Originally Posted by johnso29

If he found her with the poolboy, and she was the one commuting adultery then I think she's gonna get squat.

Originally Posted by lolwut

I'll vote for whoever makes it their main stance to bring the age back to 60.

Every pilot who voluntarily works past 60 now is forcing the pilots who follow them to work past 60 just to get to where they would've been originally. Age 65 (or 70) is allowing a completely selfish group of pilots spend more years at the top on the backs of all the pilots below them, while they spent their entire career benefiting from the retirements of those ahead of them at 60.

Who wants to work to 70 anyways? Not me! I'd rather not die from old age in a hotel, on a layover, or in an airline cockpit.

Maybe its time for an anti-Part 121 Age 60+ pilot movement. Single these people out and most importantly, those who pushed for the change. Sometimes it is hard to decide if ALPA is a union or an enemy. And to the 60+ers: your selfishness and inability to plan for the future is not my fault and I shouldn't have to pay for it.

Originally Posted by gloopy

The problem with that is there is simply no way to screen for the age-related inevitable. If you allow a "fly til you die" system and then try to backstop it with medical and proficiency testing, unless you test every single day for both, you won't catch problems until after it is too late. Age 60 and even more for age 65, pilots well past not only their peak but what is safe in our operating environments continue to plow ahead and test the system's numerous other built in safety layers. The fact is cognitive/reflexive abilities as well as basic medical issues that have serious effects on safety, many of which can be categorized as fairly rapid onset and all of which are strongly correlated with age, makes an age related cutoff completely justifiable. We try and balance it with "fairness" and yes even economic reasons, but in the end not coming up with an age cutoff number is irresponsible and a threat to safety.

You simply can not catch every indivual pilot's cognitive/reflexive/medical cutoff in a system where you abolish a mandatory retirement age. Age 65, which should be 60 but was changed for purely political reasons, is still a vital backstop to the inevitable human race against the realities of aging and there is no system even possible that can accurately and reliably catch the increased threat correlated with age on a daily basis.

Originally Posted by nerd2009

Consider this, a 70 year old captain taking off at LGA in a blizzard with gusting winds, after a 1:30 taxi, and return to deice again, looses and engine at V1. Who will wind up going in the river ? The 70 year old captain or the 28 year old captain ? Experience is one thing to consider, but more importantly, who has the better reflex to abort the takeoff the quickest and avoiding a swim in the east river ?

Originally Posted by Nortonious

oooohhhh!! Think I hurt my neck from a simultaneous cringe and laugh. In fact I just about LMAO. Not the first google-surprise I've heard of or experienced, but quite possibly the worst. Will staring at the sun burn away the image?

Originally Posted by DAL73n

Actually, you picked the wrong age for the young captain - shouldn't have any 28 year old captains (not enough experience) just like we shouldn't have 28 year old brain surgeons. It's up to each person to decide if he can handle the job not some arbitrary age and only in the flying profession.