I’m suggesting that the researchers wouldn’t segue into “severe pilot shortage” in a normal study. This would be like doing a nutrition study on bagels and recommending that everyone eat a certain brand. This added verbiage is beyond the scope of their work and therefore comes across as more of a persuasive essay. Unfortunately for those who want to fly longer, the study showed cognitive decline occurring in pilots even prior to the ages they’re pushing for. Said another way, the study did not help their cause.

 

Does it really matter though? In the modern media world, forces will spin any tale to say what they want, cherry picking the parts that give the most charitable lines.

 

Yup! Filler

 

Meh. I used to think the same thing. Wait until you have a medical issue and see if you still think the certificate is handed out like candy. It’s like being a raccoon caught in a flashlight beam. One star. Do not recommend.

 

Right... so please explain these studies of cognitive decline in older pilots and why did they lead us from from Age 60 to Age 65 at the worst possible time in our industry, and then 7 years later, in light of even more studies, why did the Feds scrap the rule requiring at least one pilot to be under 60?

If this comes to fruition, and there's no way that it doesn't if ICAO goes to 67, the Feds will simply do what they did once before - require one pilot to be under 65 and observe what happens, and within a few years, they'll scrap that rule as well.

If I were placing bets, at some point, the whole mandatory retirement age is gonna disappear altogether just like it did in a number of other countries, and it'll be a simple question - can you pass your recurrent training, and can you pass your FAA first class medical? If the answer is yes, you get to keep on flying. If not, happy retirement.

Perhaps that's why we should concentrate on contractual improvements to proactively account for this possibility as opposed to being reactive.

 

Cool. Contractual improvement. All pilots make the same pay grade, regardless of longevity, seat, and category. Schedule dictated by rotating seniority. No more seniority system besides job security and accruals based on longevity.

 

Unfortunately, for those for those pushing for a specific age (65) without scientific research to back it up, the study you posted showed that airline pilots brains operate at a significant difference than the average officer worker. As you mentioned sometimes it starts in one's 50's. So is ALPA pushing for mental testing starting at 50 to establish a baseline functioning level and to define when anyone's performance as a pilot isn't good enough so they should be forced out? That's the ultimate standard - can they perform? Age increases the odds of performance difficulties but it's not a cut and dried decider.

 

You all can stop the debate. This guy/girl has the outcome

 

Age 67 is granted, however no more ASAPs, cameras in the flight deck, and a review of every single flight for proper company manual adherence. One strike and you're gone. Cause you know, this is all about safety and mentorship and what not.

 

No, I did not post the study. One of the age 67 proponents did thinking it would help their cause. It doesn’t.