MAGNUM!!

How 'bout we up the age to 65 and significantly raise the bar when it comes to Class I physicals?

Packer Backer

How about a physical that is actually harder than a class 1 (maybe we could call it a class 1a) for those over 60? And then only let them fly as SIC.

nightrider

I read the comments and there aren't any from young guys so get in there and make your opinion known, the only ones listed are supporting a change. If you don't want it to change step in now.

nightrider

OV1D

There is no credible information available that supports the notion that all FAR Part 121 pilots over age 60 pose more of a safety risk than younger pilots.

Most of the world is moving to a retirement age of 65 for airline pilots. Japan and the Netherlands, to name but two, have done extensive studies which showed raising an airline pilot’s age is not a risk. Countries such as Japan, Australia, those of the Joint Aviation Authority in Europe...all have raised their pilots’ retirement age. Some 45 nations now allow their airline pilots to fly past the age of 60. Some of these pilots do so in United States airspace. The International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, Secretariat has now recommended a new upper age limit, with restriction to multi-crew, of 65 years. This recommendation is based on extensive studies, global experience (data compiled from 63 States) with older pilots, totaling 25,500 pilot-years, and the expressed wish of 93 States. The International Civil Aviation Organization—ICAO, now recognizes the harm done by the age 60 rule standard and will amend the international standard to age 65, which should become applicable on 23 November 2006.

A person’s age has never been proven to be the sole determination of one’s ability to safely perform the duties of a FAR Part 121 pilot. There is no evidence that proves that physical and mental decline can be measured by age alone. We have all observed that some people decline in their physical and mental abilities faster than others. There is the experience factor to be considered also. Since the Wright Brothers, the aviation industry has observed that the more experienced pilot is likely to be the safer pilot. Pilots may suffer some varying amounts of decline in physical and cognitive abilities as they age, however, their level of experience could compensate for any physical decline in performance.

If the United States Federal Government is to continue the age restriction in FAR Part 121-383(c), given that a pilot is otherwise qualified to practice in their profession, then that government must prove that there are enough reasons to deny pilots the full enjoyment of their profession. If pilots are denied piloting an aircraft for no reason other than because of age, then it is the Federal Government’s burden to first prove that all pilots suffer an unacceptable decline in their ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public. The proof that age 60 alone determines when a FAR Part 121 pilot must not operate aircraft in FAR Part 121 operations is something that Congress has directed the FAA to come up with but the FAA has failed to produce such proof. That proof simply does not exist.

The age 60 restriction in FAR Part 121.383(c) should be extended or abolished until/unless it is proven that all Far Part 121 pilots suffer an unacceptable decline in ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public.



Figures Lie and Liars figure.

The FAA has been deceptive in promoting its theories about aging and pilot safety. The FAA used flawed Methodology in their attempt to prove that Part 121 pilots over the age of 60 are unsafe. True, if you compare the accident rates of ALL pilots over age 60 with that of ALL pilots under age 60, as the FAA deceptively tried to do in it’s Civil Aeromedical Institute CAMI REPORT 4, the over age 60 group of pilots would appear to have a slightly higher accident rate. That is because the pilots over age 60 group include ONLY the FAR Part 135 which has a much higher accident rate then that of Part 121 scheduled airline pilots which are not now permitted to fly past age 60 and not included in the study. Even the FAA admits that their methodology was flawed. The FAA admits their is no proof that airline pilots flying past age 60 would pose a safety risk to the flying public. Now the FAA says that it is "NEUTRAL" as "safety" can no longer be used as a valid argument against changing the "Age 60 Rule Increasing the “Age 60 Rule” to age 65.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65043&q=age+60

Velocipede

Greed is in the eye of the beholder. Some would say the greediest are those who seem to think their upgrade will be delayed 5 years. Now that's greed making an assumption.

And it sounds like entitlement thinking to me.

Of course, they forget their career will be lengthened by 5 years as well. And they don't factor into the equation the number of us out here who fully intend to go at 60 regardless of what the Age ?? rule is at the time.

They seem to think that everyone is going to hang on until the bitter end.

OscartheGrouch

Excellent idea! I doubt some of these young folk could pass the physical when they reach 40. BTW no disability leave allowed. Oh! they want that too! Figures!

LAfrequentflyer

I'll be starting a aviation career later than most @ 42. I'd like to work as a pilot in 121 for as long as possible. If I want to work and can hold a class 1 / class 1a (good idea - i'm for it) and pass all appropriate line checks I should be able to.


-LAFF

hfbpilot

I make my comments to the people who matter and have the ability to change the law and don't waste time with the ones pushing for the change. In case you have not noticed they do not want to discuss any downside to changing the rule. Bfunds, 25 yr pay scales, people on furlough etc.

Packer Backer

I was talking about keeping the medicals the way they currently are for those of us below 60. Only those above 60 would be required to get a class 1a. It should include BMI requirements, cholesterol limits, tighter BP limits, stress test cardio ekg, a full MRI, and some sort of mental reasoning test. All that and keep them in the right seat.

Kieran

Interesting argument.

Here in Australia thankfully things have changed with regards to this forced retirement of 60. I'm surprised to hear about some selfish younger pilots in the states who are in favor of the premature retirement of senior pilots. When I reach 60 - I personally don’t wish to have any age restriction placed upon me, being forced into retirement whilst the aviation bug is urging you to jump in the cockpit of a large aircraft. You only live once! Seniors, Captains/ First Officers have your fun in the aircraft! J - The time will come for you juniors when these seniors are 100% happy with their efforts throughout their career.

I'm sure, once a junior reaches such an age milestone in some 40 years time, one wouldn’t want the pressure of being forced to retire / find employment.


Just my opinion.