FAA approves age 65 for non "N" registered aircraft

[Flying Guy]

There is already a thread on this in Terms but this is such big news I thought I would make a posting here as well.

I have been in touch with Marlene Livack of the FAA regarding the issue if the FAA will adopt (or not object to) pilots up to age 65 operating in the US in accordance with the new ICAO standard, effective Nov 23. She e-mailed me this morning with the following, and I quote from her e-mail:

******************************
"The FAA is going to modify the Part 129 ops specs paragraph A001f to remove the current restriction for Part 129 operators except for those flying "N" registered aircraf, see FAR 61.3j. On November 23, pilots and Part 129 air carriers would be expected to conform to new ICAO standards."

"We plan to have the operations specifications revised and issued so as to be effective concurent with the ICAO effective date."
******************************

So, that's it. If you are flying a non "N" registered aircraft under ICAO standards, you will be able to fly in the US up to age 65 starting Nov 23.

[DownIn3Green]

So what's changed?
FAA has never been concerned with what happens with a "non N registered" airplane.

[Wizofoz]

Oh yes it has!! You have not been able to operate a Transport Catagory aircraft in passenger ops over the age of 60 in US airspace regardless of registration.

Many carreers have been truncated by the USAs intractibility on this.

[DownIn3Green]

Wiz,

Maybe legally....however...you want some HZ or VP registered VIP a/c's?

It's a zoo out there...some play by the rules, most rich principals don't, and don't care.....

[chimbu warrior]

Firstly, even if the FAA had wanted to, they could not stop over-60 pilots from operating foreign-registered aircraft into the USA after the new ICAO rule takes effect (next week I think). The new rule is very specific about that (a blow to the French).

Secondly, I am aware of international carriers operating into US airports with over-60 pilots occupying a control seat in recent years. They simply designate another (under-60) pilot on board as PIC.

[West Coast]

"even if the FAA had wanted to, they could not stop over-60 pilots from operating foreign-registered aircraft into the USA"

I don't have a horse in this race, so I'm likely not up to speed. Could you provide at least some degree of definitive proof to back up that claim? I would think any sovereign would have the ability to regulate who and what flies in their space. I'll have to have a closer look at what the ICAO says and/or conventions such as Chicago and its iterations.

[LJ.543]

C'mon guys, try to keep up! ICAO law changes on 23rd November 2006 to allow commanders of multicrew aircraft to operate up to the age of 65 (currently 60). Countries like the USA or France may maintain age 60 for their own nationals but they cannot impose this on the rest of us when we fly in their airspace after 23rd November. This has been the subject of much debate/comment on other threads.

LJ

[mutt]

DI3G, most of those VIP aircraft operate under FAR91 without an age limit.

West Coast, Foreign operators must comply with FAR129, this stated that the age 60 rule applied. Due to the ICAO ruling that clearly states that no state can control the age of crews operating into their state, ie, USA France, they can only control the age of crews operating aircraft registered in their state. Hence the requirement for the FAA to revise FAR129 but not FAR121.

Mutt

[400Rulz]

Hi guys,
The way I understand FAR129 is that the PiC could not be over 60, but the F/O could be, and could still act in a command practice capacity, ie could still physically do the arrival/departure. The same does not apply to privately owned/VIP N series aircraft as they are not, to all practical purposes, a registered passenger transport aircraft. Go figure.:}
400R

[Flying Guy]

Dear 400rulz,

That's the whole point. Commanders who are over 60 (up to 65) can now fly into the US. The FO however needs to be 60 or under.

[groundbum]

>>Dear 400rulz,
>>
>>That's the whole point. Commanders who are over 60 (up to 65) can now >>fly into the US. The FO however needs to be 60 or under.

sensible as it'll stop arguments as to who's zimmer frame can be stowed in the cockpit...

byee....

[BOAC]

There has NEVER been an argument - Captain's in the flight deck and F/O's frame in the hold. That's CRM.:)

[400Rulz]

HaHa:}
As far as I am aware, there is no combined age restriction. I understand that it was considered, but not passed.....lookout the geriatric express. + 2 wlchrs for the crew plz:E

[Flying Guy]

I received another communication from my FAA friend this morning with a copy of a memo about this. Here is a quote from that document:

"Under the new standard, the pilot in command is no longer required to be less than 60 years of age and is permitted to be between the age of 60 to 65 provided the other pilot is less than 60 years of age."

Relative to the US being "forced" to accept the ICAO standard, has anyone noticed that the US (under the current administration) seems to do whatever it dammed well pleases? I am sure if the FAA wanted to ban over 60 year old pilots flying into the US they would and could do it, regardless of ICAO regulations. It is a relief to a lot of us "grey hairs" that the official position will be to comply with the ICAO rule.

Also, if a company is operating under JAR regulations, those regulations apply to that operator as well and I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that the combined age of the two pilots cannot exceed 120. Perhaps someone can confirm that?

[Panther06]

The ICAO rule states that a member country (ICAO) must permit other member countries to fly in their airspace after 23 November 06 with Captains up to age 65 as long as the other pilot is under 60. There is no requirement for that member country to change it's own rule to 65. Interestingly, age 65 is the new "standard" for Captains. For F/Os there is no standard and age 65 max is only a "recommendation". Out of 32 ICAO member countries voting on the new age 65 "standard" only four countries voted no: the U.S., France, Pakistan, and Columbia, South America.

[chuks]

In Nigeria the 'Age 60' rule came in, went out, and is now either back again or else not. Let us say their application of rules is mercurial.

They do have a requirement, or so I was told, that the total age of the crew be 120 years or less. I guess that would mean that a 65 year-old Captain would need a 55 year-old FO.

When I got there in the early '80s the Chief Pilot of the outfit I joined was already over 60 and only got caught out by our contractee changing to their own 'Age 60' rule around 1983. He had started flying for West African Airways Corporation on Dragon Rapides in 1957 after war-time service in the Polish, French and Royal Air Forces so that I was just a pimply-faced youth of 33 years to him.

Since Nigeria has an over-supply of qualified indigenes, if you just take a look at the overall numbers of Nigerians holding licences, they have repeatedly invoked the 'Age 60' rule. There is a present shortage of highly-qualified helicopter pilots so that I think there are some commanders over 60 at present, but I cannot say that for certain.

For another thing, different contractees have different requirements as to age, experience and crew composition.

Too, it can be the case that everything goes along quite happily until there's another crash, when everything tightens up again as to operating standards, maintenance, skills and licensing. Suddenly an older guy with, presumably, high skills levels, can look better than some callow youth with the right age and licence but, perhaps, lower skills levels. As I say, it depends.

I was just reading with interest an article about this new licence for FOs, one that will see them in the right seat of an airliner with all of 70 hours flown in aircraft. Was I reading that correctly?

What do you reckon? Shall there be a high-profile crash where the one guy who really knows how to fly is incapacitated and then the 70-hour wonder gets it all wrong? That might be the way to bet, unfortunately.

[Carrier]

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?

[Raas767]

Great! A geriatric invasion!

[Flying Guy]

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.


Ah, but those were really fun days, wern't they Carrier?

[411A]

>>Would someone kindly explain how N4826C could legally conduct international commercial flights with an 81 year old captain<<

The flight in question was operated under 14CFR125, that is to say, operations of a transport aircraft NOT in common carriage.
IE, it was carring the cargo for the company that owned it.

Perfectly legal, done all the time, altho usually not with 81 year old guys....:}

[Fropilot]

The issue is fitness. I have seen some 40 year old pilots who were unfit as hell and some spritely 60 year olds who I was sorry to see go who were as fit as fiddle.

Fitness not age should be our main concern................

Choose your employers with care or you will be finished below 60.