Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-30-2019, 09:13 AM   #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: PIC
Posts: 671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pangolin View Post
Bravo. Agree.
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.
GeeWizDriver is offline  
Old 11-30-2019, 03:30 PM   #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: CRJ9 CA
Posts: 859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver View Post
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.
Ok letís make it 72.
pangolin is offline  
Old 12-01-2019, 04:57 AM   #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: A350 Captain (RET)
Posts: 135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver View Post
But operators who hold out to the public owe a higher duty of care to the passengers. Part 135 and 91K need a limit.
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
OceanCrosser is offline  
Old 12-01-2019, 09:08 AM   #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: PIC
Posts: 671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OceanCrosser View Post
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
And we have

1) Medical exams every 6 months

2) Recurrent training once a year

3) Line checks once a year

4) A Fitness For Duty program

And yet, a 74 year old narcoleptic without a shred of intellectual honesty or self-awareness was allowed to keep flying (and sleeping in the cockpit), year after year, despite having been through ALL of the above.

And he's not the outlier. The 70+, sharp-as-a-tack, wonderpilot is the outlier.
GeeWizDriver is offline  
Old 12-01-2019, 10:22 AM   #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: CRJ9 CA
Posts: 859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pangolin View Post
Ok letís make it 72.
Nobody bit on this. I had a point though. ANY number is arbitrary. Letís make it science based on a case by case basis and simply remove the restriction.
pangolin is offline  
Old 12-01-2019, 11:24 AM   #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dream Job
Posts: 317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OceanCrosser View Post
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
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.

Sent from my BTV-W09 using Tapatalk
tlove482 is offline  
Old 12-01-2019, 11:54 AM   #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: PIC
Posts: 671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pangolin View Post
Nobody bit on this. I had a point though. ANY number is arbitrary. Letís make it science based on a case by case basis and simply remove the restriction.
My employer had an employee with a corroborated, obvious, and very serious issue and did not remove him from the line. ďCase by caseĒ simply doesnít 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.
GeeWizDriver is offline  
Old 12-01-2019, 06:53 PM   #28  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 23,810
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tlove482 View Post
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.
Yes. It can't assess stamina, or any but the most obvious cognitive impairment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver View Post
My employer had an employee with a corroborated, obvious, and very serious issue and did not remove him from the line. ďCase by caseĒ simply doesnít 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.
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.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 12-01-2019, 07:30 PM   #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: CRJ9 CA
Posts: 859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
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.
The cog assessment is a great idea. Annually like the EKG. That is reasonable.
pangolin is offline  
Old 12-02-2019, 06:55 AM   #30  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 23,810
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pangolin View Post
The cog assessment is a great idea. Annually like the EKG. That is reasonable.
It's very easy to do now, just a video game. And you can practice for it all you want.
rickair7777 is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? Guard Dude Delta 198678 Today 01:58 PM
ALPA flip on age 60 is official pdo bump Cargo 70 05-30-2007 07:01 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:12 PM.