New upper age limit for International Pilots

[James4th]

An (old) mate just sent me this link:-

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#30

Does this mean I can now try and fit my zimmer frame into my A340 cockpit?

I believe Airbus are retro-fitting disabled access into all their cockpits.:rolleyes:

Chees,

James

[Capt Fathom]

Just because ICAO approves, doesn't mean everyone agrees....read on!

ICAO Approves Pilots Over Age 60

The International Civil Aviation Organization adopted a “standard” to increase the upper age limit for airline pilots to 65, effective November 23. But the measure is limited to two-pilot crews when the other pilot is younger than 60 years of age. An ICAO “standard” is a mandatory minimum requirement and member states must notify ICAO if they are going to impose a more restrictive limit. Of 112 ICAO member countries responding to an ICAO letter, 83 percent indicated that an international age limit above 60 years would be appropriate for airline pilots. However, 16 percent–which includes the U.S.–indicated a preference to maintain the current upper age limit of 60 years, citing possible safety risks and a lack of convincing data that flying after age 60 is safe.

[James4th]

True, Capt F, but ICAO member states cannot (after Nov 2006) prevent over 60s pilots from operating in their airspace but they CAN limit licences issues within their own country to any age they like.

Also in the EU in Nov a new "anti-age discrimination" rulel comes into effect along with the new ICAO rules. So what is the bet that France will have to fall into line? 20/1, 50/1?

james

[qcc2]

i heard that the faa will compromise at age 63 in the us.

[skol]

I wrote to FAA HQ in Oklahoma City a while back about retirement age and the reply was the FAA had no intention of increasing it.

[Truckster]

Even if the FAA does not allow it, an ICAO client state should be allowed to operate their own registered aircraft into the US with an over 60 Captain after these rule changes.

This has got some of the senior pilots at QF busy. Some are approaching 60 now and are worried that they may be forced to retire before the changes are enacted.

They could bid back to the 767 but that is too much like working for a living so they are approaching AIPA to support them in a bid to not actually retire at 60 but get leave without pay for however long it takes for the changes to come in. Then they will come back in, maintaining their position on the gravy train for another four or five years.

Maybe AIPA should run another plebiscite on that one. 66.7% pass mark as well??

[skol]

I suppose they could join the bottom of the heap as S/O's. (On S/O pay)

[MBA747]

Yup, another 5 years on 400K PA suits me fine, The F/Os will just have to wait another 5 years, but looking forward they will also have an extra 5 years to collect the treasure.

[onya]

I work with a pilot (PIC) that is approaching 62yrs of age. Flights are regularly operated (part 91 and 135) into Europe and the Middle East under his command. All flights are in N Registered aircraft with MTOW above 30000kgs. How is this so?? :confused:

[Chimbu chuckles]

Because age 60 only effects Part 121....not Corporate.

[Keg]

... some of the senior pilots at QF ...are approaching 60 now and are worried that they may be forced to retire ... are approaching AIPA to support them in a bid to not actually retire at 60 but get leave without pay for however long it takes...

Most of them have enough accrued annual and long service leave to not have to worry too much about leave without pay. In some cases they have more than a year of both to tide them over.

If they can do that....fine. If they don't have enough time to hold out, I don't see why they should get leave without pay! I know of a couple of crew who were knocked back from taking leave without pay (one of them was on the Classic! :eek: ) for a variety of reasons.

Just because it is inevitable doesn't mean I have to like it! :rolleyes:

[OBNO]

These blokes should get a hobby - or a life!

[Capt Fathom]

These blokes should get a hobby
Which blokes......and why?

[Tankengine]

Capt Fathom:
Confusion and disorientation can be an early sign of Alzheimers.
There are many reasons to leave before it is too late!:eek:

[ITCZ]

One should not forget that Capt Al Haines, the man that pulled off a spectacular peice of airmanship and redefined CRM after controlling an uncontrollable DC-10 at Sioux City Iowa, had to retire shortly afterwards due to the age 60 rule.

I sometimes look askance at the crusty old buggers that sit next to me, but there was an example of a professional at the height of his abilities, forced to retire.

Snow on the roof doesn't mean the fire went out inside.

[747-419]

Both QF & NZ operate in US airspace on Foreign Carriers Ops Specifications issued by the FAA. One of the clauses in this document is that the PIC shall not be over the age of 60. The FAA's view is that the document was signed by the Airlines and will hold them to regardless of the new ICAO ruling.:ugh: Interesting times.

[Tiger 77]

How about - if the PIC continues to pass the medicals then he/she can continue flying until any age? Wouldn't that make more sense?

I wouldn't have a problem with a healthy 108 year old as captain on my flight.

Cheers,

Tiger.

[Taildragger67]

That'd be fine, Tiger, but some of the countries QF operates into (and over) set upper age limits, irrespective of what CASA might see fit to do.

Take a look at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/1998/18.html?query=%5e+christie

A few interesting points re bidding, rostering, etc. which unfortunately ended Capt. Christie's case.

I'm sure that if ICAO raised the age to 60 and the vast majority of countries QF operates into (and over) raise their upper age limits, the Company would happily raise its age as it would be a cost saving.

Maybe (and I'm just putting forward an idea here) there's an alternative if only CASA and Australia's immediate neighbours raised their limit to 65, that being to transfer to the 737 fleet. But, would a jumbo skipper want to go to the smaller (and hence less lucrative) type, given that the flying patterns might give less straight days off and there'd be less $$ coming in with which to top up the super? Maybe someone in this position might consider that the lifestyle trade-off just isn't worth it.

[ITCZ]

Taildragger, not just 737. There is at least one ex-747 classic skipper now plying his trade as a 767 skipper on domestic network after turning 61.

He is not destitute. Seems he just likes flying aeroplanes. ;)

[747-419]

These blokes should get a hobby - or a life!
There I was flying along thinking what a great career I have enabling me to do things I enjoy with the possiblity of extending it a while if FAA & ICAO can agree. Suddenly OBNO shatters this thinking by telling me I shud get "a life". :{ I must be missing the big picture.
So OBNO just what is "a life". Tell me so I'll know where I'm going wrong!!

[DutchRoll]

I sincerely hope I won't need to fly through my sixties. I have a list of stuff to do, places to see & hobbies to take up which grows longer by the day and flogging around on the current network is leaving me little time/energy to do any of it at the moment.

Sorry. Cannot think of anything more dispiriting than doing SYD-MEL-SYD-MEL-SYD (or substitute whatever you like for SYD and MEL) for 4 days in a row when I'm 63, 65 or whatever. Or for that matter, doing continuous SYD-LAX-SYD trips when I'm that age! I can, however, see myself sipping a coldie on the back of a yacht sailing around the whitsundays.

I guess it's horses for courses though. Whatever takes your fancy. I don't pretend to understand some people's idea of what constitutes a relaxing and enjoyable time in their elder years (once again, noting the difference between wanting to do airline type flying and needing to do it at that point in one's life)!

[747-419]

U shud be trying to do the thing u want to now - not leaving it till retirement when as we know the mind might be willing but the body just can't hack it.
SYD-LAX-SYD is the way to go in your old age. T/O,dinner, couple of sudoku's, couple of sleeps, breakfast & land. Hotel, couple of beers & dinner. Repeat on way home. U could average 2 1/2 trips of these a roster with plenty of time off. Chuck in a S/B block and almost 2 months leave - does'nt sound a bad years work. Surely u can get that sailing in and even a couple of rounds of golf!!

[DutchRoll]

Done more SYD-LAX-SYD than I care to think about. Damn near drove me insane. It is excruciatingly boring.

[Crossbleed]

Bury your nose in a good book and ignore the SO?:ouch:

[slamer.]

[quote=747-419]U shud be trying to do the thing u want to now - not leaving it till retirement when as we know the mind might be willing but the body just can't hack it.
SYD-LAX-SYD is the way to go in your old age. T/O,dinner, couple of sudoku's, couple of sleeps, breakfast & land.

____________________________________________________________ __

I think you have highlighted exactly the point Dutch is making. None of us like to see the old fellas nodding off in the middle of the nite, being carried (literally & figuratively) by the others... minds completely switched off the job at hand.

I find it remarkable that past generations have slowly strived to improve our working conditions to make this job survivable to age 55/60 (a big ask in itself). And here we have some who are willingly scrambling to work longer and potentially shorten their life span ......... remarkable!!!!

The biggest challenge to our aviation careers will be maintaining a medical into elderly age. I wonder if the Airlines are reviewing their incapacitation training?

For me.......... November 06 will mark a leap backward in all our quality of life, perhaps one of the greatest leaps we have seen ......:(

[Chimbu chuckles]

I think you have highlighted exactly the point Dutch is making. None of us like to see the old fellas nodding off in the middle of the nite, being carried (literally & figuratively) by the others... minds completely switched off the job at hand.

I think that might be overstating it just a tad. There is VERY good reason to combat nap in cruise on long haul...so you're not micro sleeping on descent. It's good airmanship.

And it aint just the oldies...I fly long haul with every age group and we ALL need to nap enroute from time to time....it's the nature of the beast given modern rostering practices and aircraft capability.

Get over it...if someone wants to continue on, whether due need or just plain want, they have every right to do so....all things being equal

[DutchRoll]

The point I was making was exactly what I said. Syd-Lax-Syd (and similar types of trips) in a B744 on a FANS route across the pacific with datalink is boring. Boring boring boring. Really boring, in fact. It is not 'fun'. It is not 'exciting'. It is not 'interesting' (aside from what you may make of your slip time). If anyone feels that it is, then they have an odd interpretation of those words.

You don't sit in the cockpit in the middle of the night over S0510.5 W16325.5 thinking 'Wow - isn't this just great! Just look at the view. All that.........water! And all that..........cloud! Oh my, there goes another datalink position. I could just spend forever up here. Better psych myself up for another Leena arrival, Ficky transition to cross Goatz at & maintain 12,000!' It is not a good illustration of why one might be spurred on to a later retirement (financial considerations aside), which, after all that, was the original thrust of the topic.;)

[747-419]

Oh Dear DutchRoll, we arn't a happy camper are we :ugh: .
Have you thought Airline flying might'nt be your thing. Airline fliying is'nt compulsory - you dont have belong.
Perhaps it is you who should be retiring and leaving the 60's to it!!.

[Keg]

There is VERY good reason to combat nap in cruise on long haul...so you're not micro sleeping on descent. It's good airmanship.



Whilst I agree with the sentiment Chimbu, there is one minor (major?) problem with that premise when applied to QF aircraft. Our policies currently prohibit 'controlled rest' when carrying augmented crew. So once the S/O is on board, no 'controlled' rest is permitted. Pilots who do so are now violating SOPs. Of course, the alternative and sometimes resultant 'uncontrolled' rest on descent (or at any other time) isn't classified as 'intentional non-compliance' because it's an 'error' rather than rogue behaviour. :rolleyes: The only question then is whether to dob yourself in or not! :E :ok:

[Capt Fathom]

Better psych myself up for another Leena arrival, Ficky transition to cross Goatz at & maintain 12,000!'
Get some excitement in your life...and go via Ventura instead! :zzz:

[MBA747]

Well I guess you don't have to bid for LAX, you could always bid for the other 8 or 9 routes you have left before J* takes over.

On the other hand you could join another airline that has 50 to 60 routes where you may not see a port for 18 months at a time, that would take the boredom away.

[Plane*jane]

I think sometimes pilots get into the numbers game too easily. The reality in this day and age is that people are healthier live longer and the factor of genetic age is becoming more significant. If someone is over 60, passes their medical, is fit and livley and wants to fly on beyond 60 then there is no reason why not.
I am genetically blessed, look mid 40s but actually just approaching 58, maybe it's the young boyfriend.... Flew with captain similar age and had a pan call last friday had to return to base. It was so smooth and seamless in the cockpit, everything was done swiftly and energetically both of us paying attention to good co-ordination in the cockpit (I am a CRMIE too actually), ATC as usual were superb, and returned for an overweight landing. Having flown with much younger guys...who have nodded off in the cockpit, lost it at the slightest non normal, and once actually had to bring an aircraft almost single handed back to base because I had total freeze by my younger captain, I can only say please don't generalise about age. Times have changed, genetics plays a part. By the way I only started flying at 50 and done as many TR in as many years.

[ennui]

Quite apart from the facts that:

a) The world, in particular the developed nations, has an ageing demographic

b) Airlines are now having a difficult time attracting experienced drivers (except for this and a couple of other ponds where the lifestyle overrides the renumeration) and,

c) there seems to be more aircraft being built than pilots training to operate them,

It seems to me that the majority of pilots who through choice of lifestyle, circumstance or demographic, have not been fortunate to operate large aircraft for a legacy carrier, may actually need to work through to 65 in order to afford that new caravan and 4wd in order to tour the country in their retirement!

Apart from most career GA drivers, I can think of at least 1 current group of Australian LCC pilots who after they educate their kids, finalise the mortgage and pay their taxes, will be thankful to work themselves to an early grave because they can't afford to retire.

It's easy to live in an Ivory tower insulated from the masses. Could that possibly be at least one of the reasons why as a professional group we are so splintered and disorientated?

Maybe we should all take a second and think about where we came from and exhibit a modicum of empathy!

Oop's, too late, the horse has bolted!

[gas-chamber]

Plane Jane, thank you for summing up this whole age issue so succinctly.
I get to watch pilots of all ages and experience levels perform, both on the line and in the sim. I have seen superb peformances by 25 year olds with 1000 hours converting to their first advanced type and equally dismal performances by 25 year olds with 4000 hours including 3000 on type.
Fast forward to 40, 50 or 60 year olds and the variations are just the same. Whilst people learn and retain at different rates, and we all should acknowledge some degradation of our motor skills as we age, some guys and gals simply have what it takes and some don't - at any age. Nothing is more sad than some silly old ego-driven fool who won't let go when he/she is struggling with the whole skills, fatigue, pressure thing. On the other hand, a smart old laid-back fox will beat a rampaging young bull in a crisis any day.
It is a reflection on the checking system within many air carriers that marginal performers are often helped through their entire careers. Shame they are not culled at the point where their weaknesses for the flying task first start to show, but economics and union politics often win over standards.

[Tickle Me Pink]

Relax boys and girls,

the Feds won't have a bar of this over 60 bullhype therefore I doubt very much whether this ICAO proposal has legs.

we shall wait and see.

[gas-chamber]

TMP any country that still uses statute miles, pounds and gallons is irrelevant in aviation terms, so who cares what the Feds think?

[Keg]

... so who cares what the Feds think?

Actually, a significant number of QF drivers are watching the US response to this with considerable interest. If they (or Indonesia or India or Pakistan or China or any of the former Soviet states, etc, etc) choose to have an exemption and maintain the age 60 rule then it will put QF in a very interesting position. Crew can already fly beyond 60 but only on an aircraft type that enables them to be rostered on flights that don't go to detinations that require the PIC to be younger than 60. For all practical purposes, this means the 737 and 767 domestic ops only.

If any number of states between Australia and the UK and/or the US decide to maintain the requirement for a PIC younger than 60 then QF can not roster those extending beyond 60 easily. This means that those approaching 60 have to do another type course on either the 767 or the 737.

Then again, the new cat amongst the pigeons is the governments decision regarding tax free super. Why would I keep flying and paying high levels of tax if I can clear the same amount by not going to work? I suspect that the Government's super decision (even though it doesn't kick in for another year or so) has been the single best thing for a junior QF crew member to hear in a long time! :D

Interesting times.

[murgatroid]

Then again Keg,

Tax rates have dropped, you get more take home pay. You have a nice pot of super earning 15%, why not go just a few more easy years (no more type changes) and leave with a really handsome amount.

[skol]

Relax boys and girls,
the Feds won't have a bar of this over 60 bullhype therefore I doubt very much whether this ICAO proposal has legs.
we shall wait and see.

I agree. I wrote to the FAA HQ a couple of years ago about this matter and they replied they had no intention of increasing the age.
I fly long haul with F/O's mid to late 60's, try it sometime. These guys are there for the ride, others do the work.

[faheel]

You are dead wrong there keg.

As I understand it :

From Nov when the new age regs come into effect a contracting state can no longer deny a foreign airline from either overflying or landing with a commander over the age of 60, provided that the other pilot is younger then 60.and the country of the airline he flys for is a a member of icao and is also a contracting state.

What they choose to do to their own pilot licencing is up to them.If they want to keep the age 60 rule so be it.

[Chimbu chuckles]

That was my understanding too.

Keg Indonesia already allows it's own to fly on to 64 and pilots of foriegn registered aircraft must only meet the requirements of the state of registry of the aircraft...so QF guys could fly to Bali and Jakarta until the are 160 if they can pass the medical.

The French, US and possibly Chinese are the sticking point...I think the wording is designed to stick it up em...."The don't like it up em Mr Mannering"

[Tickle Me Pink]

Hmmm,

I wonder how long the USA is going to remain a contracting state to the Chicago Convention?
Having read their response to the age limit increase, its going to be interesting to see what they intend to do about it if anything. The same goes for the French.
Geez if ICAO is going to have fundamental differences of opinion between states, they have managed to choose two of the most stubborn states to pick on.
All good fun and watching with interest.

[Elroy Jettson]

they have managed to choose two of the most stubborn states to pick on.
.

How true is that! Not big on conforming, either of the them. The US surgeon general said something very interesting reference the raising of the age limit, something to the effect that they will only look at changes to the rules if the rule change increases safety. As far as he was concerned there was no evidence supporting the fact that aviation would be safer due to the change, so therefore, in his opinion, "No Deal!" Fair enough, honestly, who the hell wants to be doing this at 65 anyway? I hope to christ I have found something a lot better to do with my time by then, and I dont think I am alone in that train of thought. :)

Off to google to try and find a reference to the comment made above...

[pakeha-boy]

the only real way to do this, is to have invested in LTD...Long Term Disability.....those that want to fly after 60...good onya!!!!..for those of us that will of had enough(myself included) you need to start a porfollio of back problems,diarehha,vision problems etc etc...then one day,whilst taxing ,stop the titan,give controls,s to the F/O... scream in pain,use one of the above mentioned problems and retire to kerikeri for a bit of I and I,(intercourse and intoxication)not R and R as thats a yank thing .... ...now if you dont have LTD,it will surly be a bit of a bugger...but after 60,if you dont have anything better to do,......life has dealt you a bitter blow,..plenty of piss in my fridge,...I,ll supply the shelia,s,tucker,and piss ...bring your own condoms..KIA KAHA/......PB

[slamer.]

Sounds like you've invested in a brothel with a pub downstairs...... now THATS planning for your retirement!.............:ok: