Originally Posted by Jetjok

For the record, the rule was stupid when it was first pushed through and it's stupid now.

Originally Posted by Jetjok

You're the one who doesn't get it. I took a job in an industry where I knew that I'd be forced to leave the pilots seat when I turned 60. I've turned 60 and am now in the flight engineers seat, with no complaints. If the rule is changed, I'll gladly go back to a window seat, if not, I'll gladly stay where I am until I get bored doing the job. Then I'll retire. But it's not up to an Ahole like you to tell me when I should retire or not. Frankly I'm sick of you guys always saying that the older guys want it all, because you guys are exactly the same. You don't want to sit in a seat for more than a few months, because you think that the airline owes you a left seat, and you want it now.

For the record, the rule was stupid when it was first pushed through and it's stupid now. What I don't understand is why you think that eliminating this rule, while at the same time, not allowing children to drink, drive, vote, enter into a legal contract, get married (legally), join the military, and any other number of things has anything whatsoever to do with each other. Sort of like comparing apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by Andy

IF you'd take the time to research it, you'd know that the rule came about as one of the measures to improve safety in the airline industry. The accident rate was through the roof when the FAA came into existance.
Like it or not, the safety measures implemented by the FAA lowered the commercial aviation accident rate.

Originally Posted by captswife

Because SS starts at 65 I guess we expect to be discriminated against at that age. Whoever suggested testing probably has the right idea...as long as you are bright and fit...

I like to see gray hair in cockpit when I fly. probably would not like canes though!

Originally Posted by pinseeker

Sounds like someone needs a nap . As far as apples and oranges, I simply replied to your statement that you didn't think not letting an 18 year old drive is age discrimination. Well, I don't think that setting an age limit where it is proven that reflexes and cognitive skills start to degrade is age discrimination either. That age is different for everyone, but until they start testing for it, there needs to be an age limit, just like there is for most other things in life. Maybe a little age discrimination would have prevented the 90 year old from plowing into that farmers market and killing people because he could find the brake.

Originally Posted by FoxHunter

The fact is that the laws of this country protect citizens from discrimination due to gender, race, and age. In the case of age only persons age 40 or older are protected. With a little more experience you may not have pilots taking off from the wrong, unlit runway, killing all their passengers.

Originally Posted by reCALcitrant

Because all of us in the industry care what the Capt's wife has to say. Must be a former Colonel's wife. They think they carry the rank too.

Originally Posted by FoxHunter

The fact is that the laws of this country protect citizens from discrimination due to gender, race, and age. In the case of age only persons age 40 or older are protected. With a little more experience you may not have pilots taking off from the wrong, unlit runway, killing all their passengers.

Originally Posted by FoxHunter

Why? A great deal has to do with the experience level in the cockpit. Now you still advocate kicking the most experienced out, good that the FAA no longer holds that view.

Originally Posted by Andy

Um, sure, if you say so. I'd say that it's because we're vigilant enough to remove people from the cockpit prior to serious degradation in skills.

And the study that you will point to as far as this experience level is ...? All studies that I've seen indicate that once you're past the first 1500 hours, any increased experience does little to improve safety.