Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Corporate
Age limit on corporate flying? >

Age limit on corporate flying?

Notices
Corporate Corporate operators

Age limit on corporate flying?

Old 11-30-2019, 08:13 AM
  #21  
Speed, Power, Accuracy
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: PIC
Posts: 1,693
Default

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, 02:30 PM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
pangolin's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: CRJ9 CA
Posts: 4,083
Default

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 let’s make it 72.
pangolin is offline  
Old 12-01-2019, 03:57 AM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: A350 Captain (RET)
Posts: 149
Default

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, 08:08 AM
  #24  
Speed, Power, Accuracy
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: PIC
Posts: 1,693
Default

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, 09:22 AM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
pangolin's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: CRJ9 CA
Posts: 4,083
Default

Originally Posted by pangolin View Post
Ok let’s make it 72.
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.
pangolin is offline  
Old 12-01-2019, 10:24 AM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dream Job
Posts: 403
Default

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, 10:54 AM
  #27  
Speed, Power, Accuracy
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: PIC
Posts: 1,693
Default

Originally Posted by pangolin View Post
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.
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.
GeeWizDriver is offline  
Old 12-01-2019, 05:53 PM
  #28  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,097
Default

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.

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. “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.
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, 06:30 PM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
pangolin's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: CRJ9 CA
Posts: 4,083
Default

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, 05:55 AM
  #30  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,097
Default

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  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Guard Dude
Delta
201720
04-06-2022 06:59 AM
pdo bump
Cargo
70
05-30-2007 06:01 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices