this post shows why the FAA should ban smoking copium.

 

Which kinda illustrates my point. Having an opinion does not make it a lie.

LEPF/EPAS hyperventilates about a ton of this stuff. Calling things lies that are just... not. They are mostly differences of opinion.

 

Mostly facts with a side of opinion.

 

They’ve already made enough and don’t care if they ruin your career.

 

In the 91/135 world as long as the check clears its damn near impossible to fail.

 

The things they say about Ambrosi, I'm shocked he hasn't sued for libel. It is truly disgusting. Maybe he'll start a Go Fund Me to hire attorneys to sue the **** out of these sad, bitter losers.

 

First, let me say thank you for engaging. I think it's important that supporters of both sides are able to make their arguments freely, and in good faith.

That said, I think it's interesting that the push is for 2 more years (or 3?) One of the most used arguments I see is that, "1 day before turning 65, the pilot is perfectly capable, yet a day later he/she is unsafe!" Even if that's true, what makes 67 any different? You could make the exact same argument 720 days later!

But all that misses the point, IMO. There simply MUST be a line drawn somewhere. With over 100,000 pilots flying part 121 in the US. The system as a whole couldn't handle more granularity than that. As I argued in the other thread about this, there are lines drawn everywhere. Driving, voting, driving, holding an ATP, running for president. All those are age lines drawn "arbitrarily" somewhere. But for good reason. Is there any serious person arguing that drivers licenses should be discretionary age? Of course not. As a society, we have decided that (though some 15 year olds are mature enough to handle it) 16 is the proper age for a DL. And on, and on for the other items. It's all the same basic argument. X age is ok, X +/- 1 day is not. It simply cannot be any other way.

The only other possible argument is for no age at all - aka "as long as you can hold a medical", which is a really bad idea, and would come with a ton of unintended consequences. NONE of us should want that. We don't need greater scrutiny in our 50's/60's for losing our medical, and thus 50% of our income. And that's partly why that path will never happen. A4A will ensure it, even if ALPA didn't.

 

They should strive to be like Mark Webber managing and mentoring Oscar, but senior think they're Hamilton or Alonso.

 

You're expecting FOs to fly with Captains close to retirement, who they suspect might be declining mentally, to FSAP this or have documented refusals to fly with them? I'm sorry, but this is incredibly naive. What should the FSAP say? "I just finished a single pairing with Bob and I, the First Officer, hereby diagnose him with Alzheimer's." If the same FO gets paired with Bob again, do you honestly think he's going to march into the CPO, diagnose Bob with dementia on the spot, and refuse to fly with him? Or, do you think the FO might just call in sick/trade and add Bob to his avoid list?

Our industry is not set up structurally to catch the data you have described via safety reports, etc. In other words, you're pointing to the absence of data that would never exist to pretend that known age-related cognitive decline doesn't exist.

 

Training failures, medical failures, LTD are irrelevant, the system worked in those cases.

The issue is the *risk* of cognitive decline which happens too fast to get caught by routine screening, or sudden incapacitation.

I'd also add the risk of elders not handling circadian disruption very well, that's a given and it's not tested for anywhere in our system (unless FO/IROs start filing ASAPs).

For those reasons there must be a retirement age IMO. It's just not the government's place to set that arbitrarily. I suspect but don't know that it's too low, but it might even be a little too high. They need to acquire and analyze some very specific empirical data. I'd be in favor of a gradual phase-in to avoid disruption/windfall, but not sure that would be legal.