IATA Calls for Raising Pilot Age Limit to 67
09-28-2025 | 08:35 AM
#1191
Bent over by buybacks
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,612
Likes: 638
In any case, this individual is making a better case for keeping or lowering the retirement age than anyone else..except for maybe the buffoons running LEPF and EPAS.
!
09-28-2025 | 08:41 AM
#1192
Leaves Biscoff crumbs
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,265
Likes: 941
From: Blue Juice Taste Tester
It's doubtful that anyone posting with such childlike logic, grammar, and lack of common sense is actually an active airline pilot. Maybe he stumbled on the memory care facility's wifi password?
In any case, this individual is making a better case for keeping or lowering the retirement age than anyone else..except for maybe the buffoons running LEPF and EPAS.
!
In any case, this individual is making a better case for keeping or lowering the retirement age than anyone else..except for maybe the buffoons running LEPF and EPAS.
!
09-28-2025 | 08:47 AM
#1193
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 333
Likes: 29
I’m loving the exclamation point signature🤣
09-28-2025 | 08:53 AM
#1194
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 972
Likes: 1
From the executive summary of "Pilot Age and Accident Rates Report 4. Executive summary:
"The findings are consistent across the three analyses. First, for accidents occurringunder 14 CFR §121 and §135, the analyses supported the hypothesis that a "U"-shapedrelationship exists between the age of professional pilots holding ATP or commercial andfirst- or second-class medical certificates and their accident rate. Second, the accident ratefor the 60-63 age group was statistically greater than the accident rate for 55 or 56 to 59year old pilots in the a priori planned comparisons. Third, the main effect for age wasstatistically significant in all analyses. These findings suggested that the probability of anaviation accident under §121 and §135, as a function of pilot annual flight hours, wasrelated to pilot age."
"The findings are consistent across the three analyses. First, for accidents occurringunder 14 CFR §121 and §135, the analyses supported the hypothesis that a "U"-shapedrelationship exists between the age of professional pilots holding ATP or commercial andfirst- or second-class medical certificates and their accident rate. Second, the accident ratefor the 60-63 age group was statistically greater than the accident rate for 55 or 56 to 59year old pilots in the a priori planned comparisons. Third, the main effect for age wasstatistically significant in all analyses. These findings suggested that the probability of anaviation accident under §121 and §135, as a function of pilot annual flight hours, wasrelated to pilot age."
2003? Hum!
Two… thousand… three!
2003!
In 2003, the Age-60 rule was still in force!
Context incoming …
Which means every single 60–63 accident in the CAMI dataset was Part 135.
And since the same report shows that roughly 75–79% of all accidents from 1988–97 were Part 135, the “U-shape” bump is basically telling you: surprise, the only accidents you counted at 60+ came from the part of the industry that’s like Part 121, minus the training, oversight, peer review, and institutional safety net.
Because only in APiC land is Part 135 at the same as part 121!
That context is everything.
And even the FAA’s own researchers stressed that age is not sufficient or appropriate as a stand-alone measure of individual pilot ability.
Bummer!
!
09-28-2025 | 09:14 AM
#1195
Leaves Biscoff crumbs
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,265
Likes: 941
From: Blue Juice Taste Tester
Thank you very, very much.
2003? Hum!
Two… thousand… three!
2003!
In 2003, the Age-60 rule was still in force!
Context incoming …
Which means every single 60–63 accident in the CAMI dataset was Part 135.
And since the same report shows that roughly 75–79% of all accidents from 1988–97 were Part 135, the “U-shape” bump is basically telling you: surprise, the only accidents you counted at 60+ came from the part of the industry that’s like Part 121, minus the training, oversight, peer review, and institutional safety net.
Because only in APiC land is Part 135 at the same as part 121!
That context is everything.
And even the FAA’s own researchers stressed that age is not sufficient or appropriate as a stand-alone measure of individual pilot ability.
Bummer!
!
2003? Hum!
Two… thousand… three!
2003!
In 2003, the Age-60 rule was still in force!
Context incoming …
Which means every single 60–63 accident in the CAMI dataset was Part 135.
And since the same report shows that roughly 75–79% of all accidents from 1988–97 were Part 135, the “U-shape” bump is basically telling you: surprise, the only accidents you counted at 60+ came from the part of the industry that’s like Part 121, minus the training, oversight, peer review, and institutional safety net.
Because only in APiC land is Part 135 at the same as part 121!
That context is everything.
And even the FAA’s own researchers stressed that age is not sufficient or appropriate as a stand-alone measure of individual pilot ability.
Bummer!
!
Nice try though!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!
09-28-2025 | 09:14 AM
#1196
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 972
Likes: 1
Another post about how the APiC clown car is the only group with eyes wide open.
09-28-2025 | 09:16 AM
#1197
Leaves Biscoff crumbs
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,265
Likes: 941
From: Blue Juice Taste Tester
09-28-2025 | 09:25 AM
#1198
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2022
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 422
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
its a fun pyramid scheme to watch. The old timers want to grab money from junior, and lepf wants to grab money from them
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
09-28-2025 | 09:37 AM
#1200
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 972
Likes: 1
YOUR Study: 80% was Part 135 of all ages.
Maybe it's Part 135!
Since ... YOUR study: age is not sufficient or appropriate as a stand-alone measure of individual pilot ability!
!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
