mandatory retirement age for pilots

[shoey1976]

interesting case, this. your thoughts? I'd have personally thought that experience counts for a lot in your game, but do reaction times slow down a lot past 60?
Cheers
Ian Shoesmith
BBC News
[email protected]


----------------------------------------
HELICOPTER PILOT, 60, CLAIMS AGE BIAS OVER FLIGHTS BAN
By Alan Jones, PA News Industrial Correspondent
A helicopter pilot who was told he could not fly solo after turning 60 claimed age discrimination today in a test case which could affect hundreds of other pilots.
Ian Evans, from Kedington in Suffolk, argued that the Civil Aviation Authority was in breach of age discrimination laws and said he was perfectly fit and healthy enough to continue with his job.
Under CAA regulations he was told he could not pilot a helicopter by himself if he carried fare-paying passengers following his 60th birthday last April.
The start of his Employment Tribunal hearing in central London was delayed for an hour so that extra tables could be carried into the room to hold more than 100 files connected with the case.
Captain Evans who has flown Tony Blair, David Cameron and Nelson Mandela around the UK, said he wanted to continue working until he was 65 and saw no reason why he should have to retire.
The CAA is contesting the charge of age discrimination and will call a number of expert witnesses over the 10 days set aside for the hearing.
Capt Evans, who flew helicopters in Northern Ireland when he was in the Army, said he was losing work worth up to #20,000 a year because of the age restriction.
He has continued with certain types of work such as flying private helicopter owners and some aerial work.
He told the start of the tribunal that he had successfully taken 40 medical tests over the past 20 years.
It made "no sense" to force helicopter pilots such as him to retire at 60.
Capt Evans said there were no such restrictions in many other countries including the US, New Zealand, Germany, Canada and Switzerland.
He told the tribunal there had been 503 helicopter accidents between 1987 and 2006 but only 21 of these involved pilots over the age of 60.
Pilots of aeroplanes were allowed to continue working until 65, the hearing was told.
Capt Evans, who is seeking damages against the CAA, accused the authority of treating him with "disdain".
The case was adjourned until tomorrow.

[NigelOnDraft]

Ian... They "key" to this is not likely "reaction times" or "experience" etc. It is legal to fly to 65, but crucially as "multi-crew" AFAIK. The 60 limit applies to single pilot operations... and is therefore likely medically based on the probability of incapacitation. I am presuming my fixed wing ideas above apply to rotary as well.

Given drivers have additional tests etc. at 70?, and these have presumably been justified / challenged, I would imagine the CAA have to draw the line somewhere. The case will no doubt determine whether 60 is judged appropriate... ;)

NoD

[Sleeve Wing]

Ian.
I was forced to retire some time ago, on my 60th.birthday, when I wanted to carry on.

Suffice it to say that I still hold a Class One medical and now work in the training sector.
I still teach aerobatics, instrument and multi-engine flying, test fly and examine.

I also ride a motorbike, sail, run (occasionally) and walk (regularly) 10 -15 miles over rough country, because I love it.

Am I not fit enough to do the job ? Indeed I am probably more fit than a lot of present day teenagers.
It is fact that, apart from external hassle, the job gets easy as you get older.

The daft thing is I can now fly with another "unqualified" person but I can't continue, on larger aircraft, when in company with another "qualified" person.
I can still do the former at night and also when the weather is bad.

The bottom line is some will be OK at 70 and some will be useless at 45.
Some will want to carry on as long as a medical allows and some will want (and can afford!) to retire much earlier.

It's just a case of finding some way to assess each situation on merit instead of a blanket ban on pilots who either wish or need to continue over the present limit.

PS. I do wear specs now and weigh a little bit more than when I was 20 !

[groundfloor]

well said, age is relative. we (the drivers airframe) need to come up with a quantifiable limit, not age based! Its easy for the neddies to say 55, 60, 65 etc..What do they know? Its our own fault I think? If any colleagues out their have some info lets educate them..Ie, 68 years old but fit as a fiddle and good operator with most importantly a heap of experience (how to avoid trouble).

A lot of us would rather spend this time with grand kids, sailing, or at the flying school down the road.

It`s about options - those that want to stay can until they reach the quantifiable limit and those that want to sail should be able to go. The risk is as soon as the age limit goes up the neddies make sums and hmmmm.:hmm:

Open discussion!

[skiesfull]

Shoey the continuance to age 65, as part of a multi-crew cockpit, is dependent on the other member being under 60 yrs of age. There are other restrictions as well, which have been discussed on PPRuNe previously. I believe the restriction has just been lifted in the USA and requires the over-60 to undergo 6-monthly medicals and line-checks. We all age at different rates - I wake up every morning feeling like a 25 year-old, but my wife won't let her in!

[Bronx]

More information about the case here:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=261681

Whatever the theory about increased risk, the US age rule works works in practise. Same in Australia I think. So two of the biggest countries in the world with lots of helicopter ops allow single crew after 60 but that's not good enough for the British CAA that stops single crew at 60.
The stats don't show any evidence of fatal accidents caused by 60+ pilots having heart attacks.
Sure, have more frequent medicals, but the British rule means the end of many helicopter pilots careers at 60.

B.

[mutt]

over-60 to undergo 6-monthly medicals and line-checks

FAA Class 1 medicals only have a 6 month validity*, crews have to do recurrent training plus a proficiency check each year, so i dont see any difference in either their medical nor checkrides that are age related. (*FAR121)

Mutt

[skiesfull]

The extension to age 65 (subject to Presidential approval) will mean bi-annual line-checks, whereas for the under 60's it is an annual check. No change to the required simulator checks.

[Rightbase]

Shoey - you will hear the sound of many axes being ground on this one. I suggest you talk to your local flying club, where the axes are smaller and quieter,and get the views of whoever is responsible for flight safety.

I don't enjoy that privilege, but I suspect that where I fly you would be told that there is not much correlation between age and safety - except that one way or another, unsafe pilots tend to leave the business early.

[JW411]

I flew (MPA) until I was (compulsory) retired at age 65 and didn't feel any different to when I was 40.

Although I can't fly the real thing any more, I am still teaching and examining in the simulator and still hold a Class One medical without any restrictions (apart from having to carry a spare pair of specs).

I agree with a previous poster that some pilots that I have met have been knackered at 45!

[HarryMann]

... and on the TV programme about ageing and long lives the other night, 3 examples were given. Okinawa where they seem to be 60 when they're 80 or more and 110 isn't unknown(Tai Chi and Tofu); Sardinia where there's lots of centenarians in a few families (a strange gene) and California (exercise mad vegetarians who believe in the afterlife)....

One of the latter was a doctor still doing major open heart surgery at 92.. who said "... of course I don't tell my patients I'm 92" that wouldn't be very sensible now, would it :)

[Wee Willy McGorbals]

Why should anyone who has enjoyed a long and fruitful flying career want to deprive many young, experienced and highly capable pilots of a job or the prospect of promotion to the left seat? So you have flown Tony Blair and David Cameron about, is anyone supposed to be in awe of that? If you feel your experience is so invaluable and you enjoy flying for the sake of flying why not join your local flying club and become a flying instructor? When I am 60 (hopefully before) I will do the decent thing and retire and let someone else have a decent chance!

A 92 year old surgeon can burry his f*** ups, most professional pilots cannot!

[Dick Deadeye]

When I am 60 (hopefully before) I will do the descent thing and retire and let someone else have a descent chance!

A 92 year old surgeon can burry his f*** ups, most professional pilots cannot!

Once retired; having done the decent thing to let someone else have a decent chance; and before it's time to bury you, perhaps you might consider spending some time learning to spell. :p

You know, to enhance your reputation as a young, experienced and highly capable professional! ;)

[Huck]

Shoey the continuance to age 65, as part of a multi-crew cockpit, is dependent on the other member being under 60 yrs of age.

Just to be clear, this was not part of the rule in the US.

Won't be long until we have two 64-year-olds shooting a night ILS to a crosswind landing like the Lufthansa video. Now don't worry - I know you studs are just as good as you were in the old days - but think about the worst pilot you ever saw, the one who barely squeaked through his checkrides. Now imagine him at 64, and sitting next to his clone in the right seat. Dark and stormy night. Your kids and wife in the back. And not one study on the effect on safety of the rule change.....

[Wee Willy McGorbals]

Dear Dead Dick,

I am sorry if my mis-spelling causes you offence. Perhaps we could meet on Countdown?

[Hand Solo]

I don't buy this "old guys should retire and give the young guys a chance". That smacks too much of the green eyed monster. It would be interesting to see what the relative medical failure rates were of the over and under 60s. I've no idea what they are, but given that most people accept that a line has to be drawn somewhere I'd be interested to see the numbers the CAA are basing their decision on.

[Dan Winterland]

Reaction time increasing with age? Er, say that again........

[robert3791]

I agree with hucks ,but these guys bail out as soon as feasable.After 60 ,quote me if i am wrong , only the ones that have it in the blood go on .And that's why they stay so fit ,physically and mentally.

I used to do long night flights ,until being pushed out at 60 , but it never bothered me ,cause I loved it.

Still now , i feel like 35 years old .So maybe one day only medicalwill decide ?

:ok:

[777fly]

Huck Sorry, but I don't buy your observation. 'The worst pilot you ever saw, sitting next to his clone' would be just as dangerous a situation if they were 44 year olds. A poor pilot is a poor pilot.......

[ambidextrous]

We have "on condition" maintenance of our airplanes/helicopters so why can't we have "on condition" maintenance of the 'sloppy link' interface between the cyclic & the collective?
This challenge to the 'dead hand' of the bureaucratic Campaign against Aviation is long overdue in my view.
Parliament made a great mistake in giving these people a free hand to oversee the UK aviation industry, without maintaining some form of public i.e.taxpayer control.
Commercial pilots(& wannabe)pilots have been 'milked' by this unaccountable Quango for far too long, Capt.Evans is to be applauded in his efforts to destabilize these people.
The CAA's remit as I understand it is to a) Oversee the industry & b) Promote the industry. I see very little effort going into to promoting the industry & those who make their living from it!
with fraternal greetings,
ambi:ok:

[BristolScout]

Ambidextrous.

I'm afraid you really haven't thought things through very well. A regulator being answerable to it's regulatees is a contradiction in terms. The UK CAA does a pretty good job, by and large. The fact that some people sometimes don't get what they want doesn't make it a bad organisation, merely one that had to be even-handed. It does answer to the Department of Transport, so there is oversight and it's worth remembering that it doesn't receive a penny from the public purse, so has to fund itself from the aviation community. Like any large organisation - probably even the one you work for - it has an irreducible percentage of idiots but the vast majority who work for CAA are surprisingly helpful if approached in a constructive manner.

[earlyNFF]

retired at age 65 and didn't feel any different to when I was 40.

you don´t feel it, with alzheimer´s:hmm:

sorry, that was a joke, I am beyond 6ty, again at the controls!

[Flying Lawyer]

I don't know why BristolScout was so dismissive of ambidextrous post, but one point of information:
Although the CAA charges those whom it regulates (ie those compelled to be its customers), it does not have a remit to "Promote the industry".
In what some may regard as a contrast, the FAA's mission includes "being responsive to our customers and accountable to the public."

"A regulator being answerable to it's regulatees is a contradiction in terms."
Some may think it's possible for a regulator to be answerable to both the public and to those it regulates. ie If circumstances arise where there really is a conflict (or potential conflict) between the two then, after proper evaluation of the competing interests and arguments, the decision should be that which is most likely to achieve the greater good. In short, a balancing exercise in which proper regard is had to both interests.


FL

[Turn and Burn]

If Shooey wants information about the health of pilots he should ask the aviation doctors. I discussed this question with our company doctor. He said that the studies show that health does not deteriorate more quickly after 60 than before 60. However, after 65 the graph starts to move upwards indicating an increased risk of ill health. The CAA and other aviation bodies could not justify 60 as the cut off on the basis of the evidence, but it appears they can justify 65.

[Fareastdriver]

I am 68 years old, fully employed as a public transport commander and thoroughly enjoying it. As I have done over the last 48 years.

When my CAA licence ran out I went to Australia and obtained a CASA ATPL(H) at the age of 65. Subsequently I obtained a Chinese ATPL when I was 66. Neither country has an age limit. Both medical requirements are similar inasmuch as a full medical with a stress ECG is required every year with an intermediate medical at six months.

The Chinese annual is more comprehensive and intrusive with Xrays and echograms. Other Pprune posters have complained that it is up to Astronaut standards but I would disagree with that. You do not have an aviation GP to do it as is done in the West. It is done by CAAC doctors at the CAAC hospital in Guangzhou. I then have to do another similar medical to renew my residence visa. I my case I did my medical last week and flew my OPCs with a Chinese examiner last Saturday. In case anybody wants to slag the standards the examiner in question also holds a JAA ATPL(H).

In the last two years I have flown an Australian aircraft several times with over 130 years in the cockpit quite legally. In China the guide is 120 years but it is not chiselled in stone as we have had to exceed that when necessary when they run out of sub 52-year-old co-pilots.

I will admit that my case is unusual. A decade ago I would not have considered it possible but with oil at $100+ a barrel and a desperate shortage of experienced multi engine offshore helicopter pilots I have been dragged out of retirement twice. Having done both retirement and flying over the age of 60 I definitely recommend flying.

As far as age limits are concerned I know personally several pilots over 60 who continue quite happily but there are others who know when they are losing the edge and they have sensibly packed it in. It all depends on how you feel. Should the usual buggerances of early starts, programme/roster changes, dragged out of bed to go flying start to upset you then you have had enough. That could happen at any age. That is when you change your job or retire. It will certainly happen to me..

[ambidextrous]

[B]"Bristol Scout"[B]-You miss my point entirely. It's because, unlike the FAA, they're unaccountable to the public & unresponsive to their customers that the CAA should be reformed. Being overseen by the Dept.of Transport doesn't fill me with too much enthusiasm if our F/W brethren's comments on the Security thread are anything to go by!
The UK CAA are, I believe the only EU regulator without an element of public funding. Public funding would bring in control, oversight, value for money, external auditing of their activities, best value practices etc. Come to think of it, there's another 'hot air chamber' not far down the road at Westminster that could benefit from a dose of the same medicine!
I have no problem with the "front of house" public office occupants, it's the back room bureaucrats hiding behind the regulations who need shaking up.
with fraternal greetings,
ambi:ok:

[ambidextrous]

To all single pilot op ppruners:
I was present yesterday (Friday) at the tribunal where Capt.Evans is making a valiant stand against this career shortening edict(unamended since 1960),of the CAA.
It was interesting to find that this matter may shortly become academic with the transition from national regulators to EASA, beginning in [B]March 2008.[B]!
Both Germany & Switzerland have recently increased the age for single pilot ops to 65 and as members of EASA this will become the norm as there will be no alleviation/differences between member states under EU law, which transcends national law.
Q-Why then are the CAA wasting thousands of pounds of yours & my fees/charges on trying to squash Capt.Evans challenge when the matter is shortly going to become academic & a done deal for 65?
Please write to your MP and the abysmal Minister for Transport, Ruth Kelly, to protest at this misuse of the levy on the UK aviation industry.:ok:
with fraternal greetings,
ambi

[handflying]

As I have stated in previous posts about this topic:
i am for GRADUAL increase from 60 to 6...; eg for now untill 63 for 4 years (not retroactive) and then up to 65 or whichever age all provided medical statistics can prove flying below the new limitage isn't at a bigger risk as the previous limit; it would have this advantage:not braking the whole cyclechain of events like new assumptions for 200 hr guys, fo upgrdes to LHS, some people continue retiring.

So "older-sorry for all close to 60" guys get a bonus (in monetary terms) which previously they hadn't so they can not complain if they get 3 years or so on top; fo's can't complain as their long awaited command is getting 2 years longer (life is tough but they'll get there-nobody will shortcircuit them and they'll benefit from the measure as well in 20 years or so)-younger 200hrs will wait just a bit longer (maybe they could have free licence renewals if they aren't being hired by a company...let's have our CAA's come up with something if they are interested-because nowadays many have to pay their type-rating which most of us definitely did not!!)

[Bronx]

(not retroactive) Why not?

Anyways, if it weren't retroactive the guy who put all the effort into fighting to change this stupid age limit wouldn't benefit and that don't seem fair to me.

There's more about how the case is going from post #280 in this thread -- link here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=261681&page=14)


B.

[timbob]

"When I die, I want to go just like me old man...peaceful and in 'is sleep....Unlike 'is passengers.......SCREAMING!!!":uhoh:

[tinpis]

How about ...

Single never married ==== = Retire Age 55

One ex wife kids etc ===== Retire Age 65

More than 3 ex wives ===== Retire Age 75
kids,sundry lawyers etc

[parabellum]

Handflying - regarding medical statistic and evidence for pilots over sixty.
A well known specialist in aviation medicine in London started a study on over sixties from the day the age was arbitrarily reduced by the CAA (BofT) from sixty five to sixty, that study took place over many years using volunteers and showed conclusively that risk to passengers, aircraft or other third parties did not increase between the ages of sixty and sixty five. Let us hope Captain Evans is in possession of this evidence.

[ambidextrous]

Parabellum,
Where is that evidence to be found & when did the CAA reduce the age from 65 to 60?
Further, for how long was the single pilot ops limit at 65 previously?
regards,
ambi:ok:

[parabellum]

I can't post peoples names on here but if Capt. Evans were to PM me I would pass him the details, that said, I would be surprised if he hasn't already got them;)

The age in the UK was reduced to sixty in the 1970s or early eighties, it was done over night without consultation. Many of us have been campaigning ever since to have the retirement age of 65 returned to us, it is what we originally signed up for. Not popular with a number of FOs, I know, but it was ours originally, possibly well before many of them became aviators and so may not be aware that 65 was where it all started, not 60.

[Fareastdriver]

IIRC before it was changed a person could fly as co-pilot on a public tranport aircraft up to the age of seventy.

[Capt Claret]

Wee willie

Why should anyone who has enjoyed a long and fruitful flying career want to deprive many young, experienced and highly capable pilots of a job or the prospect of promotion to the left seat?

Having waited 12 years to achieve a multi crew turbine command, and 16 years to achieve a jet command, why should I give up my achievements just to let a young, experienced highly capable Y generationer have a go? Why does a young person deserve more of a go than an "old, experienced, highly capable pilot"???

I'll be buggered if I'm going to walk away just because some one else believes they deserve what I've worked bloody hard to achieve. I just hope that I know when to go, rather than find out by failing proficiency tests.

[parabellum]

Has Wee Willy removed his post? He seems to forget it was us older ones who were deprived of five years at the top of the pay scale by an arbitrary bit of legislation that was never discussed, thus leaving the way open for youngsters to get their command five years earlier. All that has happened is that a loophole has been closed and the situation has finally started to return to a fair and normal state, try and remember, retiring at 65 is the norm. Which of these two options would today's young FO rather have, an extra five years at the bottom of the captains scale, retirement age sixty, or an extra five years at the top of the scale, retirement age sixty five?
Captain Claret, - well said!:ok:

[411A]

Way to go, Capt Claret...very well said!!!:ok:
Until then, the younger ones can just put up with...gear up and button your lip, I'm in charge here, Bud.:}

[Sqwak7700]

Until then, the younger ones can just put up with...gear up and button your lip, I'm in charge here, Bud.

Perfect example of why we have mandatory retirement age. To get those who are incapable of "evolving" out of the way of progress.

Get out of the seat and head on over to the Sizzlers, they have an all you can eat senior-citizen's discount for early dinner at 330pm. :}

[parabellum]

Ah, Sqwak7700, you took the bait!

[offa]

"How about ...

Single never married ==== = Retire Age 55
One ex wife kids etc ===== Retire Age 65
More than 3 ex wives ===== Retire Age 75
kids,sundry lawyers etc"

Wonderful idea but isn't there a category missing? or does one wife at retirement not exist in the aviation world?:D

[CitationUltra]

Bravo! Bravo! You are a perfect example of why there should be no arbitrary mandatory retirement age.

[rick3333331]

Need some help...Three Lufthansa pilots lost their case of age discrimination but it was my understanding that the decision was being appealed . Is this appeal been heard and what was the outcome ?? Did they get their flying jobs back ?? If there is a link to the decision or any on going news ..it would be appreciated.

[BenThere]

I think any arbitrary age limit is wrong, and setting an age so as to keep younger pilots' opportunities moving smartly is wrong on several counts.

The pertinent questions are:

Can he pass the physical?

Can he pass the check ride?

I've geared my life, plans, hopes and finances around retiring at 60 for so long, the thought of remaining any time beyond that is not appealing. I'll be gone. But I defend those who wish to stick around as long as they are able and willing.

We have plenty of external means of determining when it's mandatory to hang it up, such as the check airman and flight doc. Could be time at 60, could be 80, could be 40.

[411A]

A look in the corporate jet area will provide for guideance, and this also includes flying biz jets under 14CFR135 in the USA...

No age restriction, period.
I personally know corporate jet Captains who still fly into their early 70's...and yes, they do so because they actually like it, unlike many younger guys who apparantly can't wait to retire.

Large jets?
Oh yes, these too.
For example, the LosAngeles Dodgers baseball team had a Boeing 720 for a very long time, flown by one Captain for the entire period they owned the airplane...when he retired, they sold it, as they thought so highly of his expertise.
Fred retired at 76.

So, all you younger pilots out there...stay away from my LHS for awhile...your turn will come, some day.:E

[beamer]

Checked into a LGW hotel the other day and ahead of me were an American crew (complete with leather jackets ) - all three must have been way way over sixty and even for allowing for the fact that they had just flown across the pond (as had I) I would not like to look like that and still be working !

[Wino]

Checked into a LGW hotel the other day and ahead of me were an American crew (complete with leather jackets ) - all three must have been way way over sixty and even for allowing for the fact that they had just flown across the pond (as had I) I would not like to look like that and still be working !

They couldn't be any older than 60.5 years of age. American never allowed pilots to go back to the flight engineer panel when we had FEs, and had no FE equipt aircraft for the last 5 years anyway. The change in the law did not allow a return to the airline if you had already retired. So The OLDEST these guys could be be is 60.5 years old. The Guys that I have seen so far that have stayed past 60 LOOKED like they were past 70.

I don't know how old the guys in question were you saw, but I guarantee when some of these guys start pushing 65 they are gonna look like Kieth Richards (but not as thin)

Actually, if you saw a FEDEX crew (they wear leather too) They may very well be close to 65 FEDEX had many ROPES (Real Old Pilot Engineers)

Cheers
Wino

[jackharr]

The simple test (for male pilots) is: "do they need Viagra?" If they do, then they should retire. If not, then they should be allowed to continue until they do eventually need those little blue pills.

Should be easy enough to conduct the appropriate test at the six-monthly medical. Most doctors seem to employ young female receptionists.......

Jack (wondering how long this post will survive before moderated)

and yes ... I did have to retire:\

[beamer]

Wino

Sorry, when I wrote 'American' I did so in respect of nationality not Company !

Jackarr - re Viagra, I was staggered recently when in the States to see so many advertisements on the TV for cures for ED etc. Even more amusing the long list of side-effects with these 'treatments' - you would have to pretty desperate to go down that road.............

[Huck]

If you saw the average American married woman naked you'd understand....

That's right, I said it!

[slip and turn]

That was becoming true in UK too Huck, but thankfully we expanded the EU just in time to improve the gene pool before the Viagra sends us blind I reckon :ok: