Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Age 60 Public Comment Period >

Age 60 Public Comment Period

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Age 60 Public Comment Period

Old 11-01-2006, 08:47 AM
  #51  
Line Holder
 
OV1D's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: The Missionary Position
Posts: 68
Default

Originally Posted by AA767AV8TOR View Post
Since the senior guys have experienced some bad luck; instead of making some positive changes to the profession like getting better pay and retirements, now look for an easy target and are seeking to take out their aggression on the lower part of the seniority list. Their agenda is not only to completely erase an upper retirement age, but to keep their low seniority numbers and high paying jobs intact. Make no mistake about it, this is class warfare pitting pilots against pilots – the have’s verses the have not’s.
WOW, You do have a distorted perception of reality. You sound more and more like Karl Marx.

The most important consideration that you fail to address is that when people are forced to stop doing the activity that defines their identity, i.e. continuing in the profession that they love, this is unhealthy and leads to deterioration. Forced retirement for most airline pilots at age 60 is unnatural. I would say that least 95% of the pilots who could choose to fly past age 60 and if given the chance would remain exceedingly fit to fly to at least age 65. However, I would also say that at least 20% of all pilots in their 40s and 50s are miserable in their airline careers and are rapidly becoming physically unfit to fly.

I do not have documentation to this but I think that all of us who have been around the industry for awhile could agree with my observations.

Last edited by OV1D; 11-01-2006 at 09:16 AM.
OV1D is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 10:23 AM
  #52  
Day puke
 
FlyJSH's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
Default

Originally Posted by Velocipede View Post
Neither is it your divine right to upgrade on a set schedule. All your arguments are based on finances...yours. You want that left seat paycheck as soon as possible for as long as possible.

Unfortunately, the one issue you never address is fairness. Why is it fair for an international treaty (ICAO) to require the U.S. to allow foreign pilots to exercise their licenses in U.S. airspace until age 65 while U.S. pilots are denied the same rights by U.S. law?

Why is it fair for one U.S. law to require only pilots to retire at age 60, yet another denies them Social Security and Medicare until they turn 62?

We all understand your agenda: "Get out of my seat, oldtimer!", your contrary obfuscations and protestations notwithstanding.

"Me thinks the lady doth protest TOO much!"
AMEN Brother!
FlyJSH is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 10:41 AM
  #53  
Gets Weekends Off
 
HotMamaPilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FO - 757/767
Posts: 1,228
Default

Age 65 -- good for a few and bad for the many.

AA767AV8TOR[/QUOTE]

It's no wonder they call AA'ers sky nazis
HotMamaPilot is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 10:49 AM
  #54  
Gets Weekends Off
 
smoke's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 145
Default

the earlier i can retire, the better
smoke is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 11:18 AM
  #55  
Line Holder
 
OV1D's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: The Missionary Position
Posts: 68
Default

Originally Posted by smoke View Post
the earlier i can retire, the better
Then get out now! This industry should only be for pilots who love their profession enough to fly for as long as their health would allow.

Age alone must not the issue. Screen all pilots with the same standard as the age 65 pilot. A person’s age must not be the sole determination of one’s ability to safely perform the duties of an airline pilot. No one has proven 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 that others. There is the experience factor to be considered also. Everyone since the Wright Brothers has known that the more experienced pilot is the safer pilot. Though highly experienced pilots may suffer some varying amount decline in physical abilities as they age, their experience will more than compensate for any slight physical decline in performance.


I suggest that we increase the medical standards for every pilot regardless of age and make retirement a choice not an arbitrary age
OV1D is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 12:35 PM
  #56  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: A300 CAP FDX
Posts: 287
Default

1. Moving to "65" is just as arbitrary as 60 is now.

2. Having pairing restrictions betrays the "no safety issue here" question.
a300fr8dog is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 12:35 PM
  #57  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FoxHunter's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: Retired
Posts: 980
Default

http://www.age60rule.com/docs/2005_I...l_Analysis.pdf

ICAO

PDF page 29-30 Secretariats Comments

older pilots do not present any particular risk to flight safety. Neither is the Secretariat aware of scientific research that dictates the maintenance of the current upper age limit. On the contrary, studies conducted in Japan (1990) and United States (1993) both gave indication that pilots’ retirement age could safely be increased by several years, and a very recent study of 165 commuter aircraft accidents in the United States between 1983 and 1997 points to no notable differences between the age groups except that the percentage of crashes involving pilot error decreased somewhat with age, being lowest for pilots between 58 and 63. The over-all conclusion was that neither the prevalence nor the pattern of aircraft accidents change significantly as age increases from the 40s to the SOs and early 60s. In another recent study in the United States, a cohort of more than 3 300 commuter and air taxi pilots, who were between 45 and 54 years old in 1987, were followed for eleven years. No age-related increase in crash risk was shown, but the risk of crash decreased by half among pilots with more than 5 000 flying hours at baseline. In Japan, in a study of its 60-63 year-old airline pilots, it was found that none had been involved in an accident during the ten-year study period (1992- 2001) while during the same period 323 accidents including twenty-seven airline accidents had been reported to the authorities. The purpose of simulator checks, line flying checks and regulatory health examinations is to contain the risk of pilot ‘failure’ during the period of validity of the rating or medical certificate; it appears from available evidence that such checks do ensure adequate protection of flight safety for those aged under 60 years. The Secretariat knows of no reason to believe that they will fail to do so for those aged 60 to 64 years. Moreover, there is still today, as stated by AsMA, insufficient medical evidence to support any restrictions based on age alone. In the JAA countries, the upper age limit of 60 has been maintained for pilots in single-crew operations, but since 1 July 1999, the JAA regulations have allowed airline pilots to continue flying until age 65 with limitation to multi-crew operations and with the proviso that no other member of the flight crew is older than 59. However, the Secretariat is aware that this proviso was not based on medical grounds but rather the result of a compromise between the different parties. Although recommended by IATA, the Secretariat does not consider this proviso safety relevant for the following reason: For the individual pilot engaged in multi-crew operations, it is today generally accepted that a medical incapacitation risk of one percent per annum (“The 1% Rule”) is fully compatible with the desired flight safety level for airline operations. This risk level corresponds to one medical incapacitation per 100 years or approximately one million hours. Male pilots from Scandinavia, United Kingdom and NorthAmerica are lilely to approach this risk level when they are around 65, female pilots three to four years later. The risk of two older pilots becoming medically incapacitated at the same time, during the same one-hour flight, is thus one per trillion hours (1 trillion — 1012 or one million x one million), a risk so low that it can safely he disregarded.
FoxHunter is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 12:55 PM
  #58  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: A300 CAP FDX
Posts: 287
Default

FoxH:
Are the "Secretariats" comments in response to my last post?
a300fr8dog is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 01:02 PM
  #59  
Gets Weekends Off
 
smoke's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 145
Default

Originally Posted by OV1D View Post
Then get out now! This industry should only be for pilots who love their profession enough to fly for as long as their health would allow.
ok... im only 29

i do love my profession.

i still would rather retire at 60 than 65.

so no, i won't get out now.
smoke is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 01:31 PM
  #60  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Old Coastie's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: DC-10 S/O, forever.
Posts: 116
Default

Originally Posted by smoke View Post
ok... im only 29

i do love my profession.

i still would rather retire at 60 than 65.

so no, i won't get out now.
Man, if you're only 29 now and longing for retirement in 30+ years, you might be in the wrong profession. Take a positive attitude and don't end up as a 55 yr old b!tchin about your miserable job/life to all the 29 yr olds.
Old Coastie is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Andy
Major
1
10-30-2006 04:25 PM
rjlavender
Major
2
10-25-2006 09:55 AM
Freight Dog
Cargo
2
07-04-2006 05:58 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices