Age

[micraman]

Where does it say that 2 60 year old pilots cannot fly together and WHY????.

[CS-Hover]

by the JAA, see JAR-FCL 2.060

JAR–FCL 2.060 Curtailment of privileges of licence holders aged 60 years or more
(a) Age 60–64. The holder of a pilot licence who has attained the age of 60 years shall not act as a pilot of an aircraft engaged in commercial air transport operations except:
(1) as a member of a multi-pilot crew and provided that,
(2) such holder is the only pilot in the flight crew who has attained age 60.
(b) Age 65. The holder of a pilot licence who has attained the age of 65 years shall not act as a pilot of an aircraft engaged in commercial air transport operations.

can found it here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Section%201%20Subpart%20A%20-%20Amdt%203%20(JAR-FCL%202).pdf)

[gulliBell]

That really sucks. I know of a particular ICAO jurisdiction where a 70+ year old is still flying on single-pilot commercial ops. As long as they meet the Class 1 medical standard, they are good to go.

To me it seems narrow minded to stop someone from flying solely upon reaching a certain age. And what's the logic for age 65, I know of some 40 year olds who dropped dead at the controls following a sudden heart attack.

[soggyboxers]

ICAO Annex 1, Personnel Licensing, amendment 197, effective 23 November 2006:

2.1.10.1 A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, shall not permit the holders thereof to act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot where the other pilot is younger than 60 years of age, their 65th birthday.

2.1.10.2 Recommendation.- A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, should not permit the holders thereof to act as co-pilot of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 65th birthday.

Althought this applies to ICAO airspace, contracting states have to either adopt the change or publish an exception to the ICAO change. A State may wish to impose a lower maximum age limit than that specified by ICAO in 2.1.10.1. It may do this for the licenses it issues, but, as stated above, it cannot prevent an aircraft operated by a PIC holding a licence from another State, who is below the ICAO upper limit, from operating in its airspace.

[Farmer 1]

Isn't ageism illegal these days, or am I being a tad naïve?

[Whirlygig]

No Farmer, you're not being naive - it's all here!

Age_discrimination (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=261681)

GulliBell, which particular ICAO jurisdiction is this please?

Cheers

Whirls

[gulliBell]

Whirls, check your PM's

[Whirlygig]

True but one can still fly "commercially" up to whatever age (current medicals notwithstanding) and that is by flying aerial work i.e. instructing or some photography work. And that is where it starts to become a nonsense.

Cheers

Whirls

[HillerBee]

Don't forget flying as a corporate pilot.

[soggyboxers]

TTT,
As we get older, we are at risk of more sudden, unexpected and potentially incapacitating illnesses which are not all likely to show up on Class 1 medicals (unless they start routine CAT scans, and angiograms), so there has to be some sort of age cut off doesn't there??
On what do you base this - gut instinct, personal feeling or medical research? This correspondence between the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the FAA seems to refute that:
Discussion on Raising Pilot Retirement age in USA (http://www.eeoc.gov/foia/letters/2006/adea_individualizedassessment_faa60rule.html)
Particularly:
As with age 60, there is no credible medical, scientific or aviation evidence to suggest that concerns for safety require a mandatory retirement age for pilots of 65. Raising the age limit to 65, however, will serve as a useful transitional step, allowing commercial pilots to continue flying beyond age 60 while the FAA plans a full transition to individualized testing of the skills and health of all pilots, regardless of age.
Moreover, far from being a liability, having older pilots in the cockpit may enhance aviation safety, as the practical experience of these pilots has great value in a profession calling for complex and split-second judgments.
This is also borne out by findings, published in the February 27, 2007, issue of Neurology®, the scientific journal of the American Academy of Neurology:
The study's results come as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) considers a proposal to raise the mandatory age of retirement for commercial airline pilots to 65 from the current age of 60.
For the study, researchers tested 118 non-commercial airline pilots, age 40 to 69, annually for three years. All pilots were currently flying, had between 300 and 15,000 hours of total flight time, and had a FAA medical certificate. Pilots were tested on accuracy of executing communications, traffic avoidance, scanning cockpit instruments to detect emergencies, and executing a visual approach landing.
The study found while older pilots initially performed worse than younger pilots, older pilots showed less of a decline in overall flight summary scores than younger pilots, and over time their traffic avoidance performances improved more than that of younger pilots. The study also found pilots with advanced FAA pilot ratings and certifications showed less performance decline over time, regardless of age.
"These findings show the advantageous effect of prior experience and specialized expertise on older adults' skilled cognitive performances," said study author Joy L. Taylor, PhD, with the Stanford/VA Aging Clinical Research Center in Palo Alto, California. "Our discovery has broader implications beyond aviation to the general issue of aging in the workplace and the objective assessment of competency in older workers."
Researchers suggest that pilots with advanced FAA pilot ratings may maintain performance over time due to a mechanism of preserved task-specific knowledge, known as crystallized intelligence, which is similar to what is seen in music or expert chess playing.
The study was supported by the Sierra-Pacific Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center, the Medical Research Service of the Department of Veteran Affairs, and the National Institute on Aging.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by American Academy of Neurology.
There is indeed evidence published to show that as one gets older there is more chance of an incapacitating illness, but an Israeli Air force study seems to think that fatal accidents due to human error are far more than those due to pilot incapacity and inexperienced pilots have a 2 - 3 times greater incidence of accidents due to pilot error. A balanced crew with a younger pilot with better health and faster reflexes, coupled with the greater experience of an older pilot probably provides the safest 2 crew flight regime:
The epidemiology of sudden death, the etiology of inflight sudden incapacitation, and the influence of pilot age and experience on air accident rates are reviewed in order to determine the aeromedical emphasis needed to minimize accidents. Sudden deaths in men over age 35 are nearly all due to coronary artery disease, whereas in those under 35 years they are mostly due to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The incidence of fatal accidents from human error is, however, far greater than that from physical illness. Since inexperienced pilots have a 2-3 times increased incidence of mishaps due to pilot error, the estimated risk of disease related in-flight sudden incapacitation should be balanced by consideration of pilot experience. Therefore, it may be preferable to grant waivers to experienced pilots with an increased incidence of disease-related inflight sudden incapacitation than to replace them with novices. We conclude that overly strict medical criteria may paradoxically increase accident rates.
Here's a questionnaire ICAO sent out to member states when it was considering the change:
ICAO Position on Age (http://age60rule.com/docs/2005_ICAO_Query.pdf)
In fact CASA in response to the questionnaire said:
... with respect to whether the [older] pilots have significantly more medical problems ...., we would say a
qualified yes. The qualification is that incidence of medical problems rises from about the age of 45, not from
60. CASA medical certification data do not show that incapacitation as a medical problem is more significant
for pilots older than 60 years compared to those under 60 years.
Canada
So based on this maybe we should stop all pilots over the age of 45 flying with another pilot who has already attained the age of 45! :E
Finally, the ICAO secretariat commented:
SECRETARIAT’S COMMENTS
Australia points to the well-known fact that the incidence of medical problems [in the population at large]
increases with age and becomes significant much earlier than at age 60, usually already after the fourth
decade. Canada emphasizes that airline pilots as a group are healthier than the background population owing
to close medical surveillance and elimination from the group of those with serious diseases. New Zealand
considers the accident rates too low for the age of the pilots involved to have any statistical significance. The
Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States has observed no change in safety record and competence in
older pilots when compared with their younger colleagues. The Secretariat agrees fully with the viewpoints
presented by Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The information provided by the Organisation of
Eastern Caribbean States is corroborated by the answers from a large majority of the States that have
replied to the State letter. Mongolia is the only State indicating a “not good” experience with older pilots.
This is difficult to understand as Mongolia also indicates fewer incidents and accidents involving older pilots
and even state that their older pilots have the same incidence of medical problems as other pilots. Moreover,
this State has currently no active pilots above the age of 57 years. Slovakia is the only State indicating that
older pilots have more incidents and accidents than their younger colleagues. Even so, Slovakia states that
its experience with older pilots is good.
The full final report of the member states to ICAO before it revised the age rule can be found at:
Age 60 Rule - Full Analysis (http://age60rule.com/docs/2005_ICAO_Full_Analysis.pdf)
Hope that helps :}

[Max_Chat]

Retire gracefully with enough time to have a good time and forget this ageism cr@p. :ugh:

To hell with it, I vote for a retirement age of 55. :D

Why are people obsessed with working until they die. GET A LIFE and enjoy it! :confused:

[Fareastdriver]

I am 67 years old. Flying full time commercial public transport, in command and salaried, now working in China. In the last two years I have flown in both Australia and the South Pacific.
I HAVE GOT A LIFE!!!!!!!

[Whirlybird]

I started learning to fly helicopters at the age of 50 and got my FI rating at the age of 54. I didn't have the chance earlier in life, unlike some of you lucky sods. And I now have MUCH MORE of a life than I had before! So I intend to go on instructing while I can and/or until I get tired of it. If I'm healthy, Max_Chat, what right do you or anyone else have to tell me that I shouldn't or I can/t????!!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad: Ever heard of individual choice?

[eagle 86]

MC,
Due you consider flying and being paid for it as "work"? I certainly don't - in fact I don't know what I'm going to do for a living! But seeing as I started my aviation career in 1964 I just might consider doing it for a bit longer. Have thoroughly enjoyed my "life" so far!
GAGS
E86

[psyan]

MC has my vote. :D All this whining about ageism is tiresome. If you can change it then do so don't just sit there whining "I couldn't get to do it until later in life"..........."why should I have to stop when I can get the medical?"....blah blah blah.:ugh: Heard it all before. If you go past yer sell by date you end up on the special offers counter before being discarded.

Best Wishes

:ok:

[Whirlygig]

All this whining about ageism is tiresome

Then don't read it :rolleyes:


why should I have to stop when I can get the medical?

Go on then, ATFQ!! And then answer this .... if a commercially qualified pilot is deemed medically fit enough to instruct trial lessons at age 65, why is he not fit enough to take a pleasure flight? Eh?

You retire at whichever age you wish. Is it any skin off your nose if someone wants to keep flying?

Cheers

Whirls

[check]

I was going to react to the comments by Pysan and MC, but then decided to have a cup of tea - more pleasure in that!

I then thought how sad it was that these two individuals and perhaps others have completely missed the point of the argument. What is being asked is for the right, should we wish, to continue flying when being fully qualified and meeting the medical standards beyond the current cut off date.

This request does not mean all pilots must continue to the bitter end. Many will wish to retire at 55 other 58, 60, or even to state pension age - whatever that will be. Each individual is entitled to live his or her life as they choose without some plonker saying they shouldn't.

For some flying is a job, others a means to an end, others a way of life, and for a few it is life. To MC and Pyson and those others who subscribe to their blinkered approach to life - I suggest they get a life, remove the chip on their shoulder and allow others to live their lives as they wish. After all we are only here once.

[Max_Chat]

Amazing how many fish you can catch with one little hook, LOL. :)

All the best to anyone of any age in the wonderful world of flying helicopters. :ok:

[psyan]

WG tapped away in annoyance: "Go on then, ATFQ!! And then answer this .... if a commercially qualified pilot is deemed medically fit enough to instruct trial lessons at age 65, why is he not fit enough to take a pleasure flight? Eh?"

Instructing/trial lessons is one thing, undertaking commercial activities is entirely another in the practical sense. The trend is not to legislate for every single variation but to do so en-mass within defined parameters. The current feeling is that [as another poster pointed out] that beyond a certain age [right or wrong] there is a higher incidence of sudden medical problems. Now tell me that isn't so.

" You retire at whichever age you wish. Is it any skin off your nose if someone wants to keep flying?"

Nope certainly not sunshine, you or anyone else keep at it until you get fed up. From my own point of view, [I am 56] I'd like to retire as soon as I am able to. But I have been more fortunate than most having been in the flying game since 75.

The simple fact is that this whole subject is not about ageism or kicking out the old farts its about trying to do the best for public safety. Surely you can see that? It might not be the best way and may very well need adjusting to reflect more current trends but it aint going to happen in my flight lifetime.

I once [not too long ago] knew of an 'old' commercial pilot who persistently failed to fully check his aircraft simply because he physically was not able to do the climbing thing. Thankfully he is no longer employed in a commercial environment. :ok:


Check calmly wibbled:" I was going to react to the comments by Pysan and MC, but then decided to have a cup of tea - more pleasure in that!"

Apparently not enough :=

I then thought how sad it was that these two individuals and perhaps others have completely missed the point of the argument. What is being asked is for the right, should we wish, to continue flying when being fully qualified and meeting the medical standards beyond the current cut off date."

No the point is not missed.

"This request does not mean all pilots must continue to the bitter end."

Assuming there was some form of enforcement?

"Many will wish to retire at 55 other 58, 60, or even to state pension age - whatever that will be. Each individual is entitled to live his or her life as they choose without some plonker saying they shouldn't."

I agree but providing that in doing so you do not affect others rights.

".......for a few it is life."

Sad

"To MC and Pyson and those others who subscribe to their blinkered approach to life - I suggest they get a life, remove the chip on their shoulder and allow others to live their lives as they wish. After all we are only here once."

LOL how on earth do you perceive that I am affecting your life or others?:mad: I have no chip that I am aware of. My approach to life is far from what you might imagine. We are all entitled to our opinions are we not? You seem to subscribe to that ideal. Or have I got that wrong as well.

It's only a game m'dear :D

Best Wishes

[Whirlygig]

If I replied in in annoyance, then that was surely because the tone of your original post was rather antagonistic. I note that this tone has rather calmed down now so maybe you were another who was going fishing - I had already spotted that Max Chat was; not too sure about you Psyan!!!!


Instructing/trial lessons is one thing, undertaking commercial activities is entirely another in the practical sense. The trend is not to legislate for every single variation but to do so en-mass within defined parameters.


What, in practical terms, is the difference between a trial lesson and a pleasure except in the former, the customer has the chance to operate the controls. This has not bearing on the medical fitness of the pilot-in-command. You say that the trend is NOT to legislate for every single variant but the definitions of aerial work and public transport are variations. In some cases, especially with aerial work, it is not down to the nature of the work but the employment status of, say, a cameraman.

If you're 56, why don't you retire now? Is it because your pension isn't enough. That is certainly the case with some pilots and not necessarily through any fault of their own and therefore need to continue working. Why shouldn't they be allowed to if they can?

Cheers

Whirls

[topendtorque]

Now, what were the words of that 60's hit song?


"will you still need me,
will you still feed me,
when I'm 64?"


I do hope that the two Whirlys' will feel inclined to humour us old geriatrics in that regard when we get there. Which of course will be well before them.:ok:

Me, I just hope that I can still take a "pleasure" or two at that ripe old age, meantime, keep on trucking.
tet

[psyan]

Whirls tapped away writing: "maybe you were another who was going fishing - I had already spotted that Max Chat was; not too sure about you Psyan!!!!"

I have never been much good at fishing, baiting the line perhaps.

There is a difference in the work you describe and that of carrying large numbers of passengers either in a lump or short hop.

I rather think that since you do not see the point, there is little mileage in going any further with this.:bored:

"If you're 56, why don't you retire now? Is it because your pension isn't enough. "

I have no financial problems. My decision to retire is orientated around other issues none of which are anything to do with flying.

"That is certainly the case with some pilots and not necessarily through any fault of their own"

Oh JHFC whose fault is it then? I have a brilliant pension but I suppose that was nothing to do with me then was it?:=


"and therefore need to continue working. Why shouldn't they be allowed to if they can?"

Oh dear........because current legislation says no.

Best Wishes



:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[Whirlygig]

I rather think that since you do not see the point, there is little mileage in going any further with this

Quite :ugh: Although I'm not sure who is not seeing who's point.

Why the :mad:?

Cheers

Whirls

[check]

Psyan, you are right as much as I enjoy a cup of tea I do like a little friendly discussion. Were would PPRUNE be without it?

"I agree but providing that in doing so you do not affect others rights."

I'm not sure that I understand this statement in the present context as how being able to or wish to work longer affect anyone's rights.

Once again you are right, we are all permitted our own opinions, it's just that some of us are unable to put them forward without causing offence. Then the fish bite!

I have no axe to grind on the subject, I'm an old fart now but am happy to be a part of a two crew operation. My first 8000 hours were single pilot and I was happy with my own company, the next 9000 hours and growing have also been great by having the company of a second pilot. At 65 I'll stop because I have to not because I want to, and while I will be sad it won't be the end of the world, I've the second half of my life to live. Dread to think what my wife will say having me home all day though!!

[psyan]

Check quietly pounded away stating thus: " Psyan, you are right as much as I enjoy a cup of tea I do like a little friendly discussion. Were would PPRUNE be without it?"

Quite.:)

["I agree but providing that in doing so you do not affect others rights."]

"I'm not sure that I understand this statement in the present context as how being able to or wish to work longer affect anyone's rights."

My phrasing means simply that the desires of some to continue flying is fine provided that there is NO risk as a consequence of age related issues, to those that have a right to the best standards available and that can be legislated for. Because that is what the customer wants. If you are an old fart but can still make the medical grade fine. There is however an increased risk as a consequence of age its a fact of life. That risk should not be ignored simply because a few are late starters and haven't had their fill just yet or out of some sense of 'but it aint fair' [stamp of feet petulantly]. To increase age without stringent checks is to increase risk. Even then, there is no fool proof method of defining possible sudden incapacitation as a consequence of age. Therefore a limit is imposed on age on the assumption that up to that point the circumstances are manageable. It's a slippery slope and there are many at the top looking down with regret and absolutely no chance in hell of avoiding the journey.

Already there a movers to increase initial ages for driving cars and there have been moves to restrict driving with age. The reasons behind this are sound and the aim is to improve safety. There is no difference here and there will be those who fall out of the 'average' and who consequently will feel marginalised. That is the way it is.

"Once again you are right, we are all permitted our own opinions, it's just that some of us are unable to put them forward without causing offence. Then the fish bite!"

Well it does not really matter what you do, there will always be someone to take a fence.

"I have no axe to grind on the subject, I'm an old fart now but am happy to be a part of a two crew operation. My first 8000 hours were single pilot and I was happy with my own company, the next 9000 hours and growing have also been great by having the company of a second pilot. At 65 I'll stop because I have to not because I want to, and while I will be sad it won't be the end of the world, I've the second half of my life to live. Dread to think what my wife will say having me home all day though!!"

LOL ......well I am looking forward to the 'second half of my life' as you put it. I am capable of more than just this and besides, there is far more to do and see. However, being at home will seem very strange......not sure where it is.........

Best Wishes

[soggyboxers]

I think the only one with blinkers here is psyan. He obviously failed to read the bit in the ICAO report which said:

As with age 60, there is no credible medical, scientific or aviation evidence to suggest that concerns for safety require a mandatory retirement age for pilots of 65

or:

The incidence of fatal accidents from human error is, however, far greater than that from physical illness.

Maybe when he gets a bit older he'll widen his horizons :E

[Bertie Thruster]

The Australian resolution suits me.

[SirVivr]

The DCA of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago just changed it's rules to allow a pilot to fly until age 65, if he is a member of a multiple pilot crew. He is required to have a yearly medical.

The only restriction is that the total age of the pilots not exceed 120 years.

Single Pilot for "Commercial Air Transport carrying passengers" is also 65, but reqiures a medical every 6 months.

I am copying this from my license.

Had to change crews recently because of the total age, but now we have four young female pilots.

That's life in the tropics.

Chas A
SirVivr

[psyan]

Sirvivr tapped rhythmically: " Had to change crews recently because of the total age, but now we have four young female pilots.

That's life in the tropics."

:ok:That dear chap is precisely why you need to retire. Nice weather, beach, women............you got it all now. Why bother flying?:ugh:

[anjouan]

Just possibly, without the benefit of a military pension to supplement his salary, because he needs the money :ugh:

[Whirlybird]

Would people favour a higher mandatory retirement age? And if so what would it be? Or The ability to continue flying until you either fail the medical (which I guess would become more comprehensive) or drop down dead??

The second. On the grounds of logic and fairness, and lack of evidence that it shouldn't be this way.

[ambidextrous]

Anjouan,
Just for clarification & without wishing to go off at a tangent to this thread.
Unless you retired from the UK military after 31st.March 1975 (I didn't) you don't receive a pension if you served less than 21 years, only a gratuity. Yes, really!
Pro-rata pensions were only introduced as a result of the introduction of the 1973 Social Security Act.
If there are any UK ex-military out there who wish to change this state of affairs then go to: www.afpg.info/
with fraternal greetings,
ambi:ugh:

[Fareastdriver]

For those who think that more severe medical check are required for pilots over sixty the Ppruners in Oz will be aware of what CASA requires. Another country also has no age limits and that is The Peoples Republic of China. The principle is the same as OZ, a full medical once a year with a top-up six months later, only that the full medical is slightly different.
First there is a GOD ALMIGHTY medical at a nominated hospital. This is the whole wack. Body X-rays, echograms, blood samples and lots and lots of general poking about.. After that, off to another hospital to do the stress ECG, the audio and eyes. When that is finished and you have the necessary certificates you go to the CAAC hospital to do you airman’s medical. They repeat a few things and subject you to a fiendish sight test, ENT and reflexes. At the end of that you get your Class One medical certificate.
The Chinese tend to be short sighted and it is depressing watching a young wannebe pilot struggling to decipher something at five metres which is blindingly obvious to you. However outside the door there are lots of U/T F/As to chat up.
But that is not the end.
To work in China you need a Work Permit and a Residence Visa. To stop the place being cluttered up with crocked foreigners you have to take another medical at another nominated hospital. Your Class One aviation medical doesn’t count, it’s a different department.
A similar whirl of X-rays, echograms, ECGs, three blood samples this time and then they put you through the mangle looking at things the other three hospitals haven’t thought about. You get spat out after about three hours and a week later you get a certificate and a book that catalogs every part of you anatomy with what’s right or wrong about it.
After all that I don’t think I’m going to pop my clogs allofasudden.

[soggyboxers]

FED,

You say that there are no age limits in China, but I don't think that's strictly true. I know there are a number of over 60s working in southern China, but I was offered a job flying in northern China and the offer was withdrawn because the northern department of CAAC wouldn't issue a medical certificate to anyone over 60. I'd already been told about the tests to which you referred, but they wouldn't even allow me to sit a medical.

[SirVivr]

"Just possibly, without the benefit of a military pension to supplement his salary, because he needs the money."

No military pension, so yes, I need the money.

Mentoring young female pilots is also VERY good for the male ego.

Retirement would preferably be on the island of Phuket. What gives out first? Your liver or your prostrate?

Two years to decide.

Chas A
SirVivr

[Fareastdriver]

Soggyboxers
I can believe you, it is difficult if not impossible without a track record. I did, because the company pushed for me and spoke to the right people. Twelve years with them helped. An added bonus was that several Chinese pilots in our organisation who were expecting to be put out to grass have been retained because of my situation and very happy they are too.
Look on the bright side. Tanjian isn't too bad but Tanggu is a bloody miserable place. That's when you can see it through the smog. I flew out of there one winter and there was 15 kms of thin pack ice to start off with and then had to fly around a jack up that resembled a Christmas cake until they had chipped the ice off the helideck.
However we are straying off the thread. The point I am trying to make is that there is a system, both in Australia and China that ensures that people can fly safely after attaining the age of sixty five. So why can't there be the same system in other countries.

[Good Vibs]

:ok:Anybody can retire and/or quit when they want to. But why force one to quit just because of their age. As long as one keeps passing his/her flight checks, flight physicals & and can still do the job why not continue flying commercially until he/she reaches the age of 65.
For what its worth the Nigerian NCAA has confirmed that commercial pilots can continue flying PIC until they reach the age of 65 two crew. The second pilot must be under 60, there is no 120 limit on the age of both.
And also the German Luftfahrt Bundesamt (LBA) allows single pilot commercial flying until the age of 65.
Some of us really like our work flying so why quit early!

[SirVivr]

GV:

"Some of us really like our work flying so why quit early!"

A thought along the same lines.

Many of my same age friends agree that we fly for free because we still enjoy it.

We are paid for all the BS that we have to put up with.

Chas A
SirVivr

[Brilliant Stuff]

"Many of my same age friends agree that we fly for free because we still enjoy it.

We are paid for all the BS that we have to put up with."

Never looked at it like that.

[Panther06]

Its alive and well in the U.S. Actively supported by the FAA and ALPA.

[helicopeter]

Regarding age
I am holder of PPL (H) and I will take the next step to be commercial helicopter pilot but I am 40. And if that can cause a problem????????? :cool:

[uncle ian]

Psyan,
You are, of course, entitled, even encouraged in this forum, to express your opinions. May I be so bold as to inform your opinion by pointing out that, with the active (that is to say financial) support of some 50 PPruners, I am seeking to change the legislation in the UK by taking the CAA to court for Age Discrimination. So rather than sitting tapping away at a keyboard many of us are doing something.
All the evidence that I can find indicates that that there is no significant deterioration in ability nor any greatly enhanced risk of an incapacitating cardiac event as the 60th birthday is reached. The risks do increase with age but not significantly in that decade.
I've been flying since 1973, I don't want to stop because I love it and I'm better at it now than I ever was despite having many other interests outside of aviation.
My opinion is that no one should have the right to stop me flying paying passengers without demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that to do so puts the public at risk.
Kind regards,
Ian Evans

[Bravo73]

uncle ian,

I wouldn't worry about what psyan thinks. He has demonstrated classic 'troll' behaviour in the past and has hopefully gone away for good.


Best of luck with your campaign,

B73

[Good Vibs]

:ok:I agree completely with Uncle Ian. Like I mentioned before if one passes his/her test, medicals, etc why not continue if one wants. Quit if you want anytime but don't force those who want to continue to also quit. And for those young copilots/first officers who think they will climb the ladder to captain faster if they get rid of the older ones....wait until they get older themselves and we will see what they have to say!!!
Good Luck Uncle Ian.

[ShyTorque]

Smokers should retire at 60. Normal, healthy folk should be allowed to go on to 65 or beyond.

I want to die peacefully in my sleep, not screaming like my passengers.

[Fareastdriver]

Tut tut. ShyTorque. This thread is about facts. not opinions.

[ShyTorque]

I think the only fact mentioned so far is that according to the CAA, pilots may just as well turn into pumpkins at 60. :p

[cyclicmick]

Uncle Ian,
PM me with a postal address and I will send you copies of the correspondance between me, my MP, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Robert Sturdy MEP (European Parliament spokesman for international trade), Philip Bushill-Matthews MEP and the answer he got to his oral question (H-0379/07) put to the European Commission.
Following that flurry of correspondance the best advice I got was see if you can get them under Human Rights Legislation !!!!
Mick Hemingway
PS: When is AOM's next golf day?

[SirVivr]

cyclicmick:

When I came to Trinidad in 1988, we operated under "The Colonial Air Navigation Orders of 1965".

This former colony has advanced their Regulations at least twice since then. In Feb, 2005, they increased the age to 63. In Apr, 2007, it was increased to 65.

I am not aware of how many other former Commonwealth Nations have done the same.

Is the 'Home Country" stuck in the past?

Perhaps this is an argument you could use.

Being a "Yank", I don't understand the problem as well as those closer to the situation. I still can't figure out the difference between republicans and democrats.

Whatever happens, ya'all have to keep the Single-Malt flowing.

Chas A
SirVivr

[northseaspray]

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/img/struct/functional/arrow_title_doc.gifQuestion no 73 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (H-0379/07 (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=QT&reference=H-2007-0379&language=EN) ) Subject: Possible age discrimination towards pilotsH-0379/07 (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=QT&reference=H-2007-0379&language=EN) Are public transport operations such as police helicopters or air ambulances flown by a single pilot within the airspace of a single Member State able under EU law to continue to employ suitably competent and medically certificated people as pilots beyond the age of 60?
Does the UK Air Navigation Order 2005 constitute a breach of the EU age discrimination law? (Reference to Air Navigation Order: Basic Commercial Pilot's Licence (Aeroplanes) ...... (3) He shall not—........(e) fly such an aeroplane on a flight for the purpose of public transport after he attains the age of 60 years unless the aeroplane is fitted with dual controls and carries a second pilot who has not attained the age of 60 years and who holds an appropriate licence under this Order entitling him to act as pilot in command or co-pilot of that aeroplane.


Answer:

(EN) Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. It prohibits discrimination in employment and training on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation. The Directive applies to all the Member States.
Article 2(5) of Directive 2000/78/EC provides that it is without prejudice to measures laid down by national law which are necessary in a democratic society for public security and for the protection of health.
Article 6 of the Directive allows for the justification of differences of treatment on the grounds of age in certain circumstances, as long as this is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are proportionate and necessary. In addition, article 4(1) of the Directive allows differences of treatment based on age (as well as the other protected characteristics) where this is necessary for a genuine and determining occupational requirement.
The Commission is not aware of the details relating to the particular situation of the question. However, the Commission is of the opinion that the setting of a compulsory retirement age for pilots arising from the differences of treatment based on age could be justifiable under the above-mentioned provisions in order to ensure the air safety and protection of the public.

[northseaspray]

.. and about lower than 60 retirement age, page 2 on this one:

http://www.skyteampilots.org/files/spa_data/spa_newsletter_june.pdf


KLM has a 56yrs retirement age, upheld by dutch supreme court after beeing disputed by a few individual pilots.

[Fareastdriver]

Read it properly, northeastspray. It wasn't KLM who were insisting on them retiring at 56, it was VNV Dutch Alfa, the pilots union. One of the reasons being that it slows down the promotion of THEIR members. Howerver, come what may, they do not not lose their licences so than can fly for somebody else if they so choose.

[northseaspray]

Read it properly, northeastspray. It wasn't KLM who were insisting on them retiring at 56, it was VNV Dutch Alfa, the pilots union. One of the reasons being that it slows down the promotion of THEIR members. Howerver, come what may, they do not not lose their licences so than can fly for somebody else if they so choose.


Who's northEASTspray, maybe he's a distant relative of farWESTdriver? And about reading properly,......


Anyway, the pilots are of course employed by KLM, not VNV, so KLM has a retirement age of 56, negotiated into the CLA by VNV, disputed by a few individual pilots who went to trial, and they all lost, at least one of the cases went to the dutch supreme court, and the pilot lost again.

So what is to be learned from this? Well, it seems like the employers and the unions are free to negotiate any retirement age they like, of course within the laws and regulations of their respective nations. And I quite like the thought that the law and the EU Council Directive 2000/78/EC supports legally binding agreements, not individuals trying to make a deal for themselves at the cost of their colleagues.

[cyclicmick]

SirVivr: Thanks for the info, hopefully Uncle Ian has picked up on it as well.
Northseaspray: Thanks for posting the question and answer, didn't have time to type it out myself!

[Fareastdriver]

Legally binding agreements are one thing but if the law of the land changes then they are nullified. Taking Shytorques case if there is a union agreement about permitting a place to smoke within a smoke free company legislation that bans smoking in a public area nulllifies that agreement.
However this thread is about legistrated enforced retirement from a profession, not from a job.
The argument is that any pilot who desires to follow his profession, if he or she is proven to be fit enough and skilled enough, shoud be allowed to do so as long as he or she likes.

[A.Agincourt]

Out of curiosity, are there any other professions that have a mandatory retirement age and what would they be/age specified.

BW

Ace

[Swamp76]

There is a 3rd option:
1. Fly til you lose the med
2. Fly til you die
3. Fly til you fail the ride

As far as forward thinking states:

Canada, as far as I am aware, imposes no restriction on commercial flying other than twice annual medicals after age 40. I know of 2 pilots flying in their 70's. One single pilot in the bush, the other air ambulance as a copilot (because he has repeatedly refused the captaincy as just too much pain in the a$$) and part time check pilot on singles.

Psyan, the only reason for putting age restrictions on [private] driver's licences is because there is no effective testing mechanism so the bureaucracy resorts to age limits to ensure competence. Commercial aviation is not the same beast.

[Phone Wind]

When reviewing the age limits for pilots, ICAO consulted with all member states and the Aerospace Medical Association (AsMA), the International Academy of Aviation and Space Medicine (IAASM), the International Air Transport Association (IATA), and the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations (IFALPA). It's interesting that IFALP was the only one in favour of continuing with an arbitrary age 60 restriction and indeed the AMA commented that there was insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based on age alone.
The following link shows the replies received by ICAO before deciding to make a recommendation to review the age upwards to 65 (whilst commenting that it is still arbitrary and due to pressure from the IFALPA):
Review of Replies on Proposal to Increase Pilot Retirement Age (http://www.icao.int/ICDB/HTML/English/Representative%20Bodies/Air%20Navigation%20Commission/Working%20Papers%20by%20Year/2004/AN.2004.WP.7982.EN/AN.2004.WP.7982.APPC.EN.HTM)

The final conclusions are quite enlightening:

The Secretariat agrees with United Kingdom and United States that statistical evidence cannot be used to predict with certainty the medical future of the individual pilot. Such evidence only shows what risk group the pilot belongs to. An applicant, whose medical examination indicates that he/she belongs to the group of young and healthy persons, can safely be certificated although it is impossible to predict the medical future of the individual applicant. All that can be said is that he/she belongs to a statistically defined risk group where the probability - on average - of any incapacitating event is very low. For many years now, statistical grouping of applicants for medical certificates has been considered a reasonable way of evaluating and assessing those who do not fully meet the medical requirements for certification. Although it is impossible to predict the future for an applicant with a certain medical condition, it is possible, often with a high degree of certainty, to predict the outcome for a group of such applicants. Many Contracting States, accepting this viewpoint, have for decades certificated applicants with medical conditions that place the individual pilot in a group that has a higher than normal risk but still - on average - no greater than one percent probability per year for developing an in-flight incapacitating event (this is often referred to as "The 1% Rule" - when the 1% Rule is applied to airline pilots, the licence is limited to multi-crew operations). The experience accumulated in these States supports continued application of the 1% rule. Worldwide experience of fatal accidents indicates that physical incapacitation in two-pilot aircraft operations poses little risk to flight safety since the second pilot takes control and operates the aircraft to a safe landing. In one Contracting State, no accidents arose from 127 reported in-flight incapacitations in 19 million flying hours over a ten-year period. Since 1980, as far as the Secretariat is aware, there is no recorded fatal accident in the world with a two-pilot airliner that has had cardiovascular incapacitation cited as a contributory cause despite the occurrence of many such incapacitations during this period.

If certification of pilots, based on their membership of statistically defined risk groups, is acceptable for younger pilots with certain medical conditions, it is also acceptable for healthy pilots who because of their age belong in a higher risk group. The comments from Azerbaijan, Finland, Libya and Mexico all express confidence in the safety of a higher age limit for airline pilots and even that older pilots may enhance flight safety. Gabon points out that the rate of ageing varies from one person to another. The Secretariat agrees fully. This may be considered an argument for having more comprehensive and more frequent medical examinations of older pilots, as proposed by Argentina. The Secretariat has found no evidence that more frequent or more comprehensive examinations are required for the sake of flight safety and agrees with United Kingdom that the content of additional tests, if indeed necessary, still has to be determined. Australia mentions that national law does not permit age discrimination. Legal systems usually provide for safety exceptions to the general principles of non-discrimination. As the upper age limit is a safety specification, it may be assumed that it could make exception to the anti-discrimination laws and principles that may exist in some States. Lesotho points out the fact, most likely the case in many States, that available national data do not provide statistical information on which an upper age limit can be based. The Secretariat, however, bases its opinion on data compiled from sixty-four States, reflecting accumulated experience with well over 3 000 older pilots, totalling at least 15 000 pilot-years. These data indicate that a higher upper age limit is compatible with safe flying.

[Mama Mangrove]

I'm still fit and healthy, sound of mind and limb and deprived of my livelihood of nearly half a century by this unfair and arbitrary ruling :ugh:

[Fareastdriver]

You will never get any help from a pilot's union to raise the commercial flying age. They have to do what the majority of their members say. The majority will be F/Os and SF/Os who will see it as a block to their careers. A significant proportion of the captains look upon their job in the same way as a factory worker staring at a lathe and can't wait until they retire so the vote is always going to go against.

[Mr Toad]

Fareastdriver, I couldn't disagree more.
For my sins I've been both a factory worker at a lathe (nightshift) and a helicopter pilot (worldwide operations). The factory was full of people wanting to get out and do something better; none of them thought of retiring.
As for helicopter pilots dreaming of retiring, they must be working particularly lush grass; jobs don't last long enough for long distance planning and pensions are abysmal.
Finally if you have flown helicopters all your life it's likely that you have some affection for the work; to be told by a bean counter (or the left hand seat) that you are to retire usually means that somebody wants your seat. Only if he's better than you and you can no longer pass your base checks do they have this right.

[cyclicmick]

'Ere 'ere Mr. Toad

[Fareastdriver]

Mr Toad
My post was primarily about unions,with reference to Phone Wind's post referring to IFALPA's objection to raising the retiirement age. We are talking about people in their sixties here and I would suggest that somebody who has been staring at a lathe for forty years wouldn't be looking for another job. In my forty seven years of aviation I have met quite a lot of pilots who tolerate it, don't like it, or are even afraid of it, but it pays the bills. Your post suggests that you do not belong or are protected by a union. A lot of helicopter pilots are and they are on what you describe as lush grass. They have their forward planning sorted out, some will want to pack it in, some will want to carry on. The choice should be up to them but they wont get any help from the union because of the reasons I quoted. This thread is not about jobs, it's about legislation. I have always said that pilots should be able to fly on while they are fit and skillful enough and not be subject to an arbitary age limit imposed by their govenment.

[TiPwEiGhT]

Has there been any threads about young pilots? Out of interest? Ta

[Fareastdriver]

There hasn't been any legislation banning young pilots, unless they're very very young.

[TiPwEiGhT]

Am curious if it has ever been mentioned/dicussed the problems that some younger pilots face, critisism from clients/students/employers?

[MBJ]

Why are people obsessed with working until they die. GET A LIFE and enjoy it!

Well, I would if I could afford to!

From some of the studies in the excellent opening post it is statistically obvious that in single-pilots ops younger pilots should be grounded at once and only allowed to fly after age 45.

[Whirlybird]

Why are people obsessed with working until they die. GET A LIFE and enjoy it!


We're not. I'm not planning on dying till I'm at least 90. And I'd like to carry on flying till I'm....maybe 75...ish. That gives me 15 years of non-flying activities...or getting a life, as you put it. Sounds like enough, I reckon. There's only so much sleeping and chilling out and playing golf that anyone can do without going crazy.

So who are you or anyone else to say I can't do that, so long as I can pass medicals?

[Mr Toad]

Fareastdriver:
I've been a member of Balpa since 1978.
In that time my union assisted in the sale of my company to somebody considered by the courts as not a fit person to be a director; and who subsequently dived off the end of his yacht with all the group's pension funds in his sticky little hands; needless to say the body was never found nor was the money.
So not only do I like working for a living, but I do it because I have to; and there are many, many more like me out there. And I like what I do; furthermore I do have a life - a very full and interesting one outside flying but not including golf etc...

[Fareastdriver]

Mr Toad
We have a lot in common. My company was sold on, asset stripped, including the pilot's pension fund and then sold on again and again. We may well have known each other in the past. I feel the same way as you about flying and I have had to go to some lengths to be able to continue doing so because of the UK CAA. I just hope that in the future that other pilots getting on in life don't have to go through the same paraphernalia that I had to go through. Should you want to carry on indefinately PM me and I'll give you the gen on a Oz licence.

p.s. I thought they found Maxwell, if they didn't they buried somebody who looked remarkably similar.

[Mr Toad]

Euro Anchor

I agree with Fareastdriver. Balpa acts only in the interests of the majority of it's members and not for the minority; where there is a clear conflict between the interests of the majority (i.e. younger, less experienced pilots) and the minority (older, more experienced) then Balpa's duty is to act for the majority. It is constitutionally incapable of any other course and I cannnot fault the logic.

Despite all this I am still a member and Balpa have been most helpful in helping to arrange a small pension with what remains of that sorry episode. Since Maxwell I have not paid a penny into any company pension scheme, rightly or wrongly preferring to do my own thing.

[Brilliant Stuff]

So why does not BALPA ask it's many members if they should act on the age thing? After all even the young members will get old one day coupled with the fact that they would be just as interested in flying as long as they are fit after all they are still full of enthusiasm and would not dream about having to stop flying ever.

I accept that to a young person the word pension is difficult to understand when you are just starting out.

[Phone Wind]

Mr Toad,
The body of Ján Ludvík Hoch (remember Maxwell was a Czeckoslovak immigrant and changed his name to Ian Robert Maxwell in 1945) was found in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Tenerife on 5 November 1991 and buried in Jerusalem (it was alleged for many years that he was a member of Mossad).
Since then I have never kept my money in any company's pension scheme.

[Mr Toad]

Thanks Phone Wind.

Aren't smoke and mirrors wonderful?

[Fareastdriver]

Pity he wasn't a pilot. They would have made him pack it in at sixty.

[moonbase]

I notice there has not been much acitvityu on this site for some time so hope that I can generate further discussion.

I was interested to read this thread as I was interested in research on managing the aging pilot population. The situation has been generated by the increased retirement age and the slow down in the world economy.

One item of interest is that pilots medicals in many countries do not test for mental aging. i.e. a person can have a different mental and physical age. Also ability in the simulators may not be a good indicaition of decreasing mental function due to the years of practice.

Mental acuity tests could perhaps pick up problems with pilots across all age bands that have issues!! - some people also age faster than others.

If there was a movement to no retirement age - then do we have the correct battery of tests in the medicals to differenciate between who should stay and who should be gently assisted to retire - whatever their age.

Manadatory retirement ages and pension start date ages tend to force people into set limits rather than leaving the options open and addressing the real isues of whether the individual should stay flying.

Cheers

[uncle ian]

"Not much activity". Here's some for you.

Readers of the Age Discrimination thread will know that I took the CAA to the Employment Tribunal a year ago alleging age discrimination in their policy of denying puiblic transport flying rights to sinle pilots over 60.

I lost and appealed. The appeal is due to be heard on 17/18 March. The real news is that the Equality and Human Rights Commisssion have picked up my case and will represent me at the appeal hearing.

Quite apart from the huge benefit that professional legal representation will bring to the hearing the fact that the Commission has recognised that this is a matter of our right to continue to live our lives as we would wish is hugely encouraging to me. While I don't dispute that money is important I brought this case to court on principle and seem to have been vindicated regardless of the outcome.


Ian E

[soggyboxers]

Ian,

Excellent (and encouraging) news. I wish you every success for the appeal.