Jim Ferguson is clearly a self-appointed "Aviation Expert" or I suspect more a fast-replying "Rent-a-quote" when the BBC send a request for information.
This is the same Jim Ferguson who described TCAS as telling pilots to "Dive Dive" or in answer to a question about why the Russian and European pilots use Metric and Imperial Altimetry respectively and Jim's reply was "just as English is the international language of aviation, feet are used for altitudes" which clearly shows his lack of understanding of the industry.
Why can't the BBC use people with relevant experience to quote on these stories? Aviation has probably the most mis-reported stories seen in newspapers or on the TV. Sure they like the sensation, but the readers or viewers would surely like a balanced report of the story.
I've been "quoted" in a couple of news events over the years, and in each case the resulting news item has been abysmal. So in general I take all news-filler with a pinch of salt.
Having said that, I also work with journos who go into war zones and/or ask difficult questions in very closed countries. They have my highest respect.
Difficult to tell the buggers apart unless you've been exposed to the industry, though. And that's ultimately the problem, because most people don't understand the need to sorth the wheat from the chaff, and even more people don't feel inclined to, anyway.
Quote: "So the risk is higher with two pilots over 60 in the same cockpit"
Obviously. And the risk of crew member incapacitation is even higher with three pilots.. or four.. or five..
Cheers,
Redbar1
You're the one who brought risk managment into this. In most short haul commercial aviation risk is managed partly by putting two pilots up front.
You say two pilots above 60 years don't share the same cockpit because of risk managment, so the risk must be higher with two older pilots vs two "younger" pilots in the cockpit?
Two vs two, I'm not talking about a Russian 7 crew cockpit here.
My question is still; Why don't they allow two over 60 pilots in the same cockpit? On one hand, they are fit to fly, on the other, they are not fit to fly together.
It doesn't make sense, either you are fit to fly, or you are not.
Back in slot 49, pilot contrasted aviation's "resting EKG" with an alternative:
"... a routine cardiac stress test ... it showed up something ... immediately admitted ... emergency quadruple bypass. Never had a clue - no high blood pressure, cholesterol within norms, non-smoker, basically no risk factors...."
Why pretend that the FAA's 1st Class Medical is of any good?
Maybe every pilot could demonstrate the cardiac health via a 6-minute mile, or if not that, then go do the Tread Mill with the stress test.
And next maybe the FAA could develop "cognition" exams.
I don't think you need to be a doctor or a statistician to work this out: the probability of being left with no pilots alive is greater if both are over 60, than if one of them is 30.
The probability of either pilot becoming physically incapacitated is extremely low, even if both pilots are over sixty. Most accidents occur due to pilot error rather than pilot incapacitation. There is a strong inverse correlation between pilot experience and pilot error. Pilots over 60 are usually slightly more experienced than pilots under 60. And in commercial aviation, experience and competence with procedures and systems is more important than physical condition (beyond a general state of reasonable health).
Given all this, a cockpit with two pilots over 60 may actually be safer than one in which one or both pilots are under 60, because it is extraordinarily unlikely that they will be incapacitated, and their combined experience will have more of a bearing on any unusual situations than their state of health.
Health requirements for pilots are too strict in some ways, and not strict enough in others. A person who had a heart problem briefly twenty years earlier may be disqualified, but someone who smokes five packs a day or drinks himself into a stupor on his days off may still be able to get a medical. The regulatory requirements don't always make objective sense, and, as alluded to above, health problems are way, way down on the list of causes of accidents.
I'm not sure the above post is entirely correct because as previously mentioned I fly with some very old pilots who are very experienced, however there are some problems developing such as;
Going to sleep with no notice:
Temporary loss of concentration:
Being given a blank stare when asked to do a non-routine task they're not expecting.
Checking out their ticker is fine but how do you check what's going on between their ears?
When these guys have their medicals it's not 0300 and 9 hours into a flight and they've had a few days off.
The probability of either pilot becoming physically incapacitated is extremely low, even if both pilots are over sixty.
Oh come on, everyone knows that an advanced, modern jet can be flown by remote control. If a double incapacitation was to occur, ATC can just bring it right in no problem.
A Captain dies on active duty on the F/D (nice way to go) and we have FIVE pages of mainly drivel. It's not the first time and it won't be the last that a crew member dies on the job. Other than for the guy's family, it's a non-event.
Old King Coal wrote:
"the plane would have been difficult to land with only one pilot at the controls"
"You could, I gather, land a 777 single-handed - but it would require a lot of effort and it would appear [in this case there was] a very young co-pilot - so if there was another one, that would help. "
I raised a similar question earlier, given the level of automation on a 777, would it *really* be "difficult" to land?
I'd consider the plane was designed for a "one pilot down" type of emergency and hence would not be unduly difficult to put down?
I would like to know what age have to do with the death of that captain, if you could remember some time back a first officer on BA flight pass away he was not 60, do you remember the captain on the B-727 in Africa? he was just 35, so if you would like to write think about what you are going to say.
But what about a forgetful, unfit, slow and good natured 65 yr old..!
I cant see what the problem is here, with the retirment age out to 150 years, these events will become more and more common place.... The regulators and others made a risk assessment and found no problem (except to put a bunch of rules on them)..... get used to it....
Linear Mode
