age 65 [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

FoxHunter

1st Dec 2006, 23:42

A panel today was split up the middle about raising the retirement age for U.S pilots and made no recommendation on the issue except to state that if the age were raised retired pilots would not be allowed to return.
The members of the panel who opposed any change included representatives from ALPA, APA and American Airlines. Members in favor were reps. from SWAPA, Southwest Airlines, Jet Blue, and Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination.
No word on what the decision of the FAA might be but at the end of the day it will be a political decision and since 70% of all U.S pilots are represented by ALPA and APA it's not a streach to assume that age 60 will prevail.
ALPA had a poll conducted, 55%v45% for keeping age 60, not a vote. That is after the ALPA education campaign that stressed increased medical standards, loss of part of pension plans due to IRS rules, but prior to the loss/freezing of pensions at a number of airlines. The new President of ALPA is on record for changing the age to 65.
The rule will change either by the FAA or the US Congress. My guess is that the FAA will want to change on their terms. The age 60 rule is either about safety or a jobs/promotion rule for junior pilots. If it is a safety rule it will change soon, if it is a jobs program it may not. There are a number of political forces taking the pro change side that dwarf the ALPA/APA numbers.:ok:

Dani

2nd Dec 2006, 02:28

According to "flight International" from this week, JAA medical committee wants to permit flying until 70.

Well, I'm hearing that age has nothing to do with performance. Well well, if I could only believe...

Loose rivets

2nd Dec 2006, 05:01

According to "flight International" from this week, JAA medical committee wants to permit flying until 70.
Well, I'm hearing that age has nothing to do with performance. Well well, if I could only believe...

Mmmm....better get a move on.:eek:

Huck

2nd Dec 2006, 05:46

ALPA had a poll conducted, 55%v45% for keeping age 60, not a vote.

FH, please allow me tell a little more of the story.

From former ALPA president Woerth's testimony before the US Senate:

The results of the survey show that a majority of ALPA pilots favor maintaining the Age 60 Rule. Consider the following statistics from the survey:

When asked in a straight-forward yes or no format, “Do you favor changing the FAA Age 60 Rule?” 56% of ALPA pilots support maintaining the current rule; 42% want it to change.

When we asked pilots specifically about changing the rule to age 65, support for maintaining the current rule rose to 58% and support for change dropped to 39%.

The more specific we got, the fewer pilots supported change. When given a series of options and asked which they would most support, 54% support the current rule, while only 10% support increasing the age limit to 62, and only 22% support increasing it to 65. Further, fewer than 10% support the option of changing the rule to one that measures physical ability and health on an individual basis, regardless of age. And, fewer than 5% support increasing the age limit to higher than age 65 (2%) or lifting the age limit completely (3%).

parabellum

2nd Dec 2006, 09:25

The retirement age in the USA will, eventually, rise to 65 years there is no good reason or evidence for it not to and discriminatory laws will make it a certainty. The major opponents at the moment are the long serving FOs and SFOs who, for some reason, can't take on board the fact that an additional five years at a senior captains salary will be of benefit to them.
There are none so blind etc........
Huck, how old are you? And in this day and age just how representative of the majority of American pilots is ALPA?

slamer.

2nd Dec 2006, 10:23

The major opponents at the moment are the long serving FOs and SFOs who, for some reason, can't take on board the fact that an additional five years at a senior captains salary will be of benefit to them.There are none so blind etc........

Ummm ... but now they will have to wait another 5 years for that promotion ?? (dont assume this only effects FO's)

RAT 5

2nd Dec 2006, 10:27

Dani & Loose Rivets:

It would suggest that all pilots over 65 are going to need an onboard supply of Viagra, especially the long-haul jockies. How else will they be able to keep it up for so long? Gravity will always win in the end.::)

hobie

2nd Dec 2006, 15:10

I think the only thing that cant be "seen" is how working another 5 years closer to the grave will benefit any off us!

I've seen so many guys I've worked with, hit the road (the final road) in their late fifty's and early sixty's ...... these were good guys who worked hard all their lives and deserved a long retirement, and didn't get it .....

Why anyone would want to work to 65 is beyond me .... :hmm:

Doctor Cruces

2nd Dec 2006, 23:29

Does this mean I should feel unsafe flying with someone who is 59 years and 364 days old because tomorrow he will be deemed unfit to perform his duties?

Crazy.

:confused: :confused:

Doc C

Loose rivets

3rd Dec 2006, 05:51

I've edited out the funny answer to Viagra...as one does not know what that is....and as this is the serious thread, I'll make a serious comment. I'll only concern myself with the medical side. Fairness is another issue, and I've seldom found much of that about.

For me, at 67 something is wrong. I wouldn't want me as the captain of an aircraft that my family was on. In fact, as I mentioned on another thread a few hours ago, I am too mindful now of my responsibilities, to be free of concern for them while I'm coping with an emergency for example. Being just a little gung-ho is good.

I still like youthful things, superbikes and hot cars. I love to swim, and can go a couple of lengths of my son's 35' long pool under water without puffing. I have bewilderingly low blood pressure, but have never fainted, but whatever is wrong is nagging deep down in there somewhere. Perhaps it's just knowing a little about the science of ageing, or perhaps my concerns are totally unfounded, I don't know, but I doubt it.

The thing that has stopped me running is back pain. By the grace of God I can still cycle, but it's not the same. My fitness level has plummeted.

The point of this is that such a small thing can echo round the body lowering one's entire well-being. One bearing out on an otherwise serviceable machine.

I have dozens of MRI pix in my computer and they spell out just what aging is all about. A little stenosis here, and a little wear there...not enough to stop me doing DIY all day, but just signs of the clock ticking. But this is all physical, the MRI of my brain was another thing altogether.

I had this done due to a small area of vison ( 0.01% of the total ) that was not responding to lines between 300 and 320 degrees. I don't suppose anyone else on Earth would have picked up on this, but I wanted to know what was going on. It's the way my mind works. The report was a shock. "Numerous hyper opacities -- presumably caused by small blood vessel disease." Those words are burned into my memory.

"Quite normal at your age."

Was I to be relieved at the revelation? Just a natural small change...so who am I -- now that part of ‘Me' is missing? Is it just areas that were not being used? How will the people that vet our health be able to discern the subtle differences?

I am totally convinced that there are people in their 70s that would be perfectly safe as commanders of large aircraft. It's just that I can not imagine the authorities taking the time needed to filter out the ones with the hidden defects.

To counter this, we all know there is a statistically dangerous time around 50 years of age...indeed, if I had been flying when I had a gall-bladder flare up, it would have been a full emergency. I was about 52, and totally incapacitated.

I would think that the only way forward would be for a detailed statistical analysis to build a framework on. This will take years, and it would be breaking new ground in a way. As crews have historically gone out to pasture at 60, the records, if not totally stopping, have changed to data about people who are no longer under the stresses of the job. We will need a new set of rules.

I think the captain should not only be able to go through all the normal 6M vetting, but be able to assist in the event of an evacuation in real terms, not just pulling a toggle and blowing a whistle in time to a check-list. I would want a man/woman that could help open jammed doors, cope in real smoke (as much as anyone can) and pick up a child and run with it. I would hate to see the day come when a captain had to be assisted to the exit by his crew.

parabellum

3rd Dec 2006, 09:47

Getting very pissed off writing reasoned responses to other posts only to see them evaporate when I hit the 'submit' button, so I now apologise for the brevity of this post:

Only a few pilots will continue from 60 to 65 for the time being, eventually it will become the 'norm' and life expectancy, even for pilots, is for ever increasing so 'nearer to the grave' won't apply.

Loose Rivets - the few points that you make about your own medical history suggest that you are not a good example of the 'norm'.

Slammer -Dr Ian Perry, has for the last thirty years, to my knowledge, been conducting a survey on pilots over sixty and the overwhelming evidence suggests that the age of sixty as a 'cut-off' has no basis in medical fact.

Sorry, my original post carried a bit more meat but it has been lost to cyber space twice now!!!

Genghis the Engineer

3rd Dec 2006, 10:24

Okay, my professional flying doesn't involve passengers, so strictly this doesn't affect me personally.

But, I really don't understand a lot of the mentality behind the age 60/65 cut-off, since...

(1) Most countries are heading towards age descrimination legislation in most other fields.

(2) All the current human-factors data that I see says very strongly that experience and teamwork create safety on a multi-crew flight deck, not "youthful" fast reactions and hand-eye skills.

(3) I can't imagine anybody mandating that airline pilots stay working past 60/65, it is surely going to be optional anyhow and there are many reasons why a pilot may decide that it's time to stop.

(4) Regular medical and competence checks will never go away, and clearly if somebody fails either, at either 40 or 70, they cease to fly - this is a lot more sensible than an arbitrary age cut-off.

G

fire wall

3rd Dec 2006, 11:19

Gents,
I am 43 and a skipper on a 747 classic. My old man is 65 and retired with 19000 hrs of hard slog and mental arithmetic (sp? maybe). I come from a family of flyers....father, aunt, brother, cousin all current or previous airline captains on hvy jets..... makes for some pretty boring dinner party conversation for the spouses. Given previous stated I think I have something of value to input to the discussion of age v performance. Granted this observation of mine may not be representative....just an observation so here goes....

Based on what I have seen I am all for guys flying after 60 but with the following provisios..........no long haul and absolutely no short term rest between flights. This is based on observations of numerous much loved crew members who displayed alarming lack of mental agility when not given adequate time off to recuperate....more than is given by our piss poor FTLS. As the clock ticks we all suffer and the time to recuperate takes more hours than the younger folk. Dismiss this if you like but before doing so ask yourself this question........ the last time you made a mistake or error of judgement(and for those that are vain...and we all do) I would garner that fatugue was an issue either overt of in the background.

.....and parabellum I think you are incorrect.....loose riverts is the norm and hits the mark...... and I am proud to say I can still do all the fun runs and triathalons so fitness is not the issue but from my understanding the studies done concentrate little on cognitive agility under real mental stresses on the flt deck in abnormal situations but more on pure physiological health v age and the improvements of such a relationship given modern medicine and diets. I would be happy for you to direct me to evidence to the contrary.
Rgds

Huck

3rd Dec 2006, 12:38

The major opponents at the moment are the long serving FOs and SFOs who, for some reason, can't take on board the fact that an additional five years at a senior captains salary will be of benefit to them.

Quite wrong, actually.

We will get 5 more years as F/O's or S/O's. And others, young guys/gals with children, will get 5 more years at crap jobs waiting for the blessed good one. And twenty-somethings will get 5 more years waiting for their first flying job.

My total years as a captain will be the same, I'll just be older during them. And they will be worth much less, due to the time value of money.

Also, statistically there is a 25% chance I won't even make it to 60 at my company (I will lose my medical due to our back-side-of-the-clock operations). If that happens this rule change will do me much financial harm.

And do you folks really believe the days of hand/eye coordination are dead, replaced with the "crew concept?" I flew into Memphis last week with the wind 80 degrees to the runway, 20 gusting to 33. The captain, a 40 something, did a great job. What is the 64 year old captain supposed to say - "You take the landing, I feel too old." Not too many captains I know would be able to say that....

Flying Guy

3rd Dec 2006, 15:32

Gents,
Based on what I have seen I am all for guys flying after 60 but with the following provisios..........no long haul and absolutely no short term rest between flights.

Fire Wall you are 43. When you reach 60 I will be interested in your opinion about how age affects us. I don't mean to be disrespectful and I am not picking a fight with you, your writing is earnest and on topic. But I resent people trying to stereotype us Grey hairs as muddled and not fit. I am fitter than most of the young stallions in the right seat who fly with me. My reaction time may be a tad slower these days but my response to any situation is tempered with experience and the resulting decision (discussed with the crew and their opinions considered) is usually a good one.

The ALPA polls (in my opinion) are all about economic issues and upgrades, and have little to do with safety, or mental and physical fitness to fly.

I am 63 and fly for an overseas carrier. As of November 23 I can (and will) now fly trips to and from the US, as well as within the US. That is going to really annoy over 60 pilots in the US who are forced to retire by the FAA. And they should be annoyed, it is a travesty - in my opinion.

Regarding ...er .. . what was it we were talking about?

Loose rivets

3rd Dec 2006, 18:00

parabellum Your frustration is palpable. Believe me, I know the feeling.

The main point I would pick up on (and with the greatest respect to Dr Perry) is that there is still no ‘norm'. If there were, this forum would be largely unnecessary: all the medical rules would be in place.

These studies are undertaken in some form or another for most complex medical issues, but as I said, when pilots are allowed to carry on for more years, the stresses that they encounter will change the datums. Dr Perry's work can't just be extrapolated, it will have to be extended to those that are on the over sixty front line. An extended data set.

I believe that my few issues are simply an example of problems that remain hidden in the supposed ‘normal' person. Certainly, if I had not been working on a broadcast quality T/V camera, I would never have noticed the visual anomaly. It was minute. So the way in which the brain slowly dies would have been something that I never thought much about.

Now with regard to fire wall's observation of the older members of the ‘aviation family' mentioned above. The recovery time is something that I have observed in older pilots and indeed thought quite a lot about. I'm surprised that I didn't bring it into the discussion. So as not to get too close to home, let's just say that I believe this to be correct. Older pilots (always I mean the average person) can not cope well with the stresses of sleep depravation -- despite naturally requiring less sleep than a younger person in the normal world. This spells as clearly as anything, why the studies would have to be extended under load, so to speak.

Having made myself the devil's advocate, let me say that a lot of healthy retired people do not want to fade away in their 60s. There is no reason that they should, but the vetting has to be based on good science.

JW411

3rd Dec 2006, 18:13

Well, I think it is a very personal issue. I flew commercially until I was 65 and enjoyed every minute of it. I had no trouble with sleep and I still have a Class One medical.

In my last job, I only missed two flights in 19 years due to ill health (colds) and it was my experience that it was the youngsters who were always sick and couldn't hack the unsociable hours.

hetfield

3rd Dec 2006, 20:00

slamer.

3rd Dec 2006, 20:29

FoxHunter

3rd Dec 2006, 23:10

quote=parabellum
Slamer -Dr Ian Perry, has for the last thirty years, to my knowledge, been conducting a survey on pilots over sixty and the overwhelming evidence suggests that the age of sixty as a 'cut-off' has no basis in medical fact.
If that is so, why under the new standard, in the case of multi pilot operations, for the pilot to operate as pilot-in-command up until the age of 65, the other pilot must be younger than 60 yrs of age.
Surely this is an indicator that pilot performance past the age of 60 (as based on medical fact) is a cause for concern, otherwise this caveat would not exist?
I'm not sure if the "other pilot" potentially refers to the Cruise pilot, although one would have to assume it does.
ICAO SAYS,
>>older pilots do not present any particular risk to flight safety. Neither is the Secretariat aware of scientific research that dictates the maintenance of the current upper age limit. On the contrary, studies conducted in Japan (1990) and United States (1993) both gave indication that pilots’ retirement age could safely be increased by several years, and a very recent study of 165 commuter aircraft accidents in the United States between 1983 and 1997 points to no notable differences between the age groups except that the percentage of crashes involving pilot error decreased somewhat with age, being lowest for pilots between 58 and 63. The over-all conclusion was that neither the prevalence nor the pattern of aircraft accidents change significantly as age increases from the 40s to the SOs and early 60s. In another recent study in the United States, a cohort of more than 3 300 commuter and air taxi pilots, who were between 45 and 54 years old in 1987, were followed for eleven years. No age-related increase in crash risk was shown, but the risk of crash decreased by half among pilots with more than 5 000 flying hours at baseline. In Japan, in a study of its 60-63 year-old airline pilots, it was found that none had been involved in an accident during the ten-year study period (1992- 2001) while during the same period 323 accidents including twenty-seven airline accidents had been reported to the authorities. The purpose of simulator checks, line flying checks and regulatory health examinations is to contain the risk of pilot ‘failure’ during the period of validity of the rating or medical certificate; it appears from available evidence that such checks do ensure adequate protection of flight safety for those aged under 60 years. The Secretariat knows of no reason to believe that they will fail to do so for those aged 60 to 64 years. Moreover, there is still today, as stated by AsMA, insufficient medical evidence to support any restrictions based on age alone. In the JAA countries, the upper age limit of 60 has been maintained for pilots in single-crew operations, but since 1 July 1999, the JAA regulations have allowed airline pilots to continue flying until age 65 with limitation to multi-crew operations and with the proviso that no other member of the flight crew is older than 59. However, the Secretariat is aware that this proviso was not based on medical grounds but rather the result of a compromise between the different parties. Although recommended by IATA, the Secretariat does not consider this proviso safety relevant for the following reason: For the individual pilot engaged in multi-crew operations, it is today generally accepted that a medical incapacitation risk of one percent per annum (“The 1% Rule”) is fully compatible with the desired flight safety level for airline operations. This risk level corresponds to one medical incapacitation per 100 years or approximately one million hours. Male pilots from Scandinavia, United Kingdom and NorthAmerica are lilely to approach this risk level when they are around 65, female pilots three to four years later. The risk of two older pilots becoming medically incapacitated at the same time, during the same one-hour flight, is thus one per trillion hours (1 trillion — 1012 or one million x one million), a risk so low that it can safely he disregarded.<<

stilton

4th Dec 2006, 01:09

As a Captain for a US Major and 43 years of age my perspective is slightly biased.

Due to bad timing on my part it took me 13 years before our nonexistent growth allowed me to hold a left seat.

On September 11th 2001 I woke up in my hotel room in Madrid to watch the word turn upside down, and with it my LHS.

A few more years went by and I decided to hold out for the larger equipment, (10 years of flying short haul was enough)

When I finally upgraded it was after 19 years in the Engineer and RHS.

Now I see people who were hired 2 years before me (and upgraded in 3 or 4 years) drooling at the prospect of another 5 years holding myself and my peers back.

I don't care that, theoretically I could work another 5 years, I don't bloody want to, move on and let us have our turn.

Genghis the Engineer

4th Dec 2006, 07:29

Five Green

4th Dec 2006, 08:18

"Moreover, there is still today, as stated by AsMA, insufficient medical evidence to support any restrictions based on age alone."

This does not say "....and there IS sufficient medical evidence to support increasing the retirement age" hmmmmm

You sure won't find me working past sixty, at least if I keep the current wife !

Any of the statistics I have looked at all point to higher probabilities of incapacitation the older you get. Whether that means it jumps from 1% to 1.5% it will still be higher. Pilots will also medical out more often after age 60 (even if only slightly) and that may affect the ability of pilots to get loss of licence, and will almost certainly increase the cost of said insurance.

Cheers

Five Green

4th Dec 2006, 08:31

Oh yeah, and it is overly simple to say that the retirement age extension is offset by being able to work an extra five years.

As we all know the seniority list at most airlines does not have an equal number of Captains and First Officers. The more long haul the airline flies the greater the disparity (4 to 1 on a long haul a/c). An airline might have a ratio of two and a half or three FOs to one Captain. In this case a Five year extension means ten or fifteen years more in the right seat. It also increases the chance that the cyclical nature of aviation will rear it's ugly head. In other words you are at greater risk of spending longer in the right seat.

Another reality is that you will probably work for five more years and make about the same (or maybe less) than you did if you and those above you retire at 60. It is only good for current captains. Anyone not yet in the left seat will work longer for the same career total pay. In most countries you will also have less years to collect your retirement and therefore face a higher tax burden. So not worth it at any cost for me.

Most of all it is only good for the companies not for the pilots.

Happy flying

chuks

4th Dec 2006, 12:46

I think a lot of you are only looking at this from the point of view of airline pilots. There are a lot of other people working in aviation who are impacted by the Age 60 Rule. In my case it is so that many contracts specify a maximum age of 60, presumably basing that on the Age 60 Rule. Changing the rule would do a lot to help to eliminate the unfortunately unique way that age discrimination is allowed in aviation where it has been banned elsewhere.

I made my choice a long time ago not to go for an airline job, for a lot of reasons. (Mainly that I would probably make a crap airline pilot, to be brutally honest!) One of them was that the airline people I knew (admittedly a small sample) didn't really seem very happy for all the money they were making. It could be that those years waiting to upgrade make one bitter and twisted? I don't know.

Of course it is a truism that money won't make you happy. (On the other hand, if money won't make you happy, try poverty and see how that leaves you feeling!) I couldn't understand how a fellow making more money than God could be so miserable but there it was. It sure didn't look like what I wanted out of aviation so that what with one thing and another I went elsewhere.

A lot of the people here seem to be whining about their hard luck and somehow expect the rest of us, including many out in the wider world of non-airline aviation, to put up with this demonstrably unjustified and discriminatory and possibly unfair rule just to help them out of a situation that has developed for many reasons. I suppose that if the airline business had developed as hoped-for 20 or 30 years ago then the majority would now want to see the rules changed so that they could stay in the left-hand seat. Stuck waiting to upgrade, well, it is the other way around. Natural justice is still on the side of a rules change, I think.

Probably some of you would have chosen a different career if you knew how things would develop. You put down your bet to see how it paid off, basically. One guy went with Southwest, another with Delta. 20 years ago the Delta guy seemed to be way ahead, but now? Hey, life is unfair!

Dani

4th Dec 2006, 13:55

This topic isn't treated here for the first time, and the reaction is always the same, the supporters of the 65-y-rule are so radical against the non-supporters that I firmly believe that the older one gets, the more stubborn and narrow-minded one gets. This covers my experience in cockpits quite well...

What I said about this topic already once: It's not the pilots who decide, because they decide for their own right, and since human kind is a selfish nature, they vote for the 65 years. That's why it's some medical experts and finally the authorities who decide. And this is good so.

Dani

FoxHunter

4th Dec 2006, 15:19

I'm not sure that they see it in quite the same way Stilton - which makes it all a bit difficult doesn't it.
G
Note to Foxhunter Can you tell us exactly where that ICAO quote came from? - I'd love to show it to one of our human factors chaps at work, it might be useful to him.
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

Genghis the Engineer

4th Dec 2006, 15:38

Excellent, thank you very much Foxhunter.

G

RAT 5

4th Dec 2006, 16:36

There are many Eu airlines, LoCo's especially, who have cutoff retirement ages of 60. This also meant no-one over 60 could join them, even if they did not fly over France etc. Has any of the companies issued a statement about future policy? Considering the shortage of captains at a time of expansion a change of policy must be in their thinking. If so, and considering that this abolishment of the age rule was known in advance, why has there been no declaration of change in retirement rule; if that is the case?
Generally, it is affected by pension plans etc. but not every airline has such a binding pension.

JamesA

7th Dec 2006, 14:13

I would like to pick up on your personal situation, Loose Rivets. You follow your health in great detail, nothing wrong with that. But, You cannot lay your situation down as a standard for everybody else. Try getting a doctor to give an opinion or forecast, and he will say 'As a general rule........ but everyone is an individual, so.................' So, let the doc of the day decide if a pilot - captain, F.O, trainee, whatever is fit to fly, immaterial of age.

From my experience with colleagues, I think you hit the nail on the head - Five Greens, when you say if you stay with the current wife. I know many captains who would have loved to stop at 60 but, how many pensions will cover those alimony payments and put a crust on the table? Or pay anything, if the captain or whoever is with a US carrier?
And, here is the crux, the man moves from the left seat and remains flying. Unless the company rule says 60 and out, the man has not made way for some hopeful to get a foot in the door. I know a lot of 60+ four ringers in the eng. seat, still with a valid medical, who could probably do just as well in the front seat. So everybody is still on the treadmill trying for an extra loaf.

Genghis the Engineer

8th Dec 2006, 15:54

This may be of interest to the debate.

I've just come across a paper published by Dr Tony Segal of the BGA in 1996, which examined the issue of medical standards for ageing flying instructors. He shows the rates of death and accident at various ages. I've reproduced a few of his hard numbers here...

Death rates per million population - coronary heart disease, England and Wales, 1991

Age............Male............Female

25-35.........31...............8
35-45.........335.............55
45-55.........1468............274
55-65.........4987............1577
65-75.........12806...........5734
75-85.........27301...........15914
85+...........44544............35153

Which seems on the face of it (if you assume that the percentage risk of a cardiac problem going undetected is fairly constant) to make a strong case for an age cut-off around 60ish. This is not really borne out however by some data from ALPA in the 1960s which indicates that of 15 deaths in the air from coronary heart disease in airline cockpits between 1956-1966...

1 x 28 years old
4 x 30-39 years old
6 x 40-49 years old
4 x 50-59 years old (ages 50, 52, 52, 56)

- Not really showing much variation above age 30.

Then in the same paper was a table comparing accident rate with the age of the pilot in command (in GA rather than airlines I'm afraid) for the USA, apparently the data is from 1982...

Age...................Accidents per year per 1000 pilots
16-19..................24
20-24..................13
25-29...................10
30-34....................10
35-39....................7
40-44....................6
45-49....................6
50-54....................6
55-59....................6
60+.......................5

Such a shame that the data doesn't seem to be there for larger aircraft operations, nor by flying hour, which would be more informative to this debate.

Interesting however.

(The paper was in the BGA "Laws and rules for glider pilots", 12th edition, May 1996.)

G

beamer

8th Dec 2006, 16:48

Assuming they have not got half a dozen ex-wives to pay off, why anyone in their right mind would want to carry on after 60 is beyond my comprehension !

chuks

8th Dec 2006, 17:01

Those statistics are interesting indeed. One point, though, is that most of the general population do not have regular ECGs, many not having regular medical checkups at all, when pilots over 40 have one every six months for a Class I medical. Since that should pick up signs of a developing heart problem I would think that death rates from a heart attack might be lower for the aged pilot group compared to the general population. Does anyone have the stats for that to post?

On the other hand, yes, the older guy is going to be more prone to fall off his perch compared to someone younger. Otherwise holding a pilot's licence would be the key to immortality. The big argument is 'Where do you draw the line?' though.

I noticed that the economic and social impact of the Age 60 Rule was cited in passing in this discussion. That raises another interesting point: which would bring the greater benefit to society, keeping or scrapping the rule? That would be a Utilitarian argument that ignores the unfairness or not of the Age 60 Rule. I doubt people are ready to discuss it on those terms.

Ct.Yankee

8th Dec 2006, 19:29

How about those of us who just like flying giant jets around the world??
What's wrong with that??
A little backround;
I am currently riding sideways in an eighteen wheeler that has Spiderman on the tail.
I am the son of an airline pilot who was vibrant and full of life when he was forced to retire in 1968. (BTW when I was in A300 sims in 1978 his buds let him fly the sim., I was embarrassed by his great performance 10 years later)
For those of you whingers, at the Wings of Man it was over sixteen years to the left seat in the 70's and 80's. Grow up!! Don't expect left seat in a couple of years!
Once again, some of us love commercial aviation and want to fly as long as we can pass two physicals and two checkrides a year!

loofah

9th Dec 2006, 06:41

Assuming they have not got half a dozen ex-wives to pay off, why anyone in their right mind would want to carry on after 60 is beyond my comprehension !
Could it be because they have a greater physical and mental capacity than you?;)

JamesA

9th Dec 2006, 07:32

Who is this Spiderman????

I was always told it was a gay guy with a beach ball on his back. Or am I on the wrong tail???

See you somewhere around the trail.

beamer

9th Dec 2006, 08:10

Loofah

Perhaps it could be that after thirty years of flying I have better things to do with the rest of my life than be sitting halfway across the Atlantic in the middle of the night !

Centaurus

9th Dec 2006, 09:59

I've seen so many guys I've worked with, hit the road (the final road) in their late fifty's and early sixty's ...... these were good guys who worked hard all their lives and deserved a long retirement, and didn't get it .....

The reason why some pilots have a short innings after compulsory retirement is that may not want to retire - and believe me it's not the money. It is because flying has been their life and the view from 41,000 ft is just as beautiful at age 60 or 70 as it is at age 20.

Golf, bowls, the slippers and the old pipe may be enjoyed by a few who have looked forward to a quiet life contemplating the beach while sitting in a deck chair and watching the sunset. But I suspect that most of us who were forced from the flightdeck at 59 years and 364 days have sometimes lapsed into boredom and depression at being forced out of a job that we have loved ever since we first got our private pilots licence.

Unless you are qualified and also lucky enough to walk into another fulfilling job that keeps your mind alert, then with some types it is all downhill to an early grave. I believe a survey proved this a few years ago.

BOAC

9th Dec 2006, 12:30

Absolutely correct, Cent. - and it has been said before, and I'll say it again - I do not know of any plan to force anyone to work until 65. If you don't want to be sitting halfway across the Atlantic in the middle of the night ! don't! Quit. If it hurts that much and is that difficult, 'arrange' to fail your medical or a sim check.

In any case, we are now heading for age 68, so it looks a bit bleak for you, beamer:)

JackOffallTrades

9th Dec 2006, 15:58

Move over grandad I wanna command!!! :}

Go and play golf. :E

loofah

9th Dec 2006, 16:26

Loofah
Perhaps it could be that after thirty years of flying I have better things to do with the rest of my life than be sitting halfway across the Atlantic in the middle of the night !

Hey Beamer, how come it took you so long to find out?! Or is it OK to be 'half way across the Atlantic' up to your 60th birthday but not the day after. If you feel so bad about it now, why not quit and start doing those 'better things with your life' now rather than later. Or do you need the money?

slamer.

9th Dec 2006, 21:59

slamer.

9th Dec 2006, 22:06

Demoted Air NZ pilot, 60, wins fight

Sunday December 10, 2006
By Catherine Woulfe

An Air New Zealand pilot who was automatically demoted on his 60th birthday has won a discrimination case against the national carrier on the grounds of "ageism" - and says he can't wait to get back into his captain's uniform.
David McAlister, now 62, told the Herald on Sunday he had applied to be reinstated as captain as soon as he heard Judge Coral Shaw's decision that the company's treatment of him had been discriminatory and unlawful.
He also planned to claim compensation. "It was a fight... but I'm delighted with the outcome".
The Employment Court decision is potentially groundbreaking and could mean the company has to change its policy - and wrestle with dozens of international laws regarding age limits.
New Zealand has no age limit, but to fit with overseas laws, Air New Zealand pilots flying certain aircraft have had to give up the captain's seat when they turn 60. They can still work as co-pilot, or fly domestic routes, but these jobs are lower-paid and many pilots have simply retired instead.
McAlister spent 35 years with the company, and had been a flight instructor and chief pilot, as well as pilot in command. If he was reinstated as captain, he would now be able to fly freely for a further three years, because the International Civil Aviation Authority last month bumped its age limit from 60 to 65.
When he turns 65 he can still fly certain routes, including to and from Australia. However, the airline said in evidence that these routes were coveted and giving them to older pilots would create further problems.
"This would lead to a loss of goodwill from other pilots to such an extent that they may resign or bring personal grievances."
Lawyer Kevin Thompson said Air New Zealand had done everything it could to have preserved his employment.
In her decision, Judge Shaw sympathised with the airline's position and agreed the rosters were "immensely complicated" - but said there was direct evidence the company's decision was based purely on age.
"The fact that Air New Zealand did not intend (and I find that it did not intend) to actively discriminate on the basis of age, does not detract from the fact that but for his age, Mr McAlister would not have been limited in the range of flying activities which he could undertake."
Air New Zealand still has time to appeal against the court's decision but representative Tracey Palmer said the company could not comment.
Former pilot Ken Mulgrew (66) is now working in China, as general manager of a pilot training company.
He received a settlement from Air New Zealand after being dropped from his job as captain when he turned 60.
Although the company gave him "golden opportunities" when he was younger, he said the offer of lower-paid positions after he hit 60 was "hollow". "Most of us [pilots] are climbers, most of us are those sorts of people, we're driven... Some guys accepted it. I couldn't, and wouldn't. I just didn't think it was right.
"I would have packed it in at about 65. You've got a fairly good idea when you're capable, or wise, to continue on - I think most guys have that."
Some older pilots chose to fly lighter aircraft, worked in simulators, or quit the industry altogether, Mulgrew said. "When you've had 30 years of flying experience... you've had a huge amount of experience and the experience is just so valuable... To throw somebody on the slagheap at that point is pretty foolish."

JackOffallTrades

10th Dec 2006, 00:21

[quote=Centaurus;3010290]The reason why some pilots have a short innings after compulsory retirement is that may not want to retire - and believe me it's not the money. It is because flying has been their life and the view from 41,000 ft is just as beautiful at age 60 or 70 as it is at age 20.

Eureka... the fountain of youth has been found. The longer you work the longer you live (mental note to self; plan to work to 100yrs) with respect...... I think you may be disappointed.

PS; interesting that no one "here" has mentioned their wives, family, friends or other significants..... Hmmm :hmm: .....(see my earlier post)

Yeah.... It's such a short innings I want it to myself. Don't want a family... Just want to see the world from FL410 every now and then. I want to retire at 57.9875 years... I've worked it out.... That will alleviate my desire to find another job after 55 and stop me geting stressed till I'm 60. Hurrah!!! Lets go sailing, golfing, drinking and w@@@@ing....

BOAC

10th Dec 2006, 07:45

To add 'fuel to the fire', I heard from a well-placed industry source that there is a group of 65+ pilots in the process of suing the CAA for 'loss of employment'. Interesting times.

Phone Wind

10th Dec 2006, 12:45

Many of the replies here seem to have come from airline pilots, but there are many of we professional aviators who fly helicopters. Even as Captains, many of us earn less than an SFO flying heavy jets for a large airline. Many of us want to work longer to be able to enjoy the sort of retirement that it seems many of the fixed wing respondents here take for granted. Many of us also, seem less bored and disillusioned with our trade and still enjoy every day that we are able to cast forth the bonds of earth - maybe because we fly low and slow enough to be able to enjoy the scenery (except for those who fly entirely offshore and just see the sea! :{ ).
The helicopter world is not entirely dominated by seniority and numbers and it is quite common for many helicopter pilots to get a command soon after getting an ATPL(H) and 2,500 to 3,000 hours. It is also quite common, in the two-crew environmemt to have 2 Captains flying together; today's commander may well be the co-pilot to the guy he's flying with tomorrow. The airline industry seems obsessed with keeping perfectly competent, well-qualified pilots in the co-pilots seat until some arbitrary number is reached and he's considered for command.
In Nigeria, pilots over the age of 60 have to have a stress ECG every 2 years, in addition to the six-monthly resting ECG. Surely it should be the case that if someone is able to maintain a Clas One medical and pass all his professional checks, he should be able to continue flying. Those who want to retire at 50 are welcome to do so and let those who want to continue beyond that to do so. I've known pilots who are already growing old and unfit in their forties and others who are still young and fit in their late sixties. I know pilots of all ages who find it difficult to pass a professional check. Younger pilots have faster reaction times and older pilots have a greater reserve of experience to draw on. A good pilot will nearly always be good, and a bad one, bad. The law of averages means that most of us are really just average. We probably all thought we were hotshot aces early in our careers, and experience taught us that actually, such pilots are the exception rather than the rule :) .

wifi

10th Dec 2006, 20:00

latest from jaa
http://www.jaa.nl/licensing/pilots.html
come on italy!!

BOAC

11th Dec 2006, 09:38

Now I am really confused! I understood the change was to be binding on all states with the exceptions filed that that they could limit their own licences? Why is Italy different to the rest of the world?

RECSAM

11th Dec 2006, 11:49

Yes indeed, why are the Italians behaving in this way? As I am approaching 60 and looking to fly thin Italy I need to know an answer pretty quickly. Strangely, at the moment my problem is that I am flying a French registered aircraft with a third party AOC, yet the French are making waves.

NiteKos

11th Dec 2006, 14:57

Very strange it would appear you can't even fly as a co pilot in Italy after 60.

BOAC

11th Dec 2006, 16:41

Join the queue!:mad:

Licensing: Mr F Woods (Director) Secretariat
Tel:31 23 5679 733/756
Fax:31 23 5621 714
Email:[email protected] ([email protected])

jondc9

11th Dec 2006, 18:35

there is more to life than flying. ever wonder why so many pilots are divorced, or have frequent affairs?

60, 65, 70

hey, why not de regulate the cockpit and anyone that shows up that can start her up is good to go.

JackOffallTrades

11th Dec 2006, 23:39

Come on you old wrinklies and croak it......... I'm not getting any more senior you know.

Raas767

12th Dec 2006, 14:48

Here is for all you old farts drooling to stay in your seat after 60. With most airlines the union owns the seniority list, at least in the States. What this essentially means is that even if the regulating authority raises the retirement age the unions could craft an internal agreement determining how this would be handled. For example: You choose to fly past 60 you go the bottom of the seniority list as a co-pilot. Not so attractive now is it? Of course there will be lawsuits if we do this but so what?
My airline has 20% of the seniority list on furlough with NO seat movement in well over 6 years so you can imagine how a captain will be treated in the cockpit once he is 60 years old and one day. Does the word scab ring a bell?

joetommy

12th Dec 2006, 15:08

No bell rung. You may not like it, but it's not being a scab according to
Webster, ALPA, and Teamster definitions of scab.
THANK YOU

WhoopWhoop Whoops

12th Dec 2006, 15:44

Italy cannot enforce a law to ban other states aircraft from its airspace, landing or overflight, with pilots meeting the ICAO age standard.
It is contrary to their ICAO treaty obligations , if they persist they would be thrown out of ICAO ,they can only file a difference for "I " registered aircraft. They need to get their laws aligned with their treaty obligations, pronto.

flyblue

12th Dec 2006, 16:18

Italy is taking its time to announce it (as usual), but the change has already been accepted.

BOAC

12th Dec 2006, 16:29

flyblue - I'd be interested to know more! Please check the link in post #50. Do you know the proposals and effective date?

bear11

12th Dec 2006, 16:42

Raas and Mike, I couldn't agree with you more - From a post I made on another thread on 28th November:

"1) the ability of a pilot to fly over 60 legally now does not mean that pilots can legally insist at being paid top dollar at the top of their pay scale in their airline for another 5 years, and
2) I suspect that the rollout to over 60s allowed in many countries will take some time as both local CAAs and airlines decide what they want to do."

India allowed over 60s (subject to 4 medicals a year) before the ICAO ruling because it suited them, every other airline and CAA will be suiting themselves and not you.

jetman2000

18th Dec 2006, 20:39

according to ICAO /JAA the 23 november 2006 rule implementation you could fly as commander till age 65?france seems to be ok now if you are a foreign operator while italy forbids his airsapace if you are over 60?? that would simply mean nothing has been solved for those concerned more italian pilots over 60 could fly anywhere else without restrictions comment:confused:

Genghis the Engineer

18th Dec 2006, 21:25

RAT 5

19th Dec 2006, 10:09

Ladies & Gentlemen,

Can we please get some hard facts about what is going on. I & Mike Jeveny have raised the point, but to no avail. Simple question:

Is there anyone working for an airline, or who knows of an airline, that has offered new contracts of employment, or extended contracts of employment, to allow those over 60 or approaching 60 to continue to fly? If so, in what rank?

It has been legal to fly +60 in most EU states for the past few years, but because of rostering and the difficulties raised by some states, most airlines have declined to employ +60's. This and various pension rules. Thus employment contracts terminated at 60. This change in EU conditons has not come as a surprise; it was on the horizon for months and a transition date had been announced. Why then does it seem such a big surprise to the airlines? So, has any airline taken advantage of this change? Has anyone who reached 60 after November 23 been forced to retire, and has anyone tried to reverse that? If so, with what effect?
Equally what have the various unions been doing about it on behalf of their members? Why has it been so quiet over such a major employemnt issue?