every 6 months,
2) we have recurrent training in a simulator at as often as every 6 months,
3) we are required to have quarterly continuing education and
4) we have line checks every 24 months.

So it appears we are constantly being reviewed for our performance both technically as well as cognitively. Sounds like a pretty good program.

All the best,

OC

Originally Posted by pangolin (Post 2931915)

Ok let’s make it 72.

Originally Posted by OceanCrosser (Post 2932054)

You are correct, there is a need to provide a higher duty for the care and safety of our passengers, our crew and others.



This is why we have a:



1) medical exam every 6 months,

2) we have recurrent training in a simulator at as often as every 6 months,

3) we are required to have quarterly continuing education and

4) we have line checks every 24 months.



So it appears we are constantly being reviewed for our performance both technically as well as cognitively. Sounds like a pretty good program.



All the best,



OC

Originally Posted by pangolin (Post 2932186)

Nobody bit on this. I had a point though. ANY number is arbitrary. Let’s make it science based on a case by case basis and simply remove the restriction.

Originally Posted by tlove482 (Post 2932210)

Let's be honest. Medical exams as they are today are only going to weed out the most obvious health issues. Most pilots go to the easy doctor which means a lot of things are overlooked or not even checked at all.

Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver (Post 2932227)

My employer had an employee with a corroborated, obvious, and very serious issue and did not remove him from the line. “Case by case” simply doesn’t work in light of the sheer number of pilots affected, the realities of the union requirement to defend every pilot, and potential legal liability the company is unwilling to risk.

There simply must be a backstop and it must come from the regulating agency.

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 2932345)

Yes. It can't assess stamina, or any but the most obvious cognitive impairment.



I agree, without that employers' hands are tied by age discrimination laws. Cheaper to buy insurance than pay lawyers and lawsuits for an intentional tort (which is much harder to insure against than a plane crash). If not a hard age limit, they could do a cog assessment for those over 65. That would have the added benefit of allowing trend analysis as you age.

Originally Posted by pangolin (Post 2932368)

The cog assessment is a great idea. Annually like the EKG. That is reasonable.