![]() |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 1691457)
Yes, they are. Up until a certain point it's a fairly weak relationship, and there are absolutely other factors, some controllable, which affect your health.
But your physical condition does degrade after about age 20...slowly at first, but the pace picks up later in life. After age 60-ish the risk of sudden incapacitation rises noticeably. Also alertness, stamina, etc falls off too. Eventually there is a very real likelyhood of rapid degradation occurring between exams and sim sessions Look at the current FAA medical exam standards...the frequency and scope increases at age 40 (EKG, more frequent exams). While there are probably genetic outliers who could fly airliners safely until age 99, there are several problems with eliminating (or even significantly increasing) the age limit... - You would have to increase the both the frequency and scope of exams and sim/cognitive testing . Who's gonna pay for that? The hypothetical 99 year old pilot would probably need a full astronaut physical and a PC at the start of every trip. - Older folks simply will not have the same stamina regardless of health, so rest rules would have to be amended again. Bottom line the system needs to manage the health of pilots without going to ridiculous and costly extremes. Providing the occasional "genetic outlier" with the opportunity to keep flying way beyond the bell curve is probably not worth the cost and hassle to everybody else. |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1691252)
Im fine with raising the age if we have real physicals with cognitive testing. That would eliminate half the pilots right now.
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 1691457)
But your physical condition does degrade after about age 20...slowly at first, but the pace picks up later in life. After age 60-ish the risk of sudden incapacitation rises noticeably.
|
Plan A and Plan B
We all know that the regional airline management want to abolish the ATP requirement for the SIC, (note I wrote "ATP" not "1500 hour rule", because a 121 SIC doesn't need 1500 hours, he/she needs an ATP), because they simply want to be able to continue to hire cheap pilots. No brainer.
Plan B, (assuming the ATP for SIC rule remains in effect) will be to increase (or remove) the age 65 rule. This will slow the progression/flow of pilots from regionals to major airlines, but will be MUCH more costly to both the regionals AND the majors. Regional airlines will retain more of their current, (but higher seniority/higher cost) pilots,......and the majors will also retain more of their current, (higher seniority/higher cost) pilots. But at least regionals, (and the majors who depend on that feed) will find it easier to staff their regional airplanes,.....in theory. Sadly, I think the pilot unions will fight the ATP SIC rule, tooth and nail,......but I don't see them putting up the same fight over increasing age 65, because ALPA, et al. makes a LOT of money from the dues of those higher seniority pilots. Start talking to your union reps about opposing Plan B before it's too late. |
Originally Posted by Packrat
(Post 1691489)
Be careful what you wish for. Those standards could eliminate you. There a lots of young guys out there who couldn't pass a tougher physical.
Every single inflight incapacitation of an airline pilot was someone well below age 60. |
Originally Posted by tom11011
(Post 1691227)
New York's Senator Schumer responds to threat of reversing safety rules.
News for July 25th, 2014 | Airline Pilot Info The likely outcome from this is some kind of report that the rule needs to be changed. The FAA will send them to congress because they will refuse to lower the standards for an ATP any more. It will pass the House, and Chucky will bottle it up in the Senate and tell them to pound sand, game over. This will never get changed until the Republicans have 61 votes in the Senate, then it still may not depending on whether they hold together. And the chances of Republicans getting 61 votes in the Senate is very unlikely, no matter wheat Obama does. |
I definitely feel there is a gulf between regional pilots and mainline pilots insofar as safety. But I don't think the problem is regulatory I think it's contractual.
The fact is that regional pilots regardless of the training standards of their carrier or their personal level of experience are paid substantially less and work substantially more hours. In many cases the average day in the regionals is a duty day that bumps right up against the max 117 limits. That certainly happens at mainline carriers but it would be a major stretch to say it comes anywhere near the level of frequency it does at the regional level. The average regional pilot is less rested and more stressed. When the substandard pay causes problems at home that the majority of legacy pilots don't face or face it with less severity less often, its easy to bring that stress to work. Stress, we all agree, lowers cognitive awareness. Those 20 day months, worries ove bills not paid with those awesome 30K salaries, frequent 117 extensions and 14 hour days that are the standard in the regionals most certainly effects the safety bottom line. The mainline pilot groups simply have better CBA protections that create standards much more restrictive insofar as duty day and days at work per month. Those same CBA rules at regional carriers are pretty much all less restrictive and in many cases the same as the 117 regs. That allows regional airlines mgt. to use the limits as the standard. And with that you get a pilot that is more stressed and more fatigued. But all that being said its probably not a huge difference because the job is hard on one's body despite livery. |
Originally Posted by Slick111
(Post 1691494)
We all know that the regional airline management want to abolish the ATP requirement for the SIC, (note I wrote "ATP" not "1500 hour rule", because a 121 SIC doesn't need 1500 hours, he/she needs an ATP), because they simply want to be able to continue to hire cheap pilots. No brainer.
Plan B, (assuming the ATP for SIC rule remains in effect) will be to increase (or remove) the age 65 rule. This will slow the progression/flow of pilots from regionals to major airlines, but will be MUCH more costly to both the regionals AND the majors. Regional airlines will retain more of their current, (but higher seniority/higher cost) pilots,......and the majors will also retain more of their current, (higher seniority/higher cost) pilots. But at least regionals, (and the majors who depend on that feed) will find it easier to staff their regional airplanes,.....in theory. Sadly, I think the pilot unions will fight the ATP SIC rule, tooth and nail,......but I don't see them putting up the same fight over increasing age 65, because ALPA, et al. makes a LOT of money from the dues of those higher seniority pilots. Start talking to your union reps about opposing Plan B before it's too late. None of this addresses the root of this staffing problem. Young people are looking at what they now have to invest to get into this career and are looking elsewhere because the return on their investment is so ridiculously low. Plus it is impossible to get student loans to cover all of your aviation training because Sallie mae and Key will not finance any loans that are not government backed which limits you to $80,0000. I got into this for around $30,000. Most of these students today are looking at least $150,000 to get into this profession. Until airline management teams wake up to this, and decide to make this a lucrative enough career to justify the investment OR pony up the money to pay for someone's training cost this problem will continue to get worse. Repealing the ATP rule might ease some of the pain, but it will not eliminate it. |
Originally Posted by FlyingKat
(Post 1691488)
On my last physical, my AME told me they are looking at getting rid of the retirement age for the right seat, and keeping the limit at 65 for the left seat.
|
Who wants to fly past 65 anyway? Retirement at 60 is good enough for me.
|
Originally Posted by Waitingformins
(Post 1691496)
It was reported that United flight 1603 the captain was 63 and died.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:35 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands