'Fixed retirement age to be axed'

[A Very Civil Pilot]

It's been announced today that the Government plan to scrap the default retirement age (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10796718) by October 2011.

Do you think that this is likely to effect commercial aviation? The last change allowing pilotsd over the age of 60 to act as PIC had an the effect of slowing down progression within the junior levels of airlines. Do you think many people (for whatever reason) would want to stay longer than 65?

Currently the Air Naviagation Order has a statuted upper age limit on flying:

The holder must not at any time after attaining the age of 65 years act as pilot in
command or co-pilot of any aeroplane on a flight for the purpose of commercial air
transport or public transport.
[CAP 393, The Air Naviagation Order; Schedule 7, Part A, Sub-section 1]

[763 jock]

This was inevitable. Why should somebody who is fit and healthy one day be deemed unsuitable to act as PIC the next? As long as you are physically and mentally fit enough to hold a Class 1 then you should be able to continue beyond 65.

I have several colleagues approaching 65 who are much fitter than guys half their age. That said, I'm jacking in all in at 60 if I can.

[flyinthesky]

I saw the effects of moving the retirement age from 60 to 65. It certainly slowed down progression for younger pilots and for some was quite infuriating, BUT to stay on after 60 was that particular individuals prerogative. Do I agree? Not really but that's the situation.

If the retirement age was relaxed completely, then it would certainly suit some, but I would have grave reservations. I have seen first hand the reduction in mental capacity and reaction time from some more 'senior' pilots. It is a fine balance between this and the advantages of their extensive experience.

If I was a betting person, I would say that it will be down to an AME to decide, however we all know AME's that will sign a certificate BEFORE they have examined the individual.

I do feel that there are certain jobs that REQUIRE an upper age limit, ours being one of them. Working in B&Q is not exactly the same.

[hunterboy]

I do feel that there are certain jobs that REQUIRE an upper age limit, ours being one of them. Working in B&Q is not exactly the same.
Quite so Flyinthesky...but what age do you suggest?

[763 jock]

Daily Telegraph:

"The consultation also makes it clear that individual employers – such as air traffic control and police forces – will be allowed to operate a compulsory retirement age as long as they can justify it objectively."

[Bullethead]

I think the notion of a mandatory retirement age is quite odd, I have known pilots in the airlines and the military, who should have given it up years before they were anywhere near 60 and also several who are well past that age who are physically and medically fit and who can still show the younger guys a thing or two.

If you dig deep enough you'll find that the original impetus for the "Age 60 rule" came about when an airline CEO was trying to get rid of a troublesome pilot who was approaching age 60. Said CEO had friends high up in the relevant regulator and the rule was invented and somewhat fictitious phyiological conditions promoted to justify it.

Regards,
BH.

[Biggles78]

There is (was) a guy in Sydney, OZ, who up until 2 years ago was an Instructor. He was a Spitfire pilot during WWII and still Instructing at 90 years old. Not too shabby, eh.

[N7242G]

is this just a fix for a potential lack of pilots in the coming years?

[clunckdriver]

This debate is of course the main topic on the Canada thread, to my dismay it has not set a very high standard of civility.I am still flying in my 72nd year, I fly only two crew with pax/ IFR and use the time to give deserving kids multi time/real world experience and a decent pay cheque. When I looked after the loss of lic stats for our union it came as quite a shock to find that the peak period for medical loss/death was at that time, between the ages of 33 and 52, have no idea what the stats are these days. For myself I just cant imagine wanting to work for a big corporation all my life, but some dont want to leave the womb, most of those wishing to stay seem to have bought a few houses for folks they no longer sleep with . There is no question this will further slow promotion in the ranks.I think one has to be very frank with oneself and when the time comes, pull the pin, its a debate I have with myself on a regular basis, but I try not to talk to myself in public!

[20driver]

I think it is inevitable that "fixed" ages are going to be challenged and will go the way of the dodo. The idea you are OK one day, then two days later after a birthday you are no longer competent just does not make sense.

What is going to be needed is a revised medical, really more series of ability tests, that will track a persons performance, mental and physical, at tasks that relate to the the job at hand.

Someone is going to have to set a threshold and that is going to be the hard part. No matter where you set the number someone is going to say, is there any real difference between a score of 599 and 601 with the threshold set at 600. Probably not but what do you do?

I'd sugest one way to deal with it is to conduct the tests at a regular intervals and track the rate of change. If it becomes clear some one is on the back side of the curve maybe that is when you pull the plug.

At one time I think Transport Canada was looking at doing something similar but gave it up as they could not get a handle on it. I do know the New York Transit agency once had screening that tested train operators reactions at sign in.The idea was to use this to screen out people who should not be at work that day, often due to fatigue. The system was scrapped in favor of pretty useless drug screening.

It will be interesting to see what develops.

20driver

[A-3TWENTY]

My Grand father is 86 and he is mentally fit and does NOT have even colestherol.
But I wouldn`t like to have him as PIC of my plane.

A- 3 TWENTY

[bizdev]

Surely the point here is that the government is going to raise the age at which you can receive a state pension, and that if you were forced out of work at 65 their would be a gap before you received this state pension. It cannot be assumed that people have occupational or private pensions to bridge the gap.

[A Very Civil Pilot]

Good point bizdev, but I'm thinking specifically about our industry; and it's highly unlikely that an airline pilot today will only have the state pension to look forward to.

Whilst, from next year, everyone will have the right to work beyond the age of 65, is ours not an industry where a upper age limit is appropriate?

[JW411]

Well, I am closer to 70 than I am to 69 but I still hold a Class One medical. I have no intention of going back to work but why shouldn't I?

[Thud_and_Blunder]

As those of us in the single-pilot AT world (police, air ambulance, lighthouse support, etc) are even more severely discriminated-against than the rest of the commercial pilot 'community', I would love to see an end to arbitrary ageism. However, I'd have to say that in the light of the recent successful defence in the courts by the Committee Against Aviation of their current policy then I wouldn't hold your breath for any change soon. Oh, and don't expect BALPA to be of any help - they certainly weren't with our campaign despite happily taking the fees off us for several years.

[toolowflaps]

Perfect! The aviation generation that has had it all there own way, big military spending, sponsorships, massive expansion bringing early commands, gold plated final salary pension schemes kicking in at 55 or 60, has decided to move the goalposts again to pay for all the ex-wives.

And the legacy? Biggest peacetime economic slowdown in memory, pilots paying the airlines to fly, and a generation destined to pay off the debts of the previous.

Pull the ladder up behind you Gramps, thanks!

:D

[leadingedge12]

Well put,

I know most of the senior Captains would stay on till they croak and we all know the medicals are a complete joke so without a forced retirement age there will be a SERIOUS pilot shortage since all the good aviation jobs will have zero turnover and knowone will make a career out of working crappy jobs.

Pilot shortage is a myth perpetuated by senior members of pilot unions that got there first jobs with major airlines at 1200 hours and had to fly NDB circling approaches to BFE while now the average applicant for a second rate carrier tops 5000 hr + and your dispatcher will divert you to another airport if the ILS is OTS.

I don't blame the senior capts for staying on as long as they can either since they get the choice routes and the easiest work schedules but please spare me with this 'pilot shortage' bs.

[clunckdriver]

Too Low Flaps ,Hogwash! When I was hired there had been no hiring at TCA/Air Canada in fourteen years, all on course had 5000 hours plus and had been flying in every ****hole around the world to stay in a job, my wife and I lived in three different countries to stay employed. Having said that I can only agree with you that this will slow up employment and promotion for the younger set,when it comes to the P2F crap I just cant figure how the EU which seem to want make a perfect world from the size of tomatoes on up, can allow this stuff.

[Dualcouple]

Some pilots are well suited to fly to their late sixties, others are not. How do you draw the line? Either you compromise and pick a fixed age limit or you find other ways to assess invidividual pilot's suitability. The latter will cost more money.

Screening for Altzheimer's etc. and assessment of psychomotoric fitness should at least be the norm for any applicant for class 1 medical over 60 (or whichever limit you choose) years of age. Sim checks are inadequate as one can often pass them routinely.

Most pilots will at some point of their careers fly with colleagues who shouldn't be flying anymore. The experience is usually not pleasant. I find the argument of possessing class 1 medical and having "right to work" unsettling, as the medical exam as of now does not cover for many age related issues. Also one is often unable to assess his performance objectively.

I welcome our senior colleagues to flight deck, but at some point of our lives the experience no longer outweights the ability and at that point latest the pilot must be let go. Either by enforcing a conservative age limit or by monitoring invidividual's mental and physical fitness at regular intervals more thoroughly than we do now.

[fireflybob]

someone who is 70 surely more likely to drop dead that a 30 year old?

I wonder if, statistically, this is true?
I read recently that the highest risk age group for heart attack is between 50 and 60 years, glad it's my birthday in October!

[Water Wings]

Although I can not vouch for the following story personally, it came from a friend within the airline concerned who is in a position where you could probably trust it's authenticity and if nothing else it's a good laugh.

Older crew member, took demotion to the RH seat to keep flying long haul routes past 65.

Large destination in the USA and the crew are preparing the aircraft for its longhaul flight homeward except where is the FO? Last seen around Duty Free. Passengers start boarding, where is the FO? Ground crew go searching. Didn't take them long to find him wandering around the terminal looking for the gate. Got a bit lost in the terminal.

I'm all for age and experience in the Flight Deck and some guys/gals could go on forever and should have the right to but what about the one's who don't know when to call it quits? Knowing Grandpa is going to fly me to my desitnation 13 hours away but has issues navigating a terminal is not particularly comforting.

[max_cont]

Well if we're going to generalise.

The flip side of the coin is apparent when you talk to line colleagues’. A significant number relay terrifying tales about some of you young Sky Gods.

Many young aces seem struggle to get the A/C safely descended to 1000' AAL without hitting something. The rest seem to go AWOL at an alarming speed when things don’t go as planned on that dark and dirty night. God forbid if you have to actually look out the window and perform a visual circuit to land without the FMC and A/P.

Sit in any sim check and watch the young super confident Sky God trail along sedately behind the A/C, oblivious to the carnage and mayhem occurring all around when multiple system failures start to queue up for attention.

Perhaps if we did judge ability and not potential to do the job, there would be no Co-pilots in a jet transport with less than 6000hrs of relevant experience and ability.

So what would the time to command be then? ;)

Edited to add tongue firmly in cheek in case of a misunderstanding.

[clunckdriver]

Max Cont, Thank you, took the words right out of my mouth, the hand flying skills of some of the "Sky Gods" is almost zero, they are computer literate and very bright but have been short changed by the training system, the worst ones over here are products of Government run schools, and I dont mean the Airforce!

[FREDA]

Not everyone waiting for a dead-mans-shoes command is a 200hour newbie! :}

[max_cont]

Not everyone waiting for a dead-mans-shoes command is a 200hour newbie!

Correct but you’re hired as a Co-pilot not a Captain. :E

There is no automatic right to the LHS…something today’s youngsters seem to forget.

You’ll just have to wait until us old f@rts have finished playing in the sandbox. :}

[bizdev]

I was at BA many years ago preparing a Trident for flight - it was going to fly the queen somewhere - and they got the most senior Management Flight Crew to fly the trip. It did make me wonder - if I was the Queen would I prefer to be flown by the most senior pilot who was probably 'getting on a bit' and spent more time driving a desk rather than an aircraft - or would I prefer a crew who are well down in the pecking order but are doing loads of sectors a day?

Just a thought

[ReallyAnnoyed]

The attitudes displayed by Max_cont and clunkdriver prove that there needs to be a set date for mandatory retirement as some will never let go of the helm despite rapid decrease in ability. The plane is not your toy. You are there to do a job. You got promoted to captains, but it is not up to you to decide when you are no longer fit to fill that role, despite your gargantuan egos.

[RED WINGS]

I shouldnt worry to much! If anything I would bet most airlines will lower the retirement age. Why do the want experienced senior crew? Vastly more expensive in salary and perks, I would have thought by now the bean counters would have replaced them with pay to fly types.:ugh:

[max_cont]

Don’t forget the gargantuan pay check. ;)

Is there something about the term “tongue in cheek” confusing for you RA?

A Rapid decrease in ability.
Who says?
Got any hard evidence to back that up RA?
Is this skill a pilot’s personal ability that varies between individuals, or an ability to pass the mandatory checks?
At what age does this alleged rapid decrease in ability occur?
Are the young exempt because they are young?
Do the young have an innate superior skill from birth or do they have to accrue training and experience like everyone else?
If a young Sky God fails an LPC/OPC, (happens) should we put them out to pasture and rip up their ATPL?
Since it’s usually the old f@rts running the LPC/OPC, do the odds of failure increase inversely with age? ;)

Do we understand what “tongue in cheek” means yet, or shall we continue? :confused:

[flyinthesky]

As I said in my earlier post, there are pros and cons to this, from both sides of the flight deck.

In an effort to remain balanced and not turn this into a zimmer pusher vs 'sky god' debate. Yes, there are many capable older pilots. The problem is them recognising when to hang up those goggles. Let's face it, a few years ago it was a given that they should retire at 60. Most should/ would have made arrangements for that. To stay on after was absolutely their prerogative but also a little lining of the nest. It certainly slowed up any advancement for those below them. Funnily something that never happened for these more senior pilots?

The flipside are the young sky gods. I have flown with many. They range from the inquiring mind, capable and recognising his/hers limitiations to those that think they are invincible. For the most, they are easily identified and dealt with.

I would not want to lose the body of senior experience, but I daresay the companies might. Fortunately, I am 'only' 39 so this is a long way off but it's going to be a mindfield to sort. Those of us with a string of ex wives and kids are always going to need a few extra years to offer a comfortable dotage.

[max_cont]

The bottom line is that new law has been enacted. It’s a persons right to decide when they retire. That decision will be subject to an ability to pass the checks and personal circumstance.
The key word in all this is ability. Just because it delays an F/Os promotion by 5yrs or so is no reason to discriminate against age.

The F/O when he/she does get command will probably need to work until there’re in their 70’s by then anyway, especially in light of the governments track record on savaging personal pensions when they get short of cash to squander. Try getting to the end of a long hard working life, to discover you can’t afford to live on what’s left of your pension without the years left to make up the loss.

[clunckdriver]

Really Annoyed, your reading comprehension, like my spelling, needs a bit of work, I RETIRED EARLY, went on to run my own flying outfit, sold two years ago, now just fly one aircraft for a friend, my lady, myself, and training of some deserving kids who gain REAL time, not some frigin P2F crap {by the way, they are well paid as well] So how the hell you can read into this that I belong to the bunch who want to spend their whole lives working for some mega company beats the hell out of me! My agreement with the poster pointing out that some of those bitching about senior pilots abilities not being up to snuff may also apply to some of the right seaters is just that, agreement with that point, can I make it any clearer? {PS, Regarding "the plane is not my toy?" How about if I own the frigin thing? whos toy is it, yours?}

[beany]

The 'age 60 rule' was adopted by ICAO in 1972 and implemented in 78, after having been in force in some way in the US since 1958 (correct those dates if I'm incorrect).

Robin Wilkening summarised the main concerns very well in his 'Age discrimination in Commercial Aviation' article in 2002, stating that the main concerns surrounding the rule were risk of sudden incapacitation, undetected cognitive decline and the risk of medical investigations not identifying medical problems that could potentially cause incapacitation.

Of course 2006 saw the start of the 'age 65 rule'....... and that is subject of some of the debate here, along with the knock on effect that it had on the junior generations, not something i know a great deal about.

However, all of the concerns addressed in the initial rule are valid, but to what extent now? I am of the opinion that if the regulatory bodies are going to implement a rule, they should make sure that it is based on solid scientific evidence and that this evidence can be translated into a sound and fair system within which to assess pilots and their fitness to fly. We know that cardiovascular deaths rates in the under 75's have decreased by around 25% since 1996, and we also know that memory and information processing decreases with age, but it may be suggested that as a pilot ages, he or she may have some protective effect from their level of experience.

Those who impose and implement such rules really have a responsibility to keep the regulations current to the changing times. I think that there is call for a system that allows each pilot to be assessed as an individual and to have an individual risk score calculated based on their age but also on the entire medical history, presence of risk factors and the role they are in, but also incorporating performace scores as well. Incorporated into the consideration as well would be the potential loss as an outcome of incapcitation. This would of course by a dymanic process and on-going scores can be compared and acted upon if mecessary. This would allow that older but more physically and mentally fit pilot to fly for longer based on a safety assessment set on firm scientific grounding and vice versa.

Using this system may not mean that a pilot who is not fit to fly certain operations with a higher potential loss as an outcome, may not be able to fly other operations and can therefoe be likened to Dame Carole Black's report on work and health, with it's emphasis on the 'fit note', which concentrates on what a person is fit to do rather than what they are not fit to do.

The inevitable question of cost to develop such a system is raised and that is of course a big issue because it's not just the set up cost, but the price of implementing on an on-going basis as well. One could also argue that at some point relatively early inthe implementation process, certain areas for screening programmes would be identified as good prevention schemes. Of course, why should an organisation go to so much effort and so much cost to develop and implement such a scheme when really, the financial benefit in letting some pilots work for longer, and some not etc, would not be worth it. Therefore the costs would be passed on, directly or indirectly to the crew themselves.

I think we're in an age where we have so much information regarding health risk, that simply setting a seemingly arbitrary figure as an age limit is a little short sighted. Surely setting a relative risk per individual in a certain situation is a more reliable thing to do from a safety point of view?

I am all for the age to be relaxed but only if it's done in a safe and controlled way.

B

[dogmaster]

soon, we will start our career at 45-50, and work until 90-100!!

old papy pilots are cheap to maintain, they don't eat, don't drink, don't complain, sleep behind the yoke,don't strike...

[411A]

Why should somebody who is fit and healthy one day be deemed unsuitable to act as PIC the next? As long as you are physically and mentally fit enough to hold a Class 1 then you should be able to continue beyond 65.

In fact, a couple of countries that I know about are considering age 70.
This will happen, sooner or later.

old papy pilots are cheap to maintain, they don't eat, don't drink, don't complain, sleep behind the yoke,don't strike...
Don't know about 'cheap to maintain', however...the rest, well yes.:}

[dogmaster]

as salary: give them some diapers...

" gosh my captain stinks pee "