PDA

View Full Version : ICAO Age 65 from 23 November 2006


packsonflite
11th Apr 2006, 06:05
Hi All
If this is old news then please accept my apologies.
It would appear that the ICAO proposal for an increase of the maximum age for pilots from age 60 to age 65 was formally approved on 10th March and takes effect from 23rd November 2006.
See text from the ICAO website below:

Age limit for flight crew
Amendment 167 to Annex 1
The ICAO Council adopted on 10 March 2006 an amendment to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing that increases by five years the upper age limit for commercial pilots operating two-pilot aircraft. The new provisions become applicable on 23 November 2006 and read as follows:
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.
Practical effects
Article 33 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (signed in Chicago, it is often quoted as the ‘Chicago Convention’) limits the international recognition of flight crew licences to those who are in full compliance with the Standards of Annex 1 (note that paragraph 2.1.10.1 is a Standard). As a result, until 23 November 2006, even if an individual State authorizes a pilot-in-command (PIC) to fly in commercial air transport operations when over the age of 60 (65 from 23 November) that authorization can only be given for flights within that State’s national airspace. This is because no State can force another State to accept its own deviation from an ICAO Standard. Article 33 does not apply to the co-pilot as paragraph 2.1.10.2 is a Recommendation, not a Standard.
Articles 39 and 40 of the Convention are also relevant to the age limit of pilots-in-command engaged in commercial air transport operations as they authorize international flights by flight crew who do not meet all international licensing Standards, provided that an authorization is given by each State into which the aircraft is operated.
In practice, this means that if a pilot in command is under the age specified in paragraph 2.1.10.1 (60 years at present and 65 from November 2006) he cannot be prevented by reason of age from operating into any ICAO Contracting State. Further, once he has reached the specified age, he may still operate as PIC, subject to certain conditions:
1. his/her national Licensing Authority permits it; and,
2. operations are undertaken only in national airspace; unless,
3. another State has given specific authorization that such flights are permitted in its airspace.
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.
For co-pilots, since paragraph 2.1.10.2 is a Recommendation, not a Standard, the upper age limit is set by the national Licensing Authority which can choose to impose any national age limit on the licenses it issues, as there are no international restrictions based on age for co-pilots.
When over 60, a six-monthly medical examination will be necessary (ICAO specifies an annual medical for those under 60 years who are engaged in two-pilot operations). For single-pilot commercial air transport operations, the upper age limit remains at 60 years.
Most of the States that have authorized their pilots to fly as pilot-in-command in commercial air transport operations after they reach the age specified in 2.1.10.1 also authorize pilots holding a license issued or validated by another States to fly in their own airspace under the same condition. However, ICAO does not collect information on States authorizing pilots to fly in their airspace after reaching the age of 60 and cannot provide information on the subject. Pilots seeking such information are advised to contact individual Civil Aviation Authorities.

Aranmore
11th Apr 2006, 21:37
Can someone clarify what the position is regarding this subject.
In simple terms, when will an "over 60" be able to stay in command of a large aircraft and overfly ALL of Europe? Can France or other countries post "differences" to an ICAO ruling, and, if so, will they stand up in court?
Perhaps the "Flying Lawyer" would like to comment.

keep_pushing
11th Apr 2006, 22:37
The answers to your questions are, from the end of November this year; yes; and yes, but any such difference will only affect French licence holders. Overflights of France by licence holders of other states who are over sixty will be permitted.

But don't simply take it from me. Get the answer direct from ICAO. The URL where you will find the answers all of your questions is www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m_anb.pl?icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#1

dbmidway
12th Apr 2006, 05:59
While the new ICAO ruling is quite clear about about how it will be applied it will be interesting to see how the FAA react to over 60's flying in US airspace. Airlines operating into the USA do so under FAA Part 129 Foreign Carriers Ops Specs which have the age 60 restriction for PIC.
So which rule takes precedence - the new ICAO or the existing FAA?

dusk2dawn
12th Apr 2006, 06:25
From the Chicago Convention (ICAO founding document):
Article 33
Recognition of certificates and licenses
Certificates of airworthiness and certificates of competency and licenses issued or rendered valid by the contracting State in which the aircraft is registered, shall be recognized as valid by the other contracting States, provided that the requirements under which such certificates or licenses were issued or rendered valid are equal to or above the minimum standards which may be established from time to time pursuant to this Convention.

Mel Effluent
12th Apr 2006, 08:04
Since 'no State can force another State to accept its own deviation from an ICAO Standard', from 23 November 2006 the US will not be able to prevent a foreign carrier from operating in its airspace with a PIC aged up to 64. The following is the relevant extract from the ICAO website:

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.

Regards,

Mel

gen3
12th Apr 2006, 10:34
I checked out the link (http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m_anb.pl?icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#1) posted by keep_pushing and it looks like the statements are coflicting... for one, it says the authorization can only be in the authorizing state's airspace and/or the airspace of other states that have or will allow such flights in their airspace and then the same statement goes on to say...

"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."

which is which?? :confused: :confused:

keep_pushing
12th Apr 2006, 11:01
Re-read the ICAO page and you will see that your first paragraph refers to states issuing authorisations in excess of the ICAO maximum age (60 at present). Your second paragraph is correct.

vagabond 47
13th Apr 2006, 05:44
Seems there was an Article posted recently, as I recall from a US Major Carrier Capt outlining the recent Senate (or another house) VOTE on implementing the ICAO over 60 Rule for FAA License holders, delivery date 30 days post ICAO Vote in Nov 06.
Much Lobbying was done by the Pilot Body in support but as I recall the "no" vote won,totally unexpectantly.
That being the case if you are operating on a Validation of a FAA License,it ceases at 60yrs irrespective of the country of Validations own Age Ruling...........Anyone remember the House Ruling Vote article?
Cheers.

411A
13th Apr 2006, 06:42
>>That being the case if you are operating on a Validation of a FAA License,it ceases at 60yrs irrespective of the country of Validations own Age Ruling.<<

Ah, actually no.

The FAA ATPL does not have an expiration date, quite unlike many other authorities.
If you pass the first class medical, and are current in check, the license is still valid, with no age restriction whatsoever.
A rather good system actually.
The FAA age 60 rule affects ONLY 14CFR121 certificated airline operations by US aircarriers.

For example, it does not prohibit an age 60+ pilot from operating a rather large business jet under 14CFR135 (charter, common carriage), nor the same pilot from operating a private jet airliner that is certificated for ops under 14CFR125, so long as it is not used for common carriage.

A very practical system.

Bumz_Rush
13th Apr 2006, 07:06
1) Is there an upper age limit for FAA pt 121, for their cabin crew...???

2) Outside the USA. I am FAA/JAA ATP Captain reaching 60 in 2008. As the new regulation stands, (after 07), I thus believe I can operate a Gulfstream as Captain, on A VP-C registration, as Cayman is biased towards JAA regulations, but not on a N registered similar aircraft.

3) In regard to France, can I now (after 07) opperate from the UK and fly over France and even perhaps land in paris, acting as Captain.

Or is Pierre still able to say NON.



Bumz

vagabond 47
13th Apr 2006, 07:20
>>That being the case if you are operating on a Validation of a FAA License,it ceases at 60yrs irrespective of the country of Validations own Age Ruling.<<

Ah, actually no.

The FAA ATPL does not have an expiration date, quite unlike many other authorities.
If you pass the first class medical, and are current in check, the license is still valid, with no age restriction whatsoever.
A rather good system actually.
The FAA age 6by US aircarriers.

0 rule affects ONLY 14CFR121 certificated airline operations For example, it does not prohibit an age 60+ pilot from operating a rather large business jet under 14CFR135 (charter, common carriage), nor the same pilot from operating a private jet airliner that is certificated for ops under 14CFR125, so long as it is not used for common carriage.

A very practical system.

I assumed we were all talking the same issue about AIRLINE CARRIER OPS,and not lesser as that is the topic of concern with the US carrier Pilots approaching 60

411A
13th Apr 2006, 07:29
1)No FAA age limit for cabin crew for 14CFR121 certificated operations, and this can be proven by looking at some of the grandma's on some NWA and UAL flights.:rolleyes:

2)Now, with your FAA ATPL license, you can operate that 'N' registered Gulfstream 'til you're 80 (if you like) provided you can pass the standard FAA medical (First or second class, depending) and can pass the yearly check.
The oldest business jet Captain I personally know is 72, but there may indeed be older similar pilots

3) Pierre will learn three new words....button your lip:}

In the same ballpark, Vagabond 747.
Altho pilots of US aircarriers will still be limited to age 60 in the USA, they can certainly go overseas and continue to fly until 65, at other airlines, provided the concerned CAA's allow.

packsonflite
13th Apr 2006, 07:36
I don't think that you'll be able to operate into or over territory over age 65 unless you have the specific permission of that state.
Article 33 guarantees your right to operate freely provided your licence meets the ICAO Annex 1 provisions.

411A
13th Apr 2006, 07:40
I believe you are correct packsonflite, internationally, over age 65.

packsonflite
13th Apr 2006, 07:50
I think what is going to interesting is to see what countries like the US, France and other will do in respect of their own pilots in the face of foreign pilots being permitted to operate within those countires without restriction.

As of 23rd November, the statement limiting the pilots' age to 60 as set out in the FAA foreign carrier permits will become null and void.

More interestingly how will Duane Worth react!!!!!! :)

vagabond 47
13th Apr 2006, 13:43
In the same ballpark, Vagabond 747.
Altho pilots of US aircarriers will still be limited to age 60 in the USA, they can certainly go overseas and continue to fly until 65, at other airlines, provided the concerned CAA's allow.

..............which contacting states are accepting FAA over 60?

411A
13th Apr 2006, 16:16
Any that allow pilots to fly to 65, Vagabond, in their normal airline operations, in conformity with ICAO, at the time the switch is made in November, unless they file an exception to the ICAO rules.
Indeed, right now some states have have the 65 rule, and permit an FAA license holder to hold a validation.

It really is quite clear.

vagabond 47
13th Apr 2006, 17:09
The Marsala makers have not made up their minds yet....to name one.

411A
13th Apr 2006, 17:16
In this case, Vagabond, that is their right, under ICAO, by issuing an exception for their validations.
But, they will no longer be able to prevent others from overflying/landing, provided they are signatories to ICAO in the first place...as nearly all are.

vagabond 47
13th Apr 2006, 18:40
Appears nobody recalls the article by the US " Jock" re the Senate house committee vote and where things move on the calendar now.....would like to read it again.

dbmidway
13th Apr 2006, 23:49
As of 23rd November, the statement limiting the pilots' age to 60 as set out in the FAA foreign carrier permits will become null and void.

The way the new rule is written I have no doubt you are correct in your view but I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for an amendment. The FAA will not like being told to change permits with their current stance and anyway who is going to make them:confused: .

vagabond 47
14th Apr 2006, 02:55
The way the new rule is written I have no doubt you are correct in your view but I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for an amendment. The FAA will not like being told to change permits with their current stance and anyway who is going to make them:confused: .

"Yeah".......the american "do as I say not as I do"
Reason Im interested; thats why the long post on the Senate committee vote from US Driver with Union action/reaction and calendar for whats next.

Few Cloudy
14th Apr 2006, 11:53
I've been waiting for this rule for four years - now they'll have to extend it to 70!

Only time I was born too late was when I wanted an E-Type Jag, which always seemed a couple of years' salary away...

Ah well, back to the weeds...

FC.

Hansof
14th Apr 2006, 20:59
Great ICAO decisions. Are we/the French operating JAR or ICAO? What does JAR OPS say?

And anyway, even if it does say we can operate into their airspace, is your company going to risk scheduled disruption by the French, if they see fit?

You may know, I may know, the company may know it is allowed, the French will know it is allowed but as in everything else, if they don't want it it will be NOT ALLOWED.

So, who will risk aircraft impounding/ ATC delays, aircrew arrests when they don't need to?

Oh, you say, the French will be fined if they don't fit in - after how many years? Will they ever pay up? How useful will the a/c be (or its crew after all that time?

I am not convinced yet.

packsonflite
14th Apr 2006, 21:11
The French have always quoted the ICAO limit as their reason for not accepting pilots over the age of 60 as PIC within their airspace.

Given that and the fact that the EU age discrimination rules take effect 3 weeks before the ICAO change, then it would seem bizarre that they would continue to oppose age 60+ pilots.

My personal view would be that they'll continue to limit their own pilots to age 60 whilst complying with Article 33.

But then...........????

Bof
14th Apr 2006, 21:27
Well with fingers crossed, and to borrow that American phrase " It ain't over until the fat lady sings," it does look like it might be the beginning of the end.
It has been just over eleven years since the fiasco began. The CAA wrote to all 180 something ICAO countries asking for blanket clearance for all Brits over 60 to be allowed in their airspace. Big error! most of the countries had never thought about it until we asked. Most said OK straight away, but clearly a few of the bu***rs thought why should we. Our guys have to stop at 60 so why should we let anybody else in. The rest is history and a lot of valuable experience was lost to several airlines.

Dengue_Dude
15th Apr 2006, 03:15
This wouldn't have anything to do with the assertion that British Airways pilots are going to have to work for another 30 years to pay for their pensions is it?

The average age for earning a full pension provision now being 83 :-)

Bof
15th Apr 2006, 13:57
DD, you may have your tongue imbedded well into your cheek, but if serious, this problem has been running for a hell of a lot longer than the BA pilots winge on this subject and secondly, I hardly think ICAO could give a twopenny damn for BA pilots opinion.

Raas767
15th Apr 2006, 14:56
I got an update about pending legislation on 65 in the States from the union. After having passed in the House some time ago, it is now in Senate committee with no indication of any movement. The consensus here, at this moment, is that it will probably never be voted on in the full Senate and become law regardless of the new ICAO rules.
Cheers.

Flying Guy
15th Apr 2006, 19:50
So, are you suggesting that the age limit in the states still could be raised to 65 this year?

Raas767
17th Apr 2006, 03:43
Probably not.

packsonflite
17th Apr 2006, 09:38
What would be interesting to establish is which takes precedence, US Law or International law (ICAO). Any statement in an foreign air carriers FAA permit limiting the age of a pilot below that set by ICAO would be a violation of ICAO Annex 1.

Further preventing any pilot who licence meets the ICAO standard as set out in Annex 1, Amendment 167 would violate Article 33 of the Chicago Convention.

.....or would the US defy the UN (ICAO) to be able to enforce it's own intransigent viewpoint? Surely they wouldn't defy the UN!!!!!!

Raas767
17th Apr 2006, 13:46
As per previous postings, it appears that member States are free to set a mandatory retirement age below 65 but the U.S. will not be able to legaly prevent Airlines to overfly or land that have pilots over 60. If anything, it sets a tricky precedent. I'm sure 65 is coming to the States but not as fast as some people think. Many people are against it as is the FAA. We will know within the next year weather or not the Senate wants to move on the new law. Personally I hope we have a few more years before the inevitable.

Longtimer
17th Apr 2006, 16:09
One other consideration that may sway the US is that a number of their larger carriers are in trouble over the funding of their Pilot Pension plans. It would seem that the higher age limit would decrease the liability of the pension plans along with the payout based on the average life expectancy of those who retire at 65 vs those who retire at 60. There have been a number of studies that suggest those who retire at 60 or earlier, have a longer life on average than those who wait to 65 or later.

411A
17th Apr 2006, 16:51
Indeed, Longtimer, I remember these early studies from the 1970's.
One at PanAmerican, where many long haul flights were performed, it was found that those pilots/flight engineers that retired several years before age 60 many times lived somewhat longer (5 years) than those that waited until age 60.
This was generally assumed to be the case mainly due to the seniority bidding system whereby the senior pilots/flight engineers could arrange most of their flights (and monthly hours) into the least number of duty days, and thus find themselves constantly fatiqued, due to the many time zones crossed.
There seemed to be some credibility to this when it was discovered that those pilots who spread out their flights throughout the monthly period, consistantly lived longer, after retirement.
This study was unique to PanAmerican at the time, as I recall.

Longtimer
17th Apr 2006, 23:08
Not sure how accurate this data is but it does make one wonder.....

http://www.seeya-downtheroad.com/InformationPage/WhyRetireYoung.html

Carrier
21st Oct 2006, 12:38
I read with interest the feature “Fire in Flight” in the July 2006 issue of Business & Commercial Aviation magazine. I did an Internet search and have also read the ASN Aircraft accident description of the same crash that occurred on 12 July 2004. The important fact is that the captain was 81 years old.

This Convair 440 was an N-registered aircraft, N4826C, operating for an American company (Dodita Air Cargo, a subsidiary of Tolair Services), at 21,772kg maximum take-off weight obviously in the transport category requiring two crew, and it was on an international commercial flight between US territory (San Juan, Puerto Rico) and Dutch territory (St. Maarten, Netherlands Antilles). There is no indication in either report that the flight was illegal because the crew did not meet any legal age requirements. I have to assume that this flight was conducted legally.

What then is the issue and why does this thread exist? It seems there have always been opportunities for American and presumably other pilots to indefinitely continue flying transport category aircraft on commercial flights as long as they continue to pass the six-monthly medicals and annual PPCs or equivalents. Apart from transport category aircraft, there have always been commercial pilot jobs for old geezers. I seem to recall a story a few years ago about a 90 year old commercial pilot in the US still delivering newspapers by air to remote communities. As another option, how about instructing and passing on all of that accumulated experience? Is there any reason apart from snobbery why a pilot who has retired from a major airline and wants to keep flying commercially should not do such jobs and be paid for doing them? There is plenty of demand for older pilots. The more intelligent and better run non-airline operators prefer older pilots because of their experience, maturity and responsibility, as against hiring a 250 hour pimple-faced CPL Top Gun wannabee who beats up every airfield on arrival, drives maintenance costs through the roof, cheeks the pax, smashes the freight, and turns up to work as and when it fits in with his party schedule and hangover recovery ability.

Would someone kindly explain how N4826C could legally conduct international commercial flights with an 81 year old captain and why there is some sort of issue for pilots regarding ages 60 and 65?

chuks
21st Oct 2006, 15:02
The Age 60 Rule applies to Air Carrier, Part 121 Operations, only. And soon it shall apply to USA Part 121 Operators only, if I understand what has been posted correctly. This is why some retired airline pilots take jobs flying bizjets, fro instance. The change of category means that there is no age restriction.

Raas767
24th Oct 2006, 16:58
Correct. The Tolair flight was not operated under 121 but under some other supp. cargo reg.
I just spoke via e-mail to both our union president and legislative affairs people in Washington and there is still no indication that age 60 will change anytime soon in the States. It is a safety and a political issue and as such there are a lot of interested parties with much at stake both within the airlines and the various pilot groups. The bottom line is that, in general, the pilots don't want the change and neither do the airlnes.
It will happen eventually but with stagnant seniority lists among the main lines don't hold your breath.

Flying Guy
24th Oct 2006, 18:49
go here:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2921842#post2921842