Originally Posted by FlyJSH

hmmmm

So, if someone needs mechanical assistance to hear satisfactorily, he should be disqualified.

Okay

Does that mean those who need glasses should be disqualified even if they reach 20/20? About 40 percent of Americans wear glasses

And color vision, should it be perfect? 10 percent of males have some form.


And how about those folks that take a blood pressure pill? That is about 20 percent of Americans.

Or carry 10 extra pounds? Roughly half of Americans are classified as overweight or obese.

So let's do the math (for males since this is still a male dominated industry)...

60% dont need glasses
of those 90% have normal color vision
of those 80% have normal blood pressure
of those half have their weight under control

That means .60 X .90 X .80 X.50 equals 21 percent of the population. And that is just four medical issues. If ALL issues were included, I bet only 10 percent of pilot aged people could be classified as completely within standards. That would be the pool we would BEGIN with... THEN we need to deal with the mental and kinesthetic aptitudes to see if they had the "right stuff" to fly.

OH yeah, and don't forget about the 50% of men that have male pattern baldness since the incidence of heart disease in them is much higher.



We are all playing the odds when we fly. One time in 10,000 there will be an engine failure. One time in 100,000 there will be a cabin fire. The odds of a generally healthy guy, who can pass the CURRENT first class medical, crapping out is pretty puny.... far less than a catastrophic fire. (if you don't believe me, look at the number of INFLIGHT crewmember deaths). In the big scheme of things, kidney stones are probably more likely to cause an incapacitation .... and they happen to PERFECTLY HEALTHY PEOPLE.

Originally Posted by finis72

Some thoughts from an old guy: I think this age 70 thread was started by the same false rumor mill as the DALPA is giving up 100 seat flying for a 30% raise(pick the number), neither one is going to happen. It does however make reading some of these threads more interesting.ICAO passed the age 65 and it was then only a matter of time before it would happen in our country. If I was 40 or so I would be against age 65 and do not take some of the comments on here personally, actually some are quite entertaining because they are so ignorant that it defies logic. If any of you younger guys would like to pitch in and restore my pension to what it was pre-bankruptcy I would be the proverbial dot tomorrow.The age 65 rule helped me tremendously but it came at a cost to others, I get it. I still hope to retire "early" and have a set $ amount that when I reach it I'm gone, Too much golf,fishing,hiking,skiing to do to hang around here.
I commute hub to hub and most always on the j/s, I also fly on an a/c with lots of 60p pilots. Having had this opportunity to observe I can no more tell the difference between a 40/50 year old and a 60p than I can tell the difference between a military or civilian background(operational wise).Some of the 60p guys look lots younger and some look like my grand dad. I know personally my reflexes aren't what they used to be, I play lots or softball and my mind gets to lots of balls that my glove doesn't get near. I would not want to put NVG"s on and go downtown then return to the ship for a night landing,been there done that and concede to the young guys.However, operating a modern jetliner is a whole different ball game, more about managing than actual flying skills. Nuff said.
I think it will take at least 15 to 20 years for ICAO to get the medical data to support any increase in the age limit and who knows what the data will show. Let's get such a huge contract improvement in 2012 that we all can go when we choose and not have it be a financial issue and not one more outsourced seat. Peace

Originally Posted by gettinbumped

Good, respectfully written post.

Originally Posted by maddogmax

I believe that if you look at all of the pilots that have died/had a stroke etc. prematurely at this airline most if not all were under 60. At least that is the case for the ones that I know of. Just asking!

Originally Posted by gettinbumped

Last, and perhaps the big point. You might ease up on the "snot-nosed kid" comments. Realize that you won the freaking lottery. If you are over 60 right now, you couldn't have gotten a luckier break in this industry. To have benefitted from age 60 retirement RIGHT UP until you were getting ready to retire, and then be able to stay at $200k or so a year for another 5 years is a million dollar windfall. Don't for a SECOND forget that while you are enjoying that lucky break, there are THOUSANDS of people who are spending 5 years on the street because of it. At my airline, many of those "snot-nosed kids" are mid-40's with a family and kids going to school who were shown the door a second time because of zero retirements coming RIGHT at the beginning of a huge recession. A little tact might be in order here. I would expect them to be a little bitter, wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by mshunter

I hope to meet you someday and shake your hand sir. I am 31, and you are the guy I was striving to be as a kid. I am now 31, and fly charter, and realize that the days of yesterday, which you were a part of, are gone because of the new "I got mine!" attitude that people have picked up. I will never make it to the airlines because of the way things are now, but man, I wish I could have sat right seat next to someone like you.


If you can still pass the physical and the checkrides, there is no reason why you shouldn't be there. Because there are people who are 30-40 who can pass both of those, and shouldn't be there.

Originally Posted by paladin

You only go around once in life and in these last few years I intend to relish every moment; the good with the bad. I guess my point in all this is if this is what you truly want, hang in there, be the best you can be at it and something good will come your way..

Originally Posted by finis72

Some thoughts from an old guy: I think this age 70 thread was started by the same false rumor mill as the DALPA is giving up 100 seat flying for a 30% raise(pick the number), neither one is going to happen. It does however make reading some of these threads more interesting.ICAO passed the age 65 and it was then only a matter of time before it would happen in our country. If I was 40 or so I would be against age 65 and do not take some of the comments on here personally, actually some are quite entertaining because they are so ignorant that it defies logic. If any of you younger guys would like to pitch in and restore my pension to what it was pre-bankruptcy I would be the proverbial dot tomorrow.The age 65 rule helped me tremendously but it came at a cost to others, I get it. I still hope to retire "early" and have a set $ amount that when I reach it I'm gone, Too much golf,fishing,hiking,skiing to do to hang around here.
I commute hub to hub and most always on the j/s, I also fly on an a/c with lots of 60p pilots. Having had this opportunity to observe I can no more tell the difference between a 40/50 year old and a 60p than I can tell the difference between a military or civilian background(operational wise).Some of the 60p guys look lots younger and some look like my grand dad. I know personally my reflexes aren't what they used to be, I play lots or softball and my mind gets to lots of balls that my glove doesn't get near. I would not want to put NVG"s on and go downtown then return to the ship for a night landing,been there done that and concede to the young guys.However, operating a modern jetliner is a whole different ball game, more about managing than actual flying skills. Nuff said.
I think it will take at least 15 to 20 years for ICAO to get the medical data to support any increase in the age limit and who knows what the data will show. Let's get such a huge contract improvement in 2012 that we all can go when we choose and not have it be a financial issue and not one more outsourced seat. Peace

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

I understand all of your points finis, truly I do. But this law is really a stick in the eye to the younger guys...here's a few examples:

1. The over 60 guys can't do their jobs without an under 60 guy in the other seat. So, the younger guy's presence allows the over 60 guy (who got to his position 5 years earlier than he should) to continue to keep the younger guy out of a promotion. Ouch.

2. Over 60 guys need a line check every 6 months. On my airplane, in order to make sure that this requirement doesn't get missed, they are line checking the guys every 4 months. A line check requires the checked pilot to perform both the takeoff and the landing. So just when the younger guy thinks he's going to get a takeoff and a landing to keep him from having to go to the sim, a line check guy boards and that's that. The young guy is off to the sim. If he's on reserve, he's off to the sim for another day away from family with no extra pay. Ouch.

I've only got 5 years left, but I sure wish there was a way to have done this without being such a stick in the eye to the younger guys.

Carl