Age 70 for international pilots? [Archive] - Page 3

gulfairs

30th Sep 2010, 01:14

it's AGEING that's the problem, not the AGE.
I've just lost my Class 1 ( but not yet Class 2 ) due to medical issues related to ageing, I've no problem with that. S**t happens.

I have held a pilots license for a little over 50 years albeit now an RPL.
But over that period Our beloved CAA medical section gronded me on average once every 5 years for high BP.
I still have Hi BP( by their standards, they expect a 75 year-old to have 130/70) which I have never had.

If one can dismiss the ego factor, fly to any age is acceptable provided its for the pleasure of being an individualist, which is what all pilots are like it or not.
Aviation in NZ now has become an act of impossibility: with a BFR which is more stringent than a pilot issue, a medical which I have to make like I am 25 years old. More in-flight rules and restrictions and restricted airspaces in a sparsely populated rural district.
I have given up. more fun in depleting my supply of scotch or gin.
I wish to die gracefully, not all tensed up just before impact, wishing I was not flying today.
Every body gets to where they say if honest "I GIVE UP"

ExSp33db1rd

1st Oct 2010, 06:06

Old F*rts lke ExSp33db1rd (and me)

Old F*rts ?? wot ? me ?

Just been flying with a 16 yr. old student, today calm after the storm, visibility almost to Hawaii, flat calm sea in the Bay of Islands, R/T silent 'cos there was no one else in the sky. Magic.

but was up at 05.30 yesterday to go searching for a whale that had been spotted with a rope and a mooring buoy wrapped around its' jaw, but with a 200 ft cloud base, almost nil visibiity in rain and drizzle, decided to go back to bed. Funny that.

( didn't realise that I was an Old F*rt until recently, when the women parking her car next to mine at the Supermarket said " close your door, darling ( to her daugher, not me ) so that Old Man can get out of his car " !!

whyisthat

1st Oct 2010, 07:29

Hmmmmm, usual load of rubbish here, written by the self centred and uninformed.

However facts seem to support that age and experience equal safety.

It is a fact that the motor vehicle insurance industry offers discounts on premiums to the older driver, but also, importantly to this discussion, imposes hefty weighting to the premiums of the younger driver, especially those who are under 25. Under 25 and powerful and possibly expensive claim / vehicle is just about un-insurable in some parts these days. I wonder just why that is ?.

As far as aviation insurance is concerned, it is also a fact that re-insurance companies that deal with aviation underwriting...(Swiss re, Munich re etc) are becoming concerned at the lowering experience levels in cockpits around the world. Alarmed was the word used in one conversation that I am aware of, when the subject was being discussed in the context of the future aircraft and pilot forecasts being bandied about by Boeing and the Bus company.

Young fellas, who think that they have all the skills required, have been being trained by older fellas who know that they have the skills required, for generations. It isn't going to change. That's the way it is, and that's why we have had continual progression in flight safety over the years. We learn from experience. Statistics confirm that.

The medical industry is telling us that the lifestyle we lead is giving us longer and more healthy life spans (statistically proven) and therefore we are able to work effectively for longer than before. So it begs the question as to why pilots should not be able to continue to hold a medical and work longer than before ???, is our profession so debilitating that it precludes this.

The (aviation) medical profession is saying it isn't, and we can. Insurance companies are saying they want the experience. So I guess the younger fellas will just have to suck it up and get on with it.

Another question might centre around why those younger fellas who are already sitting in right seats, and who on this forum are denigrating the abilities of older captains, haven't seen the light. Those forecasts I mentioned are probably going to mean that they will face left seat conversions in the reasonably near future more than likely anyway. Might it be that their inability to reconcile that age and time in a cockpit (experience), equates to safety, and that lack of recognition of that fact probably makes them, when and if they make it to a command course, a little suspect in the finer points of commanding a modern airliner, and its crew. ?????

I wonder how many of them, in the fullness of time and with more experience, will revisit their views, as stated here, and have the balls to admit that they were wrong, even to themselves.

411A

2nd Oct 2010, 23:49

Might it be that their inability to reconcile that age and time in a cockpit (experience), equates to safety, and that lack of recognition of that fact probably makes them, when and if they make it to a command course, a little suspect in the finer points of commanding a modern airliner, and its crew. ?????

No doubt, whatsoever.:D

MPH

3rd Oct 2010, 16:56

WHYISTHAT: Fully agree! But, it´s not only to do with the medical fittness! I think you will find it has to do with seniority and promotions within the airlines. The 5 years extention (60 yrs to 65 yrs) was a blow to many. Why, because this means that some of the future labour contracts might be extend the waiting list from right seat to left. Experience will always be a problem and you gain that with age! My personal feeling are that if, you are fit, why not? In practice, we will have to see what the majority wants!

free at last

7th Oct 2010, 07:15

Time to really get serious with upping the age to 70. I am having to much fun. How can I go down the Autobahn at 200k, when I am sitting at home in a rocking chair .:cool:

mstjbrown

7th Oct 2010, 09:24

MPH & 411
Experience alone if not necessarily important. What matters is what has been learned from that experience. Most of us know idiots whose claim to credibility is their lengthy years of experience from which which they have learned little.
Experience is important provided that it is accompanied by a continuing attitude of being prepared to learn all the time.

I'll stay away from age and capability because there so many variables in that sphere!

parabellum

13th Oct 2010, 21:32

Airline captain dies during flight | Adelaide Now (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/airline-captain-dies-during-flight/story-e6frea73-1225938451033)

skol

14th Oct 2010, 07:16

But the guy who died at 43 probably still had all his faculties which is more than you can say for a couple of 70 year olds I've flown with.
He won't fly anymore but the geriatrics will.

MPH

14th Oct 2010, 12:46

SKOL: So, the 70 year old's whom are still flying should not be, according to you. And the 43 year old (poor chap) who died recently on a Qatar flight, had more right and advantages to fly, because of his age. That, as opposed to the old farts that you are talking about. Whom, according to some, should be mowing the lawn instead of flying. Hmmm don't see the reasoning. One dies of a heart attack and the the others are senile. Great state of affairs we are in! If, anybody reads these posts they might come to the conclusion that they are been flown around by a bunch dubious individuals!! I'll say it again if, you are fit, pass your medicals and sim's why not fly on to a later age.

FlyingCroc

14th Oct 2010, 17:04

The question is, why would anybody still want to fly commercially after 60? :eek:

MPH

14th Oct 2010, 18:22

Necessity, money, still enjoy the life style, etc. Some pilots don't want to retire at 55/56 yrs. Some pilots have not had the luck at working for a company for 25 years. Some pilots like the challenge and just want to work a bit more because, they want to!!!
If, you want to retire and can, go ahead. But don't critcise the ones that want to continue, can and still enjoy it?

hetfield

14th Oct 2010, 18:27

The question is, why would anybody still want to fly commercially after 60?Many reasons, just use your brain/phantasy.

Hetfield
-retired with 58-

ZQA297/30

14th Oct 2010, 18:48

skol

14th Oct 2010, 19:49

MPH,
I'll say this again.
I've just turned 60 myself and while there's not too many upsides the big one was not having to fly with 70 year old f/o's anymore. Some should be mowing the lawns, a couple of these guys are showing severe symptoms of old age, but they still pass their medicals because there's no way of checking what's going on in their brains.
Even the doctors will admit they know what these guys are like at 0300hrs but there's nothing they can do.

ManaAdaSystem

14th Oct 2010, 20:43

SKOL is right. The current medical exams are not designed to look for age related issues. Night vision, slow reactions, memory, digestion, prostate, mobility, sleep problems, nothing is checked. Just the usual, blood, ECG, urine, eyes and ears.

A compass test every 6 months would be a start.

parabellum

14th Oct 2010, 23:09

slow reactions,

Last time I played Squash I thrashed a lad half my age, he was a pilot and very fit but he was just slow to react, (I'm just an average player - nothing special).

Pausing here for MAS, Skol etc. to wheel out the usual round of excuses.

The fact remains that there can be no general rule, age sixty five is a reasonable maximum, after that it should be on a case by case basis after appropriate tests.

skol

15th Oct 2010, 00:52

Just before I turned 60 I complained bitterly to the doctor who was carrying out my medical about having to be extra vigilant because I was flying with geriatrics who weren't up to the job.
I enquired what kind of solution to this matter there may be and was told that psychometric tests can detect senility etc., but they're very expensive.

So the big problem is who's going to wield the axe?

Doctors don't want to because they've got a reputation and a business to protect.
Other pilots don't want to because it may besmirch their reputation and besides it's a legal minefield. You only fly with them once or twice a year, do your penance or go sick.
And the status quo remains.

In the country I live in a pilot who ran a charter business was known to be negligent and incompetent, but no one wanted to wield the axe. Unfortunately while carrying out a single pilot approach in fog while on his mobile phone he impacted the ground killing himself and 5 others.

Many years ago when an unlimited age for pilots was first mooted I wrote to a chap in CAA who is known as the PMO, The Principal Medical Officer and enquired how he was going to assess mental competence of elderly pilots.
He said it wasn't really his problem, it was mine and if I encountered mental incompetence amongst old pilots I would report it to him and he would carry out the necessary tests.
Yeah right, as if I'm gonna do that.

An abdication of responsibility on everyone's part.

skol

15th Oct 2010, 05:46

What supposition exactly are you referring to?

And of of course I will advise the company I work for that I am not arrive at particular airfields at particular hours, are you pulling my chain?

lambourne

16th Oct 2010, 02:13

Here is an idea. Restrict over 60 pilots from flying between 0000-2359. That should settle things!

They all should be in the retirement home trying to wipe the tapioca from their chin anyway. No need for them in an airplane doing the same with paying passengers sitting behind their senile arses.

capricorn23

19th Oct 2010, 09:42

Why? Because of passion!
Passion is the same @ 18 and @60, 70, 80...and so on...
Why should "old fellas" give up their passion? To give the way to the "young fellas"? As I lived this passion during all my aviation career (I am 63, approaching 64) why I should give up? I still enjoy every day flying "my" B744 and have never considered flying as a job...maybe those who are asking this "right of way" have this idea...but for jobs, written and accepted rules (contracts) apply...not moral rules...
With all respect, I don't consider that a valid reason to step down...only the medical and the proficiency will force me to do that...and, of course, if my employer still agrees.
After terminating my "commercial career" I plan, always driven by passion, to get into the "business" aviation world...of course, again, if I'll comply with medical/proficiency...and I won't have bad conscience problems...it's my passion which makes me happy.

d105

19th Oct 2010, 12:39

I suppose the next move will be:
No smokers in cockpits.
No BMI over 30 in cockpits.
All pilots over 40, annual cardiac stress test.
Annual blood tests for cholesterol for all pilots over 40.
All pilots able to run mile under 8 minutes.

That should thin the ranks for those impatient whipper-snappers.:rolleyes:

Requirements considered absolute basic in any Air Force in the world...

I'm not saying we all need to be fit as fighter pilots though. Just that, when you have turned the 40 years marker on a BMI over 30 and you smoke you have serious health issues. Which will come to haunt you later.

@capricorn23: I understand your disgruntled reaction perfectly. But likely you should understand that in certain situations it can be frustrating for younger generations to see how their growth potential is being curbed.

You must also admit that times have changed. The days where you start out as FO knowing that in 15 years that command will be there for you are over. With that uncertainty comes impatience. You can not blame people for wanting that command earlier.

Capt Claret

19th Oct 2010, 13:10

@capricorn23: I understand your disgruntled reaction perfectly. But likely you should understand that in certain situations it can be frustrating for younger generations to see how their growth potential is being curbed.

You must also admit that times have changed. The days where you start out as FO knowing that in 15 years that command will be there for you are over. With that uncertainty comes impatience. You can not blame people for wanting that command earlier.

I'm sorry but that is just so conceited. I doubt that many captains today would have walked into command without some F/O time, I certainly didn't. I had top wait my time, without malice towards the bloke in the left seat.

Why now should I, or @capricorn23, or others simply make way for youngsters, impatient for a command? There's no "rule" that says one must have a command by a set age, and if rules of retirement have changed, well so be it. Lots of other rules have changed too!

d105

19th Oct 2010, 14:45

I'm sorry but that is just so conceited. I doubt that many captains today would have walked into command without some F/O time, I certainly didn't. I had top wait my time, without malice towards the bloke in the left seat.

Why now should I, or @capricorn23, or others simply make way for youngsters, impatient for a command? There's no "rule" that says one must have a command by a set age, and if rules of retirement have changed, well so be it. Lots of other rules have changed too!

Being 53 I dont expect you to fully understand Claret, so I won't take offence for the conceited remark.

However, I highly doubt you started your first job as an FO with over $100,000 in loans just to finance your training.

As you state you had to wait your time to get into the left seat. But at least you knew it was coming eventually. That's a whole lot difference to waiting your time in many airlines nowadays, where you can't even be certain they'll be around in 3 years.

md80fanatic

19th Oct 2010, 15:21

As you state you had to wait your time to get into the left seat. But at least you knew it was coming eventually. That's a whole lot difference to waiting your time in many airlines nowadays, where you can't even be certain they'll be around in 3 years.

Wouldn't someone who payed less money for training (the traditional path) have to wait even longer than you for the same job? It seems the shorter - more expensive path put you ahead of the others, true, but does not guarantee anything. The aviation business environment affects everyone involved, the fact that you have a loan coming due shouldn't entitle you to eject an older pilot also fighting to survive in the same environment.

capricorn23

19th Oct 2010, 15:48

Dear d105

First of all I wish to clarify that I didn't blame anybody for looking to a shorter "Right Seat career" and my reaction was not disgruntled:I understand perfectly the motivations behind those frustrations.
But I wanted just to make soon clear what is the value which drives me in being still a pilot after many years...and I am sure this is common to many others...in spite of all those naive arguments brought up by many and trying to explain why those "old fellas" have to stay abusively (...this is an adverb I use just to summarize the feelings...) "on board", being the most popular: a lot of money earned but burnt out due to many families and divorces; in their retirement time, not enjoying to play golf or going sailing or having permanent "drinking sessions" in their villas, and others which now I can't recall.
Another "strong" argument was that they are geriatrics (I'll come back another time on this...as I am getting already too long on the previous stuff).
First of all, not all "geriatrics" like to go beyond 60.
Then,IMHO, I find those "arguments" rude and lacking respect to people which they don't even know and that might have taken decisions (right or wrong...but who has the right to say that?...) in their private life which affected only their lives...what has been the impact of those decisions to the "young fellas" careers?...for me: zero.
I myself, something 40 years back, when I joined an airline, saw that pilots coming from AF with a couple years of experience, got their command in 6months/one year (!): as I had only one year in the AF (and about 300 hours) my career began on a wrong foot...getting my command after 15 years...(with few companies "out of businness experiences" in between)...also on those times (40 years back) careers "schedule" were very unpredictable...
And the "wrong foot" began to work from the "first day" (that is after a year in the company): the first oil crises hit the industry (at the beginning of the 70s) and "my" company decided to get rid of the lasts-in (fair enough).
The "cheese on the maccaroni" was that the company, the unions, the colleagues (with safe jobs) gave us valid moral support:..."you're young, you can get easily another career in a different job somewhere else"...what a great moral bust for people having the passion for flying!
At the end, the passion was the best driver.
Now, @60+, the "environment", tries to tell me again what I should do:again?
Again clearing the path to others?
Being politically correct, I just say that I "maintain course and speed", as again, I don't see any valid reason for which I should stop flying, being that my passion.
These conflicting views might start a war between generations which would be useful to nobody: we have already a kind of war out of there (the pension problems between the "fathers and the sons"...being the latter those paying for their fathers' pensions and with "good" chances to get nothing when they retire).
Financial people would say that these ups and downs depend on the demand-supply situations in the market...and very little...from those "old fellas" which don't want to clear the way...and the market outlooks show encouraging signs...
So no critics or blame to anybody, please understand me: it's just "a view of the world" from a different perspective and any perspective has its right to exist...bringing respect to the different ones...

lambourne

19th Oct 2010, 19:36

With the current events taking place in France it appears the government needs an official to tout the benefits of raising the retirement age from 60 to 62. They need a guy like soon to be ex-ALPA prez. Prater to let the French people know what a great deal raising the age will be. They can learn about the additional years of regular wage earnings and the added benefit of having these experienced employees staying in the job market.

This probably the only time in my life I wished I was French. Too bad we couldn't have garnered this type of outrage over raising the age to 65 in the states. Instead we had old pilots advocating the change. They are like cock roaches and won't go away. At least the French want to retire. The gummers want to work to the grave. Want a bunch of morons the gummers are.

protectthehornet

19th Oct 2010, 20:03

I have to laugh...I really do. someone complaining about loans for 100k euro's for their training! I guess I did it wrong, I earned the money first and then spent it on flying lessons.

someone sold you down the river pal!

I've hated the seniority system. I quit my first small airline job cuz they broke weight and balance rules...so I had to start over at another airline. They went out of business...so I started over at another small airline. Mind you I now had more experience than most of the captains there...but SENIORITY!

Then I went to a fine big airline. The captains were older than the hills and I learned from them. But mergers came along and down I went on the seniority hill.

I firmly believe that if there were a completely objective examination, that seniority should be based on how good a pilot you are and not how old you are or how many years with the line you have.

I also believe that there should be no federally mandated retirement age for anything. either you can do the job or you can't.

skol

19th Oct 2010, 20:04

Here's something else you might want to consider.
The last time I did a medical and had a discussion about aged pilots, the doctor told me that in old people the guy could be doing a crossword on Monday and be non compos mentis by Friday.
He mentioned a similar problem with doctors, how does anyone know a doctor is past retirement, should have given it up but hangs in there and starts prescribing the incorrect medicines.
Bet you've read about that before.

skol

19th Oct 2010, 20:06

protect the hornet,

No seniority, just 'how good a pilot you are'.

The grace and favour system. LOL

Obviously have a very high opinion of your own ability.

protectthehornet

19th Oct 2010, 21:41

I guess you didn't read the stuff about an objective examination system did you?

I am an excellent airline pilot. i would love an unbiased (that means no sucking up to the management pilots...who are often rotten flyers) method of determining excellence and seniority assigned by this method.

evidently, you don't have a high opinion of your own flying. maybe you should spend some time working on it.

sheesh!

411A

19th Oct 2010, 22:00

I also believe that there should be no federally mandated retirement age for anything.
There certainly isn't for FAA inspectors....I personally know several who are past age 70.
Do they still do their jobs OK?
You bet....mostly giving malcontent First Officers, who are just chomping at the bit to upgrade...a hard time.
This is called....turning the screws, ever so slowly.:{:E

Younger guys will just have to learn, sooner or later...in the airline business pointy end, the older guys rule the roost, and this is not likely to change anytime soon.:}
However, there is a bright spot on the horizon...in the form massive retirements in the next few years (USA, anyway), which will have a direct positive impact for the 'disadvantaged':rolleyes: copilots.

skol

20th Oct 2010, 05:40

protectthe hornet.
"I am an excellent airline pilot"

Actually I don't feel the need to work on it because I'm not insecure enough to have to, and I've been one since 1969 which is probably a lot longer than you.

If you think you can do the job better than anyone else you should bear in mind Charles DeGaulle's statement.

"The cemeteries of the world are full of indispensible people".

Granpa

20th Oct 2010, 07:49

If you want a reasonable chance of seeing 80, then give it away at 55....Granpa.

fatbus

20th Oct 2010, 08:32

Companies want age 70, you earn income for them and you end up dying sooner hence less pension pay out, double win for them

40&80

20th Oct 2010, 10:08

I tend to agree with Granpa....
Two Cardiac Consultants... passengers on my L1011 asked if they could review my GF rosters...this was in 1988.
Later they advised me age 45 was a good time to pack it all in....long East West... min. day rest... East again night flights particularly.
They did not like the increasingly being constructed long haul max duty min rest type of rosters ...that were being used increasingly throughout the airline industry...and importantly they were seeing the results.
They said then that this type of "efficient" roster that my company GF was seeking to achieve... contained..." A lot of built in... premature mortality"

Having said that...
What they would have thought of my later rosters with B767 two man crew...12hours max. duty extended to 16 at Captains discretion..with 70% through 3.00am..plus 9hours at the hotel rest when appropriate...with 20 to 24 hours rest max. as a policy...with 6 days off in 28 beggars believe.

When I read the ultra long haul hours flown today even with augmented crew I am glad I was terminated at age 60 in My 2000.
In my case the consultants predictions were "nearly correct"... I did receive but thanks to the Norfolk NHS para medics and their clot buster drug survived the much anticipated "Roster" heart attack.
Like most pilots...I blame the management...and not myself!

protectthehornet

20th Oct 2010, 13:28

skol

even degaulle made a few mistakes.

you missed the point of the post...to get rid of seniority with an objective assesment of how good a pilot you are. that would make us all work harder at being better pilots and you would only have yourself to blame on your seniority.

eyes_skyward

20th Oct 2010, 23:07

I am sure many of you have sat next to a pilot just over 60.
When you think back to when you were younger you would not leave the TV remote with Grandad, and you would be hiding in your car seat as he drove down the road..

There is so many items that are missed. thinking is slower. there must be a flight safety hazard to this

ManaAdaSystem

21st Oct 2010, 03:35

Precisely, but these guys don't remember grandpa, they are the grandpas.

411A

21st Oct 2010, 05:26

....they are the grandpas.
So are the guys that make the rules...:rolleyes:

parabellum

21st Oct 2010, 06:37

So where are all the young aces then? Flew LHS nearly thirty years for major carriers and yes, a very few co-pilots stood out as excellent, the rest were just average. Listening to ManAdaSystem and his colleagues here you would expect them all to be **** hot operators, I wonder if they are?

free at last

21st Oct 2010, 06:37

Everyone that controls all the young chaps lives , including mine are above 70 in most cases. So what is the big Deal! I say u got it or don,t, and in this business I have seen many pilots who did not have when they were young, and will not get it when they are older. You are either a Pilot or Not! IT IS AllWAYS GOOD TO HAVE THE FEET ON THE AILERONS. GREAT JOB YOU ALL ENJOY IT !:):ok:

protectthehornet

21st Oct 2010, 14:16

Feet on the ailerons? Will somebody tell him?

MPH

21st Oct 2010, 19:18

Feet on aileron? Then hands on rudder, bum on pitch? Yeah, good one! Must be an acrobatic pilot?

777cezar

25th Oct 2010, 07:07

I'd be very happy to retire and give you my place in the skies. Just like you I have just the first and only one wife.
I have no other choice than to keep on flying in order to survive. My previous company (Varig) went down along with my pension plan.
There are many other pilots with different reasonable reasons to be in the job, so, don't jump into conclusions.
I see, by your statement, that you need some extra hours to upgrade.
Safe flights

Teddy Robinson

25th Oct 2010, 09:35

This is the reason that ANY vocation is not just a job, it shows in the way you approach every flight, every crew, every working day.

Then there are the folks who believe that having spent their 100K the aviation world somehow owes them a living .. some justify their position by their presence , it is easy enough to see potential and part of the task from the left seat is to nurture that through good example and encouragment, others .. bluntly do not which is where the whole PTF thing raises it's ugly head yet again.

The years spent mugging church mice to suppliment the megre earnings of an instructor are actually years well spent: getting out of bed at some godforsaken hour with no guarantee of earning anything leads one to question ones motivation on the one hand and explore alternatives on the other.
If you are still in the frame when it comes to an airline position, you have probably approached every one of those days with dedication and well based optimism that the goal set for yourself is one worth achieving, as you are living the experience, and learning from it.

To echo sentiments previously expressed, I will cease commercial flying on grounds of medical or competence issues only and continue teaching / examining / and hopefully inspiring those with the passion to follow the path I have chosen for myself, having been inspired by others.

Viewing the "experience" in the left seat as an obstacle rather than an asset in ones development does not resonate with me: there were good captains who I learnt from, and not so good captains who I also learnt from, my objective was to adopt the good stuff, and mitigate the bad .. when a command came my way I felt properly prepared rather than entitled.

The term retirement is not one I recognise, that is not to say I will stick with the airline industry past 60 years of age !!

ZimmerFly

25th Aug 2011, 08:06

Maybe even 70 is too early?

Older adults are better at decision-making than young adults (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823130036.htm)

And all those long nights out of bed?

Older Adults Less Affected By Sleep Deprivation Than Younger Adults During Cognitive Performance (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610091333.htm)

highflyer40

30th Aug 2011, 08:49

ok I'm new to pprune, but this topic is relevant to my situation. after a career change I've just started my flying career at age 40. I think what some people aren't realising is that it makes no difference if they age is raised. if the age goes up by 5 years it may take you 5 more years to get a command, but then you will also have that extra 5 years IN command.

if they change the medical to examine age related issues and you can pass then you should be able to keep going to 70.

anyways, that's my 2 cents worth on this topic

Ancient Observer

30th Aug 2011, 10:03

Have I missed some new evidence-based Medical discoveries?

Age 60 was set based on the then experience of medics around the world of heart attacks.

Not so long ago, this same evidence-based approach was used to extend the age to 65.

There has been no evidence so far that the age can be extended to 70. I suspect that some schedules flown by some airlines might hasten a reduction back to 60, not an increase to 70.

This law is not there for the benefit of folk who like their job, it is there for the benefit of customers, who have no desire to die just because some pilot wants to carry on flying.

End of.

mach.865

30th Aug 2011, 12:23

I hear there are moves afoot for there being no age limit across the board. ICAO are looking at the operations in Australia and NZ. Interesting Thread.

Air New Zealand's elderly pilots 'refusing to quit' (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/air-new-zealands-elderly-pilots-refusing-to-quit-20110413-1ddpc.html)

Lost in Saigon

30th Aug 2011, 14:22

This law is not there for the benefit of folk who like their job, it is there for the benefit of customers, who have no desire to die just because some pilot wants to carry on flying.

What Law are you talking about? Many countries have no maximum age for Airline Transport Licence holders, and even ICAO has no maximum age for First Officers.

Tinribs

30th Aug 2011, 15:12

This query about age and hearts was explained to me by my AME when he commented that the current medical would be my last

The issue of a medical is based on a CAA risk assessment taking into account a number of factors

One of those factors is the possibility of unknown/undiscovered problems causing incapacitation

Many of the risk factors can be related to age. The unknown heart defect exists at all ages but the risk of that problem causing incapacitation without warning increases with age

My only experience of a pilot heart problem in forty five years was my young FO at Wick who had a undiscovered congenital problem which showed after a very pleasant meal out. We each had a beer and similar meals except he had union rings with his steak so that's clearly
the answer

BALLSOUT

30th Aug 2011, 15:22

AHH, steak and onion rings at Wick, washed down with a pint. That bings back memories!

skol

31st Aug 2011, 00:10

It's not the heart attacks that are the problem, it's what's going on between their ears and the prognosis is not good.

I've flown with F/O's in their late 60's and they take a bit of spoon-feeding. Lack of concentration, falling asleep at extremely short notice, pushing the wrong buttons because their eyesight is failing and some are too tight to get some decent progressive glasses, get them at the 100 yen shop instead.

Report it? No thanks, don't need the drama.

To be honest I can't fathom how some pass their checks. A couple have been pushed out recently, an ignominious way to finish your career.

beamer

31st Aug 2011, 05:48

I have now reached the grand old age of 'heinz varieties' and thus the end is now in sight. I have been paid to fly aircraft for thirty five years and thus have had a pretty good run. Some poor decisions in the past mean that whilst my retirement income will be ok it nontheless pales when compared to some of my contempories. Like most, my eyesight is not what is was - too old for laser surgery (even if it were approved ) so reading glasses it is - hearing still fine and not overweight, well not much anyway ! I cannot afford to go at 60 but will certainly not go on to 65 or even close to it but the prospect of someone from the crewing department calling me to fly a deep night in my mid-sixties fills me with gloom and its not going to happen.

We have a generation of First Officers in many airlines who are being held back by the ever-changing goalposts and the slavish adherence to seniority.
Many of these guys are ready for Command courses now but what can they do - hang on where they are for ever and a day consoling themselves about their pensions or take a chance and move to a new operator where command chances may be improved ? A good First Officer with a strong training background and relevant experience should be ready for command after 3-5 years in the role - obviously some take longer than others and sadly some never quite make the grade; the good ones however, now have to sit on their hands year after year losing interest and professional pride in what they do from time to time - inevitably.

I do not buy the argument that 'senior' pilots, well into their sixties, on very strong financial packages, have no responsibility to their younger colleagues.
This will be the last generation of pilots who retire on mega-pensions, multiple homes, aircraft, boats etc !

Desert185

31st Aug 2011, 06:27

Bigmouth

31st Aug 2011, 06:39

I am 67 and fly a four-engine jet for a government agency, and I'm not the only one there in that age range. Why do I do it? Because I enjoy it, I am still capable and they value my experience. I have a nice airline retirement, so money isn't a motivating issue. The money is just icing on the cake. Being forced to walk away from what I enjoy just because a junior guy wants my seat is assinine.

How did you get to where you are today? Due to seniority, or due to superior skills, experience, training and/or luck? If the latter, then stay where you are as long as you want. If due to the former, then hold up your end of the deal and make way for the next guy.

AVApilot

31st Aug 2011, 16:31

70? WOW!, Some folks at my workplace are already looking like pitted prunes, and they're just over 60, hell there's even a guy who looks really dated and he just turned 50, I think the no age limit is a big No-No, especially if the decision to hang the old cleats is left to the pilot him/herself, there will always be pilots arranging checkrides, groundschools, medical exams, you name it, remember what happened in india and china a few months back regarding some pilots's licences and logbooks? If they did that just to get the jobs at entry level, imagine what the old farts will do to keep flying and taking home the big paychecks?, I have flown with guys who have been ready to pack it in for a while back but they haven't just because of the paycheck, this stopped being a flying matter a long time ago.

Desert185

31st Aug 2011, 18:11

From Bigmouth: How did you get to where you are today? Due to seniority, or due to superior skills, experience, training and/or luck? If the latter, then stay where you are as long as you want. If due to the former, then hold up your end of the deal and make way for the next guy.

All of the above. I did retire from the airline at 60, and in part, left the job to a guy who couldn't enter a hold to save his soul. There were many better than him, though.

I was chosen in my current status for my reputation and experience. Age was immaterial. Should I still walk away, telling them they need to hire a younger guy with more mouths to feed than me? If I did, I wouldn't be contributing to my own luck. Do other professions have forced retirement for the same reason?

My point was that age doesn't matter. What matters is individual ability. Isn't that one reason we take periodic checkrides? If the sole reason for leaving is to make room for the young guys, then there is something seriously wrong with the system.

For those who I say I might have alimony, kids, too many bills, etc...that isn't the case. I have actually managed my life well (with a bit of luck), so why pay a penalty now if it is all still working?

I was forced to walk away once. I don't need to do it again. Besides, I'd personally rather earn the position fairly than take it away from someone in a socialistic manner.

ManaAdaSystem

31st Aug 2011, 23:52

I am 67 and fly a four-engine jet for a government agency, and I'm not the only one there in that age range. Why do I do it? Because I enjoy it, I am still capable and they value my experience. I have a nice airline retirement, so money isn't a motivating issue. The money is just icing on the cake. Being forced to walk away from what I enjoy just because a junior guy wants my seat is assinine.

It's almost like hearing 411A again, just before he checked out. Luckily, he didn't do it flying.
He passed every medical with flying colors, but it didn't matter one bit.

pjac

31st Aug 2011, 23:58

Hi Ballsout-No, not onion rings, UNION RINGS-that will undoubtably "Bing" many things back!

Oldaircrew

1st Sep 2011, 16:14

What constantly amazes me is that we keep going on about the old farts who refuse to retire(as though it is their fault) etc when it is patently obvious that the only reason the age limit keeps increasing is because it is cheaper for the managers to keep old farts flying than it is for them to pay decent wages for younger pilots.

In the old days(which are gone), a pilot could afford to retire at 55 because the system knew that it was unhealthy for him(and the passengers), to continue flying beyond that age. The managers have realised that it is cheaper to keep an older pilot flying for longer and pay less for his replacement(in the long run). They also know that we will attack one another in a fit of pique rather than band together, identify the problem and act together to correct it.

The longer I work here, the more I realise that we actually deserve this dismal treatment because we are just a bunch of wankers.

kotakota

1st Sep 2011, 17:29

I am a 60 plus -er who cannot really afford to pack it in yet , my pension from the only decent airline I worked for is just disappearing down the plughole thanks to the fatcats who have screwed us , the world economy , etc etc , and I wonder how the hell I will pay my electricity bill in about 5 years time , let alone travel to see my grandchildren . I have decided to fly as long as I can , you are a long time retired after all , and have a nest egg to give me at least 5 years of decent retirement before I have to batten down the hatches and become a peasant. So , sorry guys , I am hanging on to my seat for a while yet , and I can still 'cut it' , many of my colleagues cannot yet do that .

BALLSOUT

1st Sep 2011, 22:45

I hear the union rings were even better!

parabellum

1st Sep 2011, 23:03

I do wish some of you guys would get your head around the fact that 65, yes, 65 was the age for retirement and is what many of us signed up for.

The age limit of 60 was arbitrarily introduced and many of us were forced out five years early at age 60.

Personally I believe 70 is too much, 65 is enough.

All that has happened with the age limit being restored to 65 is that a grievous wrong has been put right.

Tankengine

2nd Sep 2011, 07:51

Parabellum:
When I joined my airline the age was 55. This was extended to 58 at company discretion. A little later we voted to extend the age to 60, same as the then FAA limit. One part of that extension was that if any pilot was to be made redundant the over 55s were first to go!:E Our company is now 180 pilots overstaffed according to management but the young guys will be those that suffer!:rolleyes:
In our company the current over 60 captains have had their cake for years and are now eating it! Even some to the extent of costing the company around $250K to endorse them on A380 for their last 2-3 years!:ugh:
With a couple of million in super they still carry on while others suffer!:ugh:

BALLSOUT

2nd Sep 2011, 09:53

costing the company around $250K to endorse them on A380 Who are you kidding, type ratings are more like 25000 a time. Maybe the 380 couldbe a little more, but I doubt it. just a ground school, and time in a zero time sim, so should be same as other types surely!

parabellum

2nd Sep 2011, 12:46

Tankengine, will the redundancies be in the area that the company is now finding itself surplus?

One part of that extension was that if any pilot was to be made redundant the over 55s were first to go!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif Our company is now 180 pilots overstaffed according to management but the young guys will be those that suffer!:rolleyes:

Are you saying that your company is now about to breach an existing agreement? Go straight to court.

Even some to the extent of costing the company around $250K to endorse them on A380 for their last 2-3 years!

Most companies won't endorse a new type on a pilots licence if they can't give a minimum of three years return of service from the date of final line check onto the new type. $250K is nonsense, even $150K would be questionable for in-house training. How many conversions to type did Airbus offer with each new A380 airframe delivered?

You use terms like:
those that suffer and while others suffer Do you really believe that? Anyone employed in mainline Australian aviation is on a pretty fair wicket.

Slasher

2nd Sep 2011, 13:01

I have just a simple question on the subject - does anyone
REALLY want to stay in this damn racket till they're 70????

Come on man get real! A lot of us would be out of this mug's
game if we had the financial resource to do so. I pity the guys
who have no choice but to go to 65 in order to support their
ex's and/or wives and/or girlfriends but 70 is just downright
ridiculous.

However I'm all for age 70 for PPLs and RPPLs - I still want to
be able to legally fly a Cub or Tiger Moth by then (older than
70 and I of course will go bush).

Rule3

2nd Sep 2011, 14:52

What is your point?:confused:

Spooky 2

2nd Sep 2011, 15:02

Suspect this fellow fly's the DC8 that NOAA is using. Heard thta it was manned mostly by retired UPS pilots. Would be a good gig and I'm sure there are others behind that are waiting for the job. I doubt that it's a career type position but none the less, it's flying.

Tankengine

3rd Sep 2011, 07:23

"anyone employed in mainline Australian aviation is on a pretty good wicket"

Well they won't be employed after being made redundant.:ugh:

You think $250K is outrageous Ballsout - more like $25K?

Well, current 744 Captains being paid for up to 8 months during training, yep - that is how long some of them are taking! Add that to your $25K endorsement and it will be more than $250K!:ooh:

Parabellum,
No breach of existing agreements - my example is 23 years old, NSW law changed so no discrimination on age NOW, not so when ALL of these guys joined.

My point is that you posted that 65 was what guys signed up for before dropping to 60, now back to 65. Well not in this case, I personally signed up to 55 and so did everyone who joined before me. Times have changed and now younger crews have to continue to 60 to get their super without tax, the over 60s can do that now!

You can go on forever domestically now but don't spruke that that is what anybody "signed up for".:hmm:

Basil

3rd Sep 2011, 12:47

No doubt in my mind. I do not wish to be flown in a large jet transport by someone over 65.

Desert185

3rd Sep 2011, 19:53

No doubt in my mind. I do not wish to be flown in a large jet transport by someone over 65.

Well, Basil, the scientists in the back and the pilot management group don't agree with you. Besides, not many young folks with DC-8 time, or also having type ratings and decades of worldwide experience in the B-747 and L-382 for increased crewing flexibility. It's nice to have one's work ethic and experience appreciated.

Cruise Zombie

3rd Sep 2011, 22:43

If a pilot wants to fly to 70 and they are fit enough, fine.

Just how scientists can test cognitive agility given that they don't even have an OBJECTIVE, REAL TIME test for fatigue levels, I don't know.

In RYR everyone knows what you get in the sim in advance anyway, so no real test of the old grey matter there then.

In any case, someone who has spent over 40 years gawping at a primary flight display and wants to do 5 more years gawping at a primary flight display can't be all there anyway !

Come on guys there is more to life than floating about 37,000 feet away from where all the fun is ( The Earth for those who have forgotten !).

beamer

5th Sep 2011, 09:09

Desert

Good to know that we can rely on 'scientists' and 'pilot managers' to keep show on the road and guarantee safety. :ok:

ssflying

15th Sep 2011, 23:12

i beg to differ,statistically the older pilots have a better record in safety.Pilots tend to be most unsafe between 37 to 45

RoyHudd

16th Sep 2011, 01:03

The older I get, the better I get. And I need less sleep, which is useful for trans-Atlantic long-haul and deep-night mid-haul flights to those s...-holes LTAI, LTBS, and those dodgy Egyptian places.

BandAide

16th Sep 2011, 01:48

If I were sitting in back, I'd rather have two 60 year olds up front than two 40 year olds.

I only started to develop as a pilot once I reached 40.

Here's some wisdom:

A 30 year old flies for survival.

A 40 year old flies for competence.

A 50 year old flies for elegance.

Green Guard

16th Sep 2011, 08:34

A lot of us would be out of this mug's
game if we had the financial resource to do so

Does it mean you fly for money only, and otherwise really hate tha job ?

hetfield

16th Sep 2011, 09:44

i beg to differ,statistically the older pilots have a better record in safety.Pilots tend to be most unsafe between 37 to 45That's interesting.

Which source?

thx

Desert185

16th Sep 2011, 21:45

Beamer

Desert

Good to know that we can rely on 'scientists' and 'pilot managers' to keep show on the road and guarantee safety. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

I'll see your sarcasm and raise you with a few more facts. My medical examiner has no issues and neither does the outfit I fly for. The government? Oh yeah, they're the outfit I fly for. All bases covered...show on the road and safe. :ok:

Press on.

Tankengine

17th Sep 2011, 01:27

I wonder what the medical examiner for the Reno race pilot thought!?:ugh:

westhawk

17th Sep 2011, 01:52

I wonder what the medical examiner for the Reno race pilot thought!?

Posts like these make me wonder if some people are even capable of thought. :ugh:

Tankengine:

While medical condition may indeed have played a a role in the Reno accident, you have absolutely NO knowledge supporting that it did or didn't. Even if investigation ultimately finds medical incapacitation to have been causal, your statement still displays your ignorance of medical examination procedures. Pilots have dropped dead walking to their car after passing a thorough examination and EKG. Try doing some thinking before spouting off about things you know nothing about. Whatever your agenda is, you should consider keeping your ill advised conclusions to yourself until you have some factual basis for making them.

Desert185

17th Sep 2011, 03:23

Bravo, Westhawk.

Also, Jimmy Leeward (the race pilot in question) may have friends and family here, so I would be very careful about any disparaging or speculative remarks. We have dead and injured in the Northern Nevada and aviation community. Show some restraint, folks.

Tankengine

17th Sep 2011, 06:35

My apologies to anyone knowing the race pilot concerned.:ouch:
My post was in direct response to Desert 185's above it.

Westhawk,
your comment re pilots dropping dead after a medical supports the argument for a lower age limit as those tests may not be sufficient.:rolleyes:

Are you happy to raise the age to 90? - 100?:confused:

If not - why not?;)

westhawk

17th Sep 2011, 07:16

Are you happy to raise the age to 90? - 100?Some of those pilots were in their 30's or 40's. It means that you could be next. Are you happy with that? Maybe not. Nobody knows. Maybe some day the medicos will find a better predictive tool than they have today. And maybe your fixation on age as an issue has nothing to do with you having any concern for anyone other than yourself. Maybe your attitude is indicative of some other agenda on your part? Lots of maybes...

Tankengine

17th Sep 2011, 07:53

Westhawk,
I am not fixated on age, I am happy to retire at or before I reach the current limit.It is those who wish to raise the limit that have the problem, and the young guys trying to forge a career.:hmm:

ManaAdaSystem

17th Sep 2011, 07:56

Air India Express Crash Averted in Mangalore
More people could have lost their lives in June, in a replay of the events that led to India’s worst air crash in a decade in Mangalore last year that killed 158 people.

On 25 June, an Air India Express flight (IX-208) from Mumbai landed deep into the table-top runway located on a mountain in Mangalore.

The captain decided to take off and land again after circling the airport, but the co-pilot overruled him in the nick of time and applied the brakes, bringing the aircraft to a stop at the edge of the runway. A 300-ft gorge stared below.

“It was actually a miracle that they survived,” said Mohan Ranganathan, an air safety expert and a member of the government-appointed Civil Aviation Safety Advisory Council. “If the runway was even slightly wet there was no way they could have stopped before the runway ended. But if they had tried to take off they would have certainly ended up like the last Mangalore crash.”

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is investigating the incident, said two government officials familiar with the matter, declining to be identified.

Air India Express, the low-fare arm of Air India Ltd, continues to run without a qualified chief of flight safety even a year and four months after the ill-fated crash in Mangalore.

Incidents such as the ones described earlier are increasing.

One of the government officials mentioned above said the landing of the IX-208 flight was of a magnitude of 2.9 G (acceleration due to gravity).

The maximum allowed for a Boeing 737 aircraft, like the one Air India Express was flying, is 2.1 G.

A 2.9 G magnitude means landing an aircraft weighing 70 tonnes would be like landing an aircraft of 200 tonnes. The impact could have broken the belly of the aircraft.

An Iberia A 340-600 made a similarly hard landing of 3 G magnitude in 2007 in Quito, Ecuador. Its landing gear sensors got damaged, and that prevented normal deceleration of the aircraft due to the failure of thrust reversers and spoilers. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The Air India Express IX-208 was operated by commander Saravjit Singh Hothi, 62, and co-pilot Manish Chimurkar, 34.

Air India Express chief operating officer S. Chandrakumar confirmed the incident.

“After the Mangalore crash, the standard of co-pilot training has been improved; so the co-pilot (Chimurkar) was more aggressive in taking over control of the situation,” he said. “Hothi has been grounded.”

In the Air India Express flight that crashed in May 2010, the co-pilot could not overrule the commander’s decision to land. The co-pilot had wanted to go around and land again, according to investigation reports. The flight overshot the runway and crashed.

Ranganathan said Air India Express has not learnt lessons from the Mangalore crash and the latest incident shows poor training standards.

The incident was not the only one in recent months. On 28 August, another Air India Express flight that took off from Kochi suffered a tail strike because its commander R. Sobti chose a speed suitable for an aircraft 20,000 kg lighter than the one he was flying.

In a tail strike, the rear end of the aircraft hits the ground druing take-off.

“Instead of take-off weight he used zero-fuel weight to calculate take-off speed,” said the first government official mentioned earlier. “Worryingly, the investigation shows that the ex-Indian Air Force pilot had a tendency to have a tail strike. Why did Air India Express ignore this?”

Sobti, too, has been grounded, Chandrakumar said.

Till an audit is done, DGCA should ground Air India Express and let Air India run those flights, said Ranganathan and the second government official.

Air India is certified by International Air Transport Association’s IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA), the global benchmark for airline safety; but Air India Express, despite committing to go through an IOSA audit last year after the Mangalore crash, hasn’t done so.

The aviation regulator has, meanwhile, started a base inspection of the airline.

“The situation is so bad at the airline that you can’t imagine,” said the second government official.

Air India Express crash averted in Mangalore - Home - livemint.com

westhawk

17th Sep 2011, 08:34

and the young guys trying to forge a career.

Okay! Don't you feel better now? :) I do.

I don't have any investment in the debate at all. No seniority number so no axe to grind. I just get a little tired of seeing the age competency/health argument used to support getting the old guys out to make room for the new. I believe it to be poor form to argue for one's own benefit using such tactics. It smacks of American politics!

If you wanted to boot guys out on a more objective basis like real time competency and cognition testing, you might have something. Then again, such objective measures might not eliminate the "right" people, so beware of what you wish for!

Anyway, good luck with your career. Go forth and sin no more. :ok:

Tankengine

17th Sep 2011, 10:25

If there was any sort of test then that would be good!:ok:
There is not, so a limit stops EVERYONE [bar the unlucky, unfit young]

If you knew my situation re seniority etc you would see it makes little difference for me too!:E

It smacks of hypocritcy to want to change the age on no other fact than
" I want to keep flying even though I knew for x years there was an age limit" :{

Basil

17th Sep 2011, 10:54

the scientists in the back and the pilot management group don't agree with you
So what makes their opinion better than that of an engineer, military pilot and major international airline pilot?

Just another little point: It was thanks to the union engendered rules in the USA and France that I had to go back to the RHS at age 60. Thanks a heap!

p.s. For the FOs watching: It was pretty similar to the first time round - some capts were great to fly with but a few were a PITA. Still better than a ground job:ok:

Willie Everlearn

17th Sep 2011, 12:37

I think (as an old guy) most of the reasons given for tossing us old guys out of an airliner flight deck are nothing more than excuses.
At 60, from one day to the next, there was no sound reason or basis for pushing me sideways.
Full stop.
How many decades have we as a group had to sort this out? :ugh:

ManaAdaSystem

17th Sep 2011, 13:11

Nice one, Willie. This way of thinking will never put an end to your flying.

It is not one major issue that should stop you flying, if it comes to that you have been flying for too long. It is the slow way you body lets go over time, that is the issue.
There must be a line somewhere, before you kill somebody because of old age.

The medical checks are not designed to check for loss of memory, nodding off, slow reaction, poor eyesight in darkness, dementia, etc.
Eyes (in a well lit room), ears, ticker, blood and urine. That is pretty much it.

Willie Everlearn

17th Sep 2011, 19:20

We're expressing opinions here. That's all.

Who knows if I'm right or wrong? I'm not a medical expert but I've crossed several decades and can compare how I am today with how I was at 35.
I agree, the changes come slowly and subtly. But those changes, whatever they may be should be dealt with as they rear their ugly heads.
Just as the 30 something who has a mild heart attack or the 46 year old jogger who died of a massive heart attack.

"It is the slow way your body lets go over time, that is the issue."
Not entirely. It's the mental capacity that may slide over time and that occurs at differing points in our lives. Mine different to yours and not automatically at age 60. If this industry and industry pilot unions were really interested in mental capacities it would have a means or method of checking it. I consider my six month check rides to be the arena for discovery. Revealing my onset of incapacity, incompetence or dementia, etc. If it isn't then it should be.

If we were flying in one man high speed combat cockpits, I'd already be sipping my whisky and watching footy as the aeroplanes climb away on departure. I've never flown those aircraft, only lumbering airliners and fairly docile turbo props.

Most of us don't fly fast jets. We mostly fly two man aeroplanes with lots of safety measures built in which include reliable SOPs and appropriate levels of automation. You might have encountered subtle incapacitation drills in your training over the years. Insight, maybe?

At my present age, in my present state of proficiency and mental capacity, I believe myself along with thousands of others over the age of 60 at a time when pilot shortages are starting to bite like they've never bitten before, would make a competent F/O or Relief Captain for at least the next five years. After that, I really would like to sit on my boat, sip whisky and watch the world go by.

I may convince no one in the end, it's only my opinion and from one day to the next I am no less able based on such an arbitrary number.
It's age-based discrimination. Nothing more and nothing less.

SkyDivPilot

21st Oct 2011, 01:18

Get in a different line of work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My old body and mind are way better than having a 400 hr F/O flying with some 45-55 year old stress out pecker-wood who has died in the seat because he was wound too tight!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MungoP

21st Oct 2011, 03:08

This trend is one that we're all going to have to get used to... whether we want to or not it's a new dawn. The whole idea of 'retirement' is a 20th century failed experiment. Before then nobody retired. One had to work or starve and the socialist thinking that promised comfortable retirement after 40 years of contributing to a pension fund just didn't work... and private pension funds have served no better. Pilots are no different to anyone else and will need to work to eat... and pay alimony.
Tough on the young ? Yes... but in the words of Cliff Richard.. "We may not be the Young Ones Very Long"... You're all on the same train, just a few carriages back... beware of what you wish for because before you know it, you too will be desperate to cling on to that left hand seat out of necessity if not out of preference.

Plectron

21st Oct 2011, 12:28

There is no doubt this is a lost cause. First, I am off the big jets and glad of it. I still fly small airplanes. I have lots of flight time and most of it in heavy jets. I agree that age is not a determination, of itself, in skills and ability to use those skills but...

I have seen lots of guys deteriorate as they grew older but they either were not aware of it or didn't care. My family had to intervene to get my father to stop flying. He was a bright guy and a good pilot - once.

In the past, the age 60 was a filter that took everyone out even if you still were (or thought you were) Skyler King. Unfair to some. But it did get the guys out before they started to be a problem. Which brings me to my point.

Most of the stuff on airplanes is time limited. We don't wait for generators or pumps to fail. We replace it at a defined time point. Even the airplane itself has to have a C check eventually. We don't wait for stuff to fail in aviation before replacement. Well, in the past we didn't. I guess now it's OK to do that with the guy in the left seat.

I know - in the past it was heresy to suggest a great airline might screw a Captain (with 2 wives on "maintenance" and another on the patio, a mortgaged motor home, summer house, and primary residence, 2 kids in college, and a failed Christmas tree farm) out of his earned retirement. Times change I guess.

Lovely picture. The aging old guy hoping no one finds out about his medical condition and a 300 hour wunderkind in the right seat hoping the autopilot doesn't quit and terrified the old fart will make him fly the visual approach.

A37575

21st Oct 2011, 12:57

300 hour wunderkind in the right seat hoping the autopilot doesn't quit and terrified the old fart will make him fly the visual approach.
Plectron is online now Report Post Reply

Never a truer word spoken. And thousands more coming through the system in Asia. Loss of Control inevitable in IMC.

Sqwak7700

21st Oct 2011, 13:20

Well put Plectron.

Kingfisher

21st Oct 2011, 13:24

All our governments are broke. People we are going to have to suck it up and fly an extra five years to give the politicians more of our money to get them out the hole they dug for themselves.

Plectron

22nd Oct 2011, 00:11

Thank you guys. Truth is, it's pathetic. No other word for it.

Green Guard

22nd Oct 2011, 01:19

Truth is, it's pathetic

Of course it is. You should not be here, since you already are "closer to heaven"

Kangaroo Court

22nd Oct 2011, 02:48

If you have worked your whole life in aviation and haven't made the good command decisions required to control the fate of your own retirement by age 63; you don't belong at the controls of an airliner and probably never did.

There's a reason no professional athlete is working at that age, not even in golf.

It's because it's time to hang it up!!

Green Guard

22nd Oct 2011, 04:42

mana ada system

The medical checks are not designed to check for loss of memory, nodding off, slow reaction, poor eyesight in darkness, dementia, etc.
Eyes (in a well lit room), ears, ticker, blood and urine. That is pretty much it.

hm...sounds like you never did a proffesional pilot medical check

kangaroo court !

There's a reason no professional athlete is working at that age, not even in golf.

...since when golfers have been athlets ? .....or even better question: "Since when pilots were considered to be kind of athlets ? "

Fokkerwokker

22nd Oct 2011, 18:29

If you have worked your whole life in aviation and haven't made the good command decisions required to control the fate of your own retirement by age 63; you don't belong at the controls of an airliner and probably never did.

A tad harsh on the chaps who, thru no fault of their own, have been continuously furloughed or simply lost their jobs on a regular basis?

Kangaroo Court

23rd Oct 2011, 01:21

Fokkerwokker,

I was told at age 19 by a retired Swiss Air captain, "Choose your airline wisely son".

I took his advice.

It is complete and utter lunacy to expect somebody in their 30's or 40's waiting for a captain's slot to play nursing home attendant for captains who have lost their capability to hear, remember or even stay awake on the flight deck.

Its also not their job to pay for five wive's homes or illegitimate children, when someone tried to recreate some time of free love from the 1970's on an overnight.

For those of you that have got to age 63 and not sorted this out, there's some sad news that awaits you; you never will!

Go and enjoy your retirement and pass the baton.

parabellum

23rd Oct 2011, 01:48

Kangaroo Court - You have conveniently forgotten the large number of pilots who, through no fault of their own, have been made redundant, sometimes more than once and had to start all over again at the bottom the the FOs seniority system in a new job. Picking ones airline wisely is a luxury only available to those who happen to be in the right place at the right time, lucky you.

Also don't forget what happened to Swiss Air, Sabina, BCal, Dan Air, Air Europe, Laker, Pan Am, to name but a few, you can't surely blame the pilots for these airlines collapse nor suggest the pilots didn't choose wisely when they joined?

Finally don't forget that for many of us the retirement age was sixty five when we started out, the wrong has only recently been put right but too late for some. Seventy is too much, sixty five is about right; no one had to nursemaid me but I flew with more than one co pilot who was a liability and way younger than me.

Kangaroo Court

23rd Oct 2011, 02:26

Parabellum and all,

As somebody who has been at this long enough to earn certification in three different countries and eight type ratings, a couple of degrees, teach some abinitio stuff and aerobatics on the side in tailwheel stuff...yep, there's a certain degree of injustice to any type of mandatory retirement age at all, but it needs to adhered to at 63 and not allowed to creep up. Here's why.

The flying although more mundane, is longer haul, with shorter rest provisions than ever before.

The processed food we are eating combined with our sedentary occupations and pastimes as a culture is contributing to a new generation of aircrew and for that matter, a general population, who will not live as long a life expectancy of those that came before. As far as historians can gather, this is the first time this has happened in the evolution of modern man.

Our governments are going to be even LESS likely to care for their elderly in the FUTURE than they are now. For a man or woman in their 30's it is even more imperative that they contribute to savings for retirement than ever before.

Our opinions of how we flew as first officers are much higher than our captains had of us at that same time...they just didn't have the internet to share their lack of trust in our ability under a pseudonym.

Retirement is there for a reason. Incapacitation IS rising with senior crew members making their final flight west...with 200 plus souls on board with the falsified promise of a safe flight with a complete crew at the controls at the destination.

This madness HAS to stop!!!

63 is almost TOO old as it is!!!

Don't even get me started on that P-51 crash in Reno!!

stepwilk

23rd Oct 2011, 02:40

I'm 75, I got my first FAA license in 1966 (1720853, I can still remember the number without peeking), I've owned and driven racecars and as an automotive journalist tested every Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, Maserati, AMG Mercedes and you-name-it that's out there. I go to the gym five days a week and plan to live to 100, strongly based on my mother's longevity genes.

But when it's time to drive somewhere in our Porsche, I let my wife do it. She's 15 years younger. Oh, and I don't fly any more either. Quit doing that about 10 years ago, when I sold the Falco I'd built.

Anybody who won't admit they're losing a step, and then another step, as they age is fooling themselves.

Kangaroo Court

23rd Oct 2011, 03:25

Thank you, Sir!!

If only there were more like you. Ironically, you're probably on of the few that could REALLY make a great contribution in a training role in a procedural, ops spec or simulator capacity, but we don't need you flying to minimas with 400 souls on board.

Spare us all!!

bubbers44

23rd Oct 2011, 04:05

Kangaroo Court , I was directly under Galloping Ghost when it rolled inverted in the stands and a 21 year old could not have remained conscious during that 10G+ pull up. His age had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome. It crashed 300 ft from us but initially was coming directly at us in the seats. He was 74 but seemed to be doing a great job of flying until the elevator trim tab went away. My friend, Steven Hinton was in #7 Strega leading the race when it happened. He won the Gold unlimited two years ago at age 21, last year he won because the wind cancelled the Gold race and this year the crash cancelled the rest of the air race. Voodoo, who was right behind Strega had the same trim tab fail about 12 years ago and a much younger pilot blacked out and thankfully spiraled up 9,000 ft until the speed dropped off and recovered by removing power. We shouldn't be so quick to blame age on accidents.

A-3TWENTY

23rd Oct 2011, 08:25

The second biggest stupidity ever.

The first one was to increase to 65. The second is to increase age to 70.

The problem is people don`t save money when they are younger , have a lot of ex wives to support and when the time to retire comes , they have no money to do it without losing quality of life.

They are kind of slaves and they want us to do all slaves because of their inconsequent life.

Others to whom this profile does not apply are those who have a very sad personal life , are nothing at home and prefer to keep working , as this is the only chance they have to someone pay attention to them.

Pilots believe themselves smart , but most of them have no idea how foolish they are.
Everybody wants to retire as earlier as possible. Pilots are the only one stupid class who is finding a way to do it later.

Such a stupid people !!!

parabellum

23rd Oct 2011, 11:55

Don't even get me started on that P-51 crash in Reno!!

And that statement, combined with the fruit-loop nonsense you came out with earlier in the same post leaves me in no doubt that it is you, Kangaroo Court, who should be grounded ASP.

A3Twenty - you have chosen to join in this thread without bothering to read the previous posts, this renders your post quite pointless.

Such a stupid people !!!

Indeed!:rolleyes:.

rexjet

23rd Oct 2011, 12:39

Love to give you guys the reins. Only problem is five Robber Barrons have stolen my retirement funds with the promise of "better days ahead" After 34 years, Many of us "Retreads" are still sitting in the right seat listening to much smarter people in the left seat with 25 years experience. If you can get me the retirement that was on the books when I signed up with this carrier, I'll leave tomorrow. BTW, please e mail me when you turn 60 and after you've seen "Logan's Run"

Green Guard

23rd Oct 2011, 14:26

This madness HAS to stop!!!

63 is almost TOO old as it is!!!

Oooops...do you speak about yourself ?

A-3TWENTY

23rd Oct 2011, 17:05

A3Twenty - you have chosen to join in this thread without bothering to read the previous posts, this renders your post quite pointless.
Quote:
Such a stupid people !!!
Indeed!.

Some of you you lost yourselves in paraalell discussions. I`m just giving my opinion about the thread`s title.

Are you able to remember it without cheating??

Indeed!

Yes !!! Indeed !!!

:ugh:

Kangaroo Court

23rd Oct 2011, 22:05

Parabellum,

I can assure you that three certifying nations, the history of teaching wide body and eight type-ratings assures that I am quite safe to fly. I am also smart enough to invest my savings wisely while enjoying this long and successful career.

It helps to live your life responsibly, not drink it away, not sleep it away with as many hotties as you think you can handle and not blame others for your decisions.

This cradle to grave attitude is the first part of the problem, not preparing for the vagaries of the economy is the next.

Baby boomer whining sure does get old!!

parabellum

24th Oct 2011, 10:08

It helps to live your life responsibly, not drink it away, not sleep it away with as many hotties as you think you can handle and not blame others for your decisions.

And still you petulantly refuse to acknowledge the fact that many, many pilots find themselves in financial hardship through no fault of their own, but then, there are none so blind as those that won't see.

As I said before, you have been lucky to be in the right place at the right time and are quite obviously very pleased with yourself, bully for you, you certainly come across as too engrossed with your own career to properly understand the realities of the big wide world of aviation.

Don't even get me started on that P-51 crash in Reno!!

We definitely won't.

Kangaroo Court

24th Oct 2011, 17:55

The harder I work, the luckier I get.

Age 60 is old enough.

Anything above 63 is too old.

It's bad enough dealing with these people on the roads. How many more incapacitations do we need for you to get the message?

bubbers44

24th Oct 2011, 23:40

KC, after a while your repetition gets really boring. Quit when you want, let everybody else quit when they want. Some people need to retire earlier than others. Age is only part of the aging process.

Kangaroo Court

24th Oct 2011, 23:51

If the argument has become boring and repetitious, then stop participating in the thread. This is an issue that won't go away, and when a crew pairing of geriatrics crash through somebody's living room wall taking out innocent people on the ground, all of the politicians will run away from your cause and all of the attorneys will run towards the family's survivors.

Your reputations, posthumously, will be dragged through international media circles for the selfish fools you are!

This is a profession of physical fitness, reflex and sound mind. Not just to be demonstrated in a doctor's office for an hour during banker's hours, but in the early morning after transiting time zones and eating out of a plastic box, followed by the failure of some "fail" safe electronic bunch of crap avionics package and a hand flown approach to minimums.

We have PLENTY of evidence to suggest that 63 is very much near the top end of existence for a pilot in POST retirement. We do not need anymore risk associated with a profession that is seen as borderline irresponsible in its governance already.

"Quit when you want."

Is that medical advice you'd offer an alcoholic?

It's those of us that can observe the problem have the greatest duty of all to do something about it.

Plectron

25th Oct 2011, 00:54

All of the above, plus, a corpse could get a medical if he shops around long enough. We all know that.

parabellum

25th Oct 2011, 05:20

It's bad enough dealing with these people on the roads. How many more incapacitations do we need for you to get the message?

Kangaroo Court, (what an apt ID), you obviously enjoy trolling whilst offering up no facts whatsoever to support you hypotheses, you would help yourself if you actually studied the verifiable statistics regarding pilot incapacitation. I will leave you to wallow in your blissful but woeful ignorance.

Green Guard

25th Oct 2011, 07:33

All of the above, plus, a corpse could get a medical if he shops around long enough. We all know that

Hello Plectron !
Is that how you did your medicals ?

Any good reason why you removed your whereabouts "closer to heaven" ?

BALLSOUT

25th Oct 2011, 10:29

when a crew pairing of geriatrics crash through somebody's living room wall taking out innocent people on the ground, all of the politicians will run away from your cause and all of the attorneys will run towards the family's survivors.

Come on K C, Surely you are aware that two pilots over 60 cannot be crewed together so this is not even possible!

Kangaroo Court

25th Oct 2011, 12:21

Try again "Ballsout",

There's no crew pairing requirement as it is for corporate or unscheduled turbojet operations in the US. It WILL happen!

WHEN it does, and there's some well known identity, it'll bring this whole charade that you guys think you "skygods" live forever!

Kangaroo Court

25th Oct 2011, 12:24

Parabelleum.,

How many posts is that you have on PPrune?

To what avail? Spend more time exercising and clearing your head, you might have a chance of seeing what the rest of us can so clearly.

stator vane

25th Oct 2011, 12:34

good thing the young pilots were at the controls of AF447!

right!

Kangaroo Court

25th Oct 2011, 13:24

Stator Vane,

It's a shame the captain needed his rest so early in the flight and couldn't have waited until he was North of the ITCZ and clear of the convective weather. No reasonable captain leaves the flight deck during the forecast of convective weather to take a nap while leaving low time crew at the controls.

I've flown down there quite a bit and he could have waited until he was abeam St Maarten and had clear skies from there...and all the way to Paris.

The failure started and ended with the captain!

Kangaroo Court

25th Oct 2011, 13:33

Another one who looks at distorted statistics led by an organization that surveyed a bunch of guys that sit behind a desk and only get currency whenever they are required by law.

You must not have saved for retirement either!

Kangaroo Court

25th Oct 2011, 14:10

I-FORD,

Sorry to disappoint you, but I work with pilots suffering from the anguish of aging and retirement and have served as a union safety chairman. I'm not saying this is an easy discussion, but for some people out there, they just don't know when to hang it up.

We don't need yet another group of people in our careers protected by some government alphabet soup commission, while others try to fill in the missing blanks if they suffer from serious performance issues from aging.

There are other jobs for some of these guys. Systems ground school, management, simulator and even regulatory compliance liaison with the various suppliers and governing bodies.

Just keep them away from the controls when they've seen much, much better days!

GerardC

25th Oct 2011, 19:28

Most of the stuff on airplanes is time limited. We don't wait for generators or pumps to fail. We replace it at a defined time point. Even the airplane itself has to have a C check eventually. We don't wait for stuff to fail in aviation before replacement. Well, in the past we didn't. I guess now it's OK to do that with the guy in the left seat.OK Plectron, you make this point.

May I object that TBOs are revised when components reliability is proven to improve ?
Some aero-engines have seen their TBOs increased from 1.000 hrs to 2.000 hrs.
Other components no longer have TBOs. They are just "inspected" and replaced/overhauled "if necessary".

In 1959, age limit 60 for pilots probably made sense.

Not anymore in 2011 : pilot's "reliability", at age 60 (and above), have improved in 50 years.

Kangaroo Court

25th Oct 2011, 20:10

Green Guard,

Sorry, haven't been a F/O since 1998. It was a good time, and I learned a lot form a great group of captains that acted as wonderful mentors...and then retired.

I will do the same!

Married 21 years, with three children, two businesses on the side and yes, I do drink on occasion, but I don't need the cloud of a drunkard to hide from who I am, or pretend to be somebody I am not.

Yes, flying is still fun, but it is a business and yes, I have made a lot of money from it, and saved it.

captplaystation

25th Oct 2011, 21:23

Kangaroo Court,

Care to share with us these "incapacitation statistics" about the over 60`s ?

Never seen/heard of them. So many otherwise healthy guys drop dead in their 40's/50's that I find that even more worrying, as no-one sees the risk there.

Me, I would retire at 25, come back at 45, and work until I couldn't get up (in the morning & /or at night) THAT, would be a fair life ;)
I shared a crew-room with some kinda s l o w guys over 60, but you know what, they were probably less dangerous than some of the r e ally f a s t ones of less than 23 :eek:

Kangaroo Court

25th Oct 2011, 22:25

Playstation,

Visit any graveyard and look at a few tombstones...then come and join in the conversation. Google works too.

There was a 777 in Newark, a King Air in Florida...there are others too.

Just by the way...this isn't about "you". The tax paying population and your passengers deserve limitations and rules placed on those that think it is only about "them". Self ingratiating ego references that you would work until you couldn't get up add levity to the argument that the provisions so far have worked fine and do not need to be changed.

Sprogster

26th Oct 2011, 15:06

Although people are living longer, in most cases it is with age related chronic health conditions being controlled and managed by way of medication. So yes, there will examples of individuals aged 86 who are fit to fly, but for the average person maintaining your medical in your late sixties will be a challenge, especially as statistically flight deck crew do not have a high average life expectancy, compared to many other professions.

Tourist

26th Oct 2011, 18:24

I think of it as this.

At the start of your career you have all the hand-eye coordination and none of the wisdom.
Not very safe, but hopefully the skills and good captains will see you through till wisdom develops.
In military terms we call this person a "first Tourist"

Somewhere in the middle, the graphs of Skill against age and Wisdom against age cross over, and that is probably as good as you are going to get.

At the end of your career you have none of the hand-eye coordination and all of the wisdom, again not very safe.
I call this a "last Tourist"

The difference is that there is no way of avoiding the early part of a career, and in an airliner there is somebody senior to you to catch your mistakes.
The later part is avoidable by the simple expedient of setting an age limit designed to catch the exponential curve of skill loss/risk of incapacitation with age. The only discussion here is "how late is too late?"

Anybody on here that is trying to suggest that the risk of keeling over in the cockpit is not starting to ramp up as you pass 50 is living in denial. Whether the wisdom they bring is worth the extra risk is the important question.

Tourist

26th Oct 2011, 18:45

Yes it is an average ballpark, but in general terms, which bit do you disagree with?

There is a reason that fighter pilots are not 60yrs old.
There is a reason that you will never beat a 12yr old on Call of Duty.

gcap

26th Oct 2011, 20:01

I don't have the time to read the rehash of this topic. A checkride and a medical certificate is all that is required to continue flying. the crap about sudden incapacitation ( it happens most often to 48 to 52 yo ) number of wives etc is a smokescreen for greed. I'm 65 and I will retire when I feel like it.
Whether or not you young pilots like that------I don't give a ****.

Kangaroo Court

26th Oct 2011, 20:40

Gcap,

The rest of us do give a ****. If you really DON'T give a ****, then it's time for you to go!!

By the the way; the 48 to 52 statistic was based on a retirement an average retirement age of 55 by the likes of British Airways, Cathay, Pan Am and TWA in the the late 1970's!!

There is NO valid data on what you are proposing except that the average long haul, back-side of clock worker is normally dead at 67!

WhatsaLizad?

26th Oct 2011, 22:13

"I don't have the time to read the rehash of this topic. A checkride and a medical certificate is all that is required to continue flying. the crap about sudden incapacitation ( it happens most often to 48 to 52 yo ) number of wives etc is a smokescreen for greed. I'm 65 and I will retire when I feel like it.
Whether or not you young pilots like that------I don't give a ****."

gcap,

The sudden incapication is a red herring for both sides. It is generally a rare event and for the average pilot, it will happen at some other point during the 8760 hours in a given year.

A slow, subtle mental degradation of abilities and thinking is more of a threat along with resistance to fatigue. I've seen it in the cockpit and with family, friends and neighbors.

Pointing to the ability to pass a medical and checkride in the USA is the ultimate joke to justify your stance. You know very well that FAA AME's are chosen by pilots, not the other way around, and are very poor in judging the effects of aging on pilots. The typical geriatric pilot is going to pass the the physical at 10 am after a good nights sleep and a nice breakfast. Add in an eye chart memorization and it's back in the air for another 6 months unless the guy is really senile. I'd love to see the AME observe Mr 63+ at 2:00am in weather after a 14 hour duty day. I have, and in the majority of cases, it's not pretty. Fatigue is one issue ignored in every study.

Sim checks in the US are another joke. Usually they're done at reasonable hours with a buddy of 20+ years or by a company collecting a pretty sum $$$ for continued corporate support.

I've flown bizjets with 60+ pilots and the majority showed the effects of fatigue far quicker than younger pilots. In airline flying, the close to age 60 crowd showed the same bad effects. Lately, I've even seen a few 60+ copilots who are generally slower in every way. Even reading a checklist and moving the eyes to the overhead panel there is an obvious delay.

Some oldsters can run marathons and out think young pups until they die in their late nineties. Most can't. The aging process is uneven and difficult to measure, especially in the lawsuit happy USA. We have arbitrary measurments in every facet of civilized existence, deal with it.

I won't worry about you flying over my house at 10 am on a good weather day. I will be concerned at 3 am with thunderstorms in the general area.

7Q Off

26th Oct 2011, 23:02

63/65 is enough. Save money, retire on time and enjoy the grandkids. :ok:

If some old farts have 3 ex wifes to support is not our problem. :mad:

Bengerman

26th Oct 2011, 23:14

Mr Pilot 2007

26th Oct 2011, 23:25

Who in their right mind would work for a schedule longhaul airline beyond 60, even 55, unless you dont have enough money to retire.
I know there are many in that position. Bad investments, late divorce, todays low salaries.

When our airline started using the FDL's as a rostering target, two of our elderly Capts fell asleep during approach, (longhaul, different flights).
One admitted it to the airline, who told him, 'if you cant handle it, :mad: Off.
He did just that and retired.

This was a Capt whos 40 year career was during the good old days. How are todays pilots expecting to cope with a 50 year career being rostered up to maximum FDL every month.
You will burn yourself out.

Theres a very good chance your time will be up before you enjoy your retirement.
Whats the point of dying young with a bigger bank balance?

Why would you!!

Offcut

27th Oct 2011, 00:04

I agree with the argument that it is less about sudden incapacitation and more about a slow degradation of skills and ability to stay awake for 16+ hours back of the clock. I routinely fly with First Officers who are 65+, and one who is 72. I am 32, with 8000+ hours and am still a Second Officer. My main gripe though is not about slow career progression, I knew this would be the case when I joined a "legacy" carrier. My chief complaint is that we are required to carry these guys, both in the Sim, and on the line. With very few exceptions, in my experience, once they are over around 60 or so pilot performance drops off markedly. What this leads to is a degree of animosity in the flight deck. I know it's bad for CRM but if I see anyone taking "uncontrolled" ie unbriefed, sleep, I now report it. In the sim, I only help as much as I am required. SOP's and no more. I don't socialise with over 65's on layovers. A large reason why many older guys carry on is the social side of the job. It's a bit harsh I know, but I call on all those who don't agree with over 65 pilots to do the same.

dieselsix

27th Oct 2011, 04:06

This is great stuff. Lets get rid of all the old farts and while we're at it I swear most of the women I fly with has no clue ether. We all know the asian's should not have a drivers license much less a pilot license and the black pilots.......need I say anything?
If only everybody was like me.:=

Green Guard

27th Oct 2011, 05:58

especially as statistically flight deck crew do not have a high average life expectancy, compared to many other professions.

Probably true

but only after they have been retired... right ?

MrBenip

27th Oct 2011, 06:37

KC - your arrogance throughout this thread stinks!

beamer

27th Oct 2011, 08:03

A great shame that so many of the replies to this thread confirm my view, formed thirty-five years ago when I began to be paid to fly aeroplanes, that the industry is rife with ego and arrogance. This is a serious issue but so many are in complete denial................

amos2

27th Oct 2011, 08:59

...the really sad thing about this thread is that when we revisit in 20 yrs time it will be poor old KC bitching about the fact that he can't continue until age 73!

Green Guard

27th Oct 2011, 09:09

bravo amos 2....I do not need to say anything else for that subject.

As for dosing off during flight
whatsaLizad
I've flown bizjets with 60+ pilots and the majority showed the effects of fatigue far quicker than younger pilots.

If you want to see the truth, it has nothing to do with age, ( unless you compare those older ones who have learned the trick),
it has to do with your own understanding and adapting to night and/or different time zones :eek:

Mushroom_2

27th Oct 2011, 11:32

For any young guys out there, I intend to work as long as I can!

I am not giving up my seat so that some snotty nosed 45 year old can draw my salary!

If you want my seat you will have to drag it from my cold, dead ass!

I will retire when I am good and ready or when the doc/checker tells me to!

I will not be retiring because some pipsqueek thinks I am hindering his career prospects....go and be a accountant!

Wot he said.

And thank goodness I don't have to fly with arrogant little :mad: like Offcut. I am sure there will be ANZ crews busy trying to work out who he is. Shouldn't be too difficult with that attitude.

canadansk

27th Oct 2011, 14:42

In a union driven airline with seniority preference bidding, I can see how the most senior Captains don't want to retire - they fly the best planes on the best routes with the best holidays at the highest payscale.

In my airline it is not like this, the roster you retire with is as hard or harder than the one you joined with - this makes a big difference when it comes to fatigue as we get older. I cannot see how I could keep up this pace and want to retire later than I finacially have to. At the pace many foreign airlines fly fatigue with age is a major factor.

I am a senior Captain on big equipment and personally feel that the guys that flew for 40 years knowing that they are to retire at 60 should do just that. The new guys with a contract that shows 65, that is there goal. As the goal post moves the new joiners can have their respective retirement age (if they can make it til then).

I think that the reason retirement age is being changed to later is because the companies and Governments cannot afford to pay pensions. I you work longer it delays them paying and you will die sooner; thus minimising the amount of money that needs to be paid.

It is a sensitive subject. but I feel that old guys at the top have had it good for so long and maybe it is time to give something back.

Just my opinion.

Kangaroo Court

27th Oct 2011, 19:51

Interesting too that these boomers now think it's okay that we have to wait until, "they are cold and dead, to pry", their jobs away.

This IS the very thing we don't want to have to do when we fly with you!

Such verbage will not further your cause with any regulator, in fact, I think it enforces my view that the mandatory retirement age of 63 should apply to ALL commercial operations, including corporate.

TDK mk2

27th Oct 2011, 20:29

KC, you really are some boy with your businesses and 12 years of command. How did you get so smug? If you really believe that the mandatory retirement age is too old what are you doing on here moaning at people you know nothing about? Start lobbying ICAO or your national authority through your elected representative. Otherwise go back to your perfect little life and leave the debate to those that have some reason. How'd you like them apples big (read: small man) boy??

gulfairs

27th Oct 2011, 21:15

I am 6ft 2in. weigh 103kgs and 76 years old.
I retired from career flying when I was 50.
I played at non scheduled european operation for about four years and then gave up
I have had a wonderful 22 years of retirement. a capitalised pension went out the window in the 1988 stock market crash and since then I have played all sorts of fields
I drink booze when I want to (unless driving a motor vehicle) I stay up late to watch TV, No early morning calls No answering to "the Company" or ego driven gnomes that control the aviation industry.
Let the young whipper snappers get on, and if stupid enough to fly past 50, 55, or even 60., just lay back with a good partener and think to your self what a hell hole of a life the airline pilot has.
If I had my time over again I would be a dentist!
More money, 8 to 5 only, Mon. to Fri. Tooth ache at 5 pm Fri, tough see me Monday I am going fishing now.

Tankengine

27th Oct 2011, 21:29

Hear hear BBG!

The trout are probably rising well now!:ok:

Offcut

27th Oct 2011, 21:37

Mushroom 2, thanks for keeping it professional. I am not an arrogant little...... I am well aware of my limitations and still have plenty to learn from my more experienced colleagues. That said, it's been a while since I learnt anything from a 70 year old sleeping in the seat next to me. If any of my colleagues want to debate this with me, they will. In my airline this is an issue that is openly discussed. Your comments about me sounded suspiciously like a threat. Simply attacking everyone who doesn't agree with your point of view does not mean you are right. You say you would hate to fly with me, well, I can't say I would be thrilled to fly with a skipper who called me names and attacked me every time we disagreed. I thought those days were well gone.

Kangaroo Court

27th Oct 2011, 23:07

TDK,

12 years of turbine command. More G/A stuff before that. Australia, New Zealand, America, a little Europe time. Good memories!

Offcut,

Very professional, and I noted the same very unprofessional threats being made towards you.

I hope nobody has to pry dead, cold hands away from the controls, when the problem could have been mostly solved by a universally adopted retirement age for all commercial operations. At the end of the day, this is what this is really about.

Kangaroo Court

28th Oct 2011, 11:17

An artist, manager, doctor....doesn't fall over and take out hundreds of people when they die. A pilot that does can.

Sorry, but no politician with a legal background or knowledge of Duty of Care, will ever sign off on such folly.

parabellum

28th Oct 2011, 20:35

I agree with you Studi, we have, at last, gone back to the original age of 65 for retirement and I think that is where it should stay, leaving ample time for both lifestyle and pension planning. If a person wants to retire at, say, 55 or any time after that, with a reduced pension, then they should be able to.

slamer.

28th Oct 2011, 21:45

Old slackers face the boot: Bosses get new powers to tell workers to retire

25 Oct 2011

Bosses will be given new powers to tell older workers they should consider retirement without fear of being accused of ageism under plans unveiled today.

Nick Clegg said firms should be free to have "frank discussions" with underperforming staff, regardless of the employee's age.
The government proposal brought claims that companies could use the new law to force out older staff to save money.
TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: "It would give a licence to bad employers to bully and intimidate staff."
But as he visited a hi-tech firm in Shoreditch, the Deputy Prime Minister said the move would allow people "to treat each other like human beings and not like potential litigants".
He added: "Employers tell us they're afraid to have frank discussions with staff ... for fear of those exchanges being used against them unfairly, should a dispute end up at tribunal.
"We want to give them the confidence to be open about performance, about retirement with their employees. If you speak to many employers, they value older workers massively. I don't think there is some sort of in-built prejudice against older workers at all."
At the moment, employees are able to use any comment or conversation to support their case in tribunals.
Supporters of the new measure say this leads to underperforming staff making notes of every remark or chat to bolster their defence, and creates a climate of suspicion between workers and bosses.
The proposed change means introducing a new law that will allow "protected conversations" - meaning staff will not be able to use them against employers later.
Mr Clegg denied claims that the idea could be used as a way to force older people out now that the default retirement age has been scrapped. He told the Standard: "If every employer and every employee thinks every informal conversation is going to be trawled through the tribunal system then of course it means people don't treat each other like human beings."
The plans for protected conversations have been drawn up by Liberal Democrat Business Minister Ed Davey. Aides insisted the new powers would not override employee protections under discrimination law.

overun

29th Oct 2011, 01:43

A sorry attempt at trying to be amusing, now removed.

ZQA297/30

29th Oct 2011, 09:11

The world order is changing.
Jobs for life is no long a given. Companies boom then disappear, leaving employees with nothing. To succeed as a pilot you will have to be willing to job-hop and maximise your takings wherever you can. Short contracts will be the norm.
The writing is on the wall, seniority is going out, along with security of tenure.
Decent pensions are now unaffordable. Those who have invested in the stock markets have lost big-time.

In many jobs the projections are that you may have to work until you drop.
The unspoken hope is that you work until you are no longer able, retire for a few months, then pass on, saving enormous pension, medical, and social costs.

In my career, two airline employers have failed, one owing me money, another destroying my medical coverage and rebated travel, and owing for company stock promised but never delivered.
I have had the same wife for 35 years, no boat, and live a very modest life on a very modest pension.
The thing is, when I started in aviation, those already there had a “provident fund” that was a 30% non-contributory fund, with accrued interest.
My pension was to be “defined benefit”.
But after 25 years of service, the company was “re-structured” and my pension was changed to “defined contribution”.
Suffice it to say I am now surviving on a pension very much less than I had signed on for and planned on.
It is too late for me to regain all the lost ground, I will have to make the best of what remains, but it will probably be worse for those coming behind me.
The game has changed, and is still changing.
The rules will have to change to reflect this reality.

I expect that methods of evaluating pilot competency and fitness are going to have to change to move up from 1960s technology, to current technology.
The doddering old Aviation MD will be replaced by much more in depth medical tests involving modern technology.
The same will apply to competency checks, computers are much more impartial than people, and do not have ingrained prejudices pro or con.
The old Chinese saying “may you live in interesting times” may well apply.

stepwilk

29th Oct 2011, 12:41

Those who have invested in the stock markets have lost big-time.

If you have invested intelligently, with the advice of a good financial planner, you may be down compared to your peak value a few years ago, but you should still be way ahead of where you were when you started. Intelligent investing requires perspective, not hysteria. Works for me.

poina

6th Nov 2011, 18:29

Well said, investing requires patience, time, and planning. Especially when the next decades will offer no free lunch thanks to the incompetence of our politicians.

Typhoon23

14th Nov 2011, 23:20

Who cares, unless you are one of those miserable moaners who I have to put up with every damn time I come on this site........no wonder our once respected profession is in tatters!
Sixty, Sixty-five, even seventy+, who gives a damn, as long as the guy is able to fly... and most importantly, wants to still fly, then let him! For all those moaners.....get a life. All the present Captains had to wait and now you will have to do the same; if you can't, then find alternative employment, as most of the guys from my generation have wanted to fly.....period!:=

exeng

15th Nov 2011, 00:53

Been flying since I was 17 years old (only little gliders then you know, but I loved it).

Started training as an aircraft Engineer when I was sixteen - and I loved that too.

Dreamed of flying aeroplanes since before I can remember.

Did a PPL and found it exciting but expensive.

Was a Flight Engineer for 18 years and found it to be a very rewarding and at times an exciting career.

Retrained as a professional Pilot and did a few years as an F/O on jets and was very fulfilled.

Got a command and I am back where I was dreaming at about the age of 2 years old I guess.

I think I will carry on enjoying myself for as long as I can - after all I didn't start this professional pilot stuff until way into my forties. Only 7500 hrs in the LH seat and I don't think it is unreasonable to sit there for a few thousand more - do you?

Regards
Exeng

captaylor

21st Nov 2011, 12:28

Pilots who awnt to fly after 65 can fly for middle east airlines or open their business. This doesn't only concern pilots, why everybody is striving to reach retirement age? To do what they want after!!!!! Your vision of life is scaring

400drvr

25th Nov 2011, 01:01

Always wanted to retire at 55 but life got in the way. Survived a couple of career reboots after the airlines I was woking for went out of business or just became to difficult to stay at. Then there is the issue of taking care of an aging and totally dependent parent, which aint cheap. So I will have to work a little longer but I would hope not past age 63. We shall see whats left of the social safety nets in the USA and where housing prices go and whether or not I can recover financially form the folly of 2008. As for the young guys good luck with your career, mines been interesting.

2EggOmelette

25th Nov 2011, 17:06

Some interesting discussion going on here.
As a reasonably new pilot with only a few thousand hours and 33 years of age, i can well see why so many of my compatriots would like to see an early retirement age, it would certainly aid me in progressing my career, no question.
However, we are deluding ourselves if we think that the majority of us will be any different in 30 years time. Increasing cost of living, reducing wages etc etc are all leading to increased retirement ages and bugger all chance of a pension. I'm certain ill HAVE to work well into my 70's if I am to have any quality of life in another 40 years time.
Sure, i would much rather be on the riverside catching some nice trout when I'm 65 instead of working long hours for crap pay, but it aint going to happen. As for the safety aspect, well I've seen both oldies who couldn't handle the jandle and oldies who are a credit to the industry (and the human race). There is simply little way to judge all pilots on health. Its just too dam complicated. And you have the issue of that human rights and bias thing. Things will change undoubtedly and I have no idea how - and neither do you! but it isn't changing yet.
So, i really cant begrudge the old farts for sticking around, as they say,
If the goings good............

bubbers44

26th Nov 2011, 02:20

I had to retire at 60, then they changed it to 65. I saw a lot of really competent pilots have to retire before me at age 60. It didn't seem right. The younger pilots want to upgrade, that is understandable, but it had nothing to do with safety. I flew with some pilots that were losing it at 55.

I am long gone now but when a pilot is no longer competent to fly an airliner it is only partly do to age. I know the physical is a joke but people are aging better than in the past.

Island-Flyer

28th Nov 2011, 06:14

At my company we have one captain over the age of 60, he's a fair employee and a good guy but it's a crap shoot with him. One day he aced a hydraulic failure on one of our aircraft but later he nearly stalled the plane during a circling approach with an FAA inspector on board (thank God for the FO).

Likewise my first captain when I started in the 135 world was 73, he was a great man full of knowledge and he taught me many valuable lessons - he also had a tendency to doze off during critical phases of flight.

I have all the respect in the world for the venerable pilots of yesteryear, but at some point it's best they realize they've reached the top of their game and retire with their dignity. All the decades of experience cannot counter the physical and mental deficiencies that naturally occur in the human body. I think 65 was a logical leap from 60, but I think at 70 we are wasting an otherwise valuable resource.

Whether a pilot has 20,000 hours or 2000 hours they can both make critical mistakes. At my company we call "experience" "tribal knowledge" and actively discourage it. If a pilot has a valid piece of knowledge to pass along it will be incorporated into pilot training.

These venerable gentlemen (and ladies) should be put to better use in an airline's training department or as a CFI passing their vast knowledge on to the next generation of aviators.

The economics that the freeze has created for aviation in the US is a touchy subject, but in all it's hurt the industry in the long run. So many otherwise skilled pilots have left the industry as their lives could no longer be put on hold for their place in the seniority list: these people needed the financial means to start their families and aviation could not do that as a pilot.

Aviation has become so unappealing due to this self-inflicted pay cut we continue to levy on the "young pilots" that fewer and fewer people can support themselves in the industry and the $80,000+ bill to get certificated makes no sense. And with this in mind what happens when the baby boomers die off? I think your love of aviation could eventually be the death of aviation. Even now I'm having trouble recruiting skilled pilots because many of those with the responsible characteristics I look for have fled the industry due to the lack of upward movement (and yes, I believe they're justified in thinking 10+ years in an industry is too long to wait for a liveable wage).

If you love to fly then by all means, fly. There are a lovely array of light aircraft for you and your friends to toodle around in and plenty of jobs more appropriate than a commercial airline captain. Why must you be commanding a 747 to be a pilot? Are you too good for the PA-44? If you're so experienced pass it on and stop griping about "unskilled new pilots" while claiming you're above teaching them how to fly. Share your experience and stop selfishly holding onto it.

BALLSOUT

28th Nov 2011, 10:33

Islan Flyer, on the face of it, what you say would seem to make sense. Unfortunately there is no way near the space within training departments to accomodate all the older guys who want to stay in the game.
I work for a big LCC in Europe and they choose to staff the training department with 1000 Hr F/O's as SFI's. Once they have a command, they make them TRI's. Where is all of this valuable wisdome and experience coming from in our very large training department? I think they are probably cheap though.

Green Guard

28th Nov 2011, 15:03

Even now I'm having trouble recruiting skilled pilots because many of those with the responsible characteristics I look for have fled the industry due to the lack of upward movement

good question, and you yourself made a very good answer:

Why must you be commanding a 747 to be a pilot?

parabellum

28th Nov 2011, 19:48

fewer and fewer people can support themselves in the industry and the $80,000+ bill to get certificated makes no sense.

Amen to that, but how did it come about in the first place? Largely because young wannabes wouldn't go off and spend five or so years in GA, building their experience and hours, no, they wanted LHS of a jet NOW and were able to borrow the money to fund that idea, a trickle became a flood and now it is seen as the normal way ahead by many operators who jumped on a bandwagon these same young people presented them with. Impetuous youth and greedy bankers are more to blame than pilots that want to complete their career at 65, the original retirement age until the late seventies, early eighties in both the USA and the UK, excluding legacy carriers who are unrepresentative in numbers of the total pilot workforce anyway.

neoflyer

19th Feb 2012, 20:48

An instructor at my airline told me "European" (ICAO?) rules were changed to allow captains to downgrade to FO at 65 and continue to fly to 70. I also heard pilots in Australia can fly in airline ops as long as they can hold a medical.

Can anyone confirm either of these?

ExSp33db1rd

19th Feb 2012, 22:30

I also heard pilots in Australia can fly in airline ops as long as they can hold a medical.
Can anyone confirm either of these?

Yes, Aus. and NZ pilots can theoretically hold a licence with no age restriction providing that they can pass the medical. Whether an airline will continue to employ them would be dependant upon the Terms and Conditions of that airline with regard to age, but it was on the grounds of age discrimination that the situation was successfully challenged.

However, with regard to NZ - can't answer for Aus. - the CAA move the medical goalposts to suit themselves, I know of one pilot who has spent mega-dollars fighting them, been supported by Court action but still denied as appeal still follows appeal.

Personally I met the requirement for a CPL medical, as decided by the licensed medical examiner, who issued all the paperwork for a renewal certificate to be issued, but the NZ CAA demanded 'extra' tests due to my -then - age and then refused a CPL, but allowed a PPL.

Subsequently I decided not to pay their demands for extra tests when the PPL was due for renewal and recently opted for a Recreational Pilot Licence, for which the standard is a Bus Driver Medical - the recreational flying licence has many flying restrictions place upon it, but these are better than no flying at all - and the Land Transport Authority accepted my medical standard without restriction for the two year validity of their certificate, but the NZ CAA, who took many years of consultation before they signed off on the RPL medical standard, refused the two year period and demanded more expensive 'tests'.

I'm not paying, I'll buy a boat.

Dunno about Europe.

Basil

19th Feb 2012, 23:33

Just let me know who's flying big jets with 69yo pilots - I'll give them a miss.
Bas - 69 (Age, not preferred position :})

Green Guard

20th Feb 2012, 23:14

Just let me know who's flying big jets with 69yo pilots - I'll give them a miss.
Well then, the same rules should apply for SLF.
It is not safe to fly at that age.

bubbers44

20th Feb 2012, 23:25

Show me one passenger that will care what the crew age is?

7Q Off

20th Feb 2012, 23:55

55 and i am gone if I can do it. Max 60. Let the granpas al 70 fly me on my vacations if they want. I will enjoy my retirement while i am young.

Good Vibs

21st Feb 2012, 17:30

Like in most countries the governments are pushing the retirement age for everyone to 67 or more.
As we all know thats when you can began to receive your full normal government retirement benefits.
Professional pilots must quit by 60 to 65 depending on what you fly and where.
What happens during these 2-7 years? No income at all except what you have saved, etc. Or reduced retirement benefits from the time you can receive it.
How many have lost their "company retirement benefits" because their employer has gone bust?

I think that those that want to quit early..please do...and enjoy what you have for as long as you will have it. Its your life and I am not going to interfere and stop you.
But for those who want to continue and still pass all the test & medicals why not.

captplaystation

21st Feb 2012, 19:28

Age 54, in 2 short weeks time, I am already a bit worried about senility, because, at the bottom of this page it says P31 of 36, and no matter how hard I try (36 is invisible) clicking on 32-35 OR last page, it keeps comming back to the top of page 31. . . . . . Getting Old Huh ? :rolleyes:

Younger colleagues who knock it, are always reminded by me, Hey guy, 2 choices, get old or get dead. Cannot speak for how good the latter is, but Hey, the former isn't THAT bad.
If I can keep passing the Medical/keep passing the Sim, I want to keep going till I drop. :zzz:
Saving money/making plans for the future, was never my forte, but anyhow, I don't want to give up what I enjoy/what gets me (keeps me) out of bed in the morning, a career that has never felt like a "job", but rather a pleasant pastime, that albeit imposing certain responsibilities/restrictions on my life, nonetheless compensated more than fairly in personal satisfaction , & occasionaly quite well financially to boot. . . just because of a date on my birth certificate. :=
I have flown with some who were beyond senile in their 30's, if they can justify holding a medical, I am happy to be assessed in 11 years time "fairly" in comparison to them, if some yardstick is required.
Fortunately, for those of us who (God & Liver willing) wish to continue, the world economy is so fecked up, that we may even actually be welcome to do so.
Retirement is great if you stashed the cash (to enjoy it) I didn't, so for me it is a nightmare scenario.
Because of this , whilst I respect those holding opposing views, & wish for them the opportunity to retire as & when they wish, I merely ask in return they respect my views/circumstances.
Of course, a major success on euromillions & I am with you on the beach :cool: barring that though, "onward & upward" it has to be.

ExSp33db1rd

21st Feb 2012, 20:00

Just let me know who's flying big jets with 69yo pilots - I'll give them a miss.

Rather fly with a 69 yr. old with nearly 50 years experience under his belt "flying" an aeroplane, than with some young button pusher who can't fly himself out of a stall.

but then .......... I'm suffering from EGBF - Electronic Gadget Brain Failure - so maybe it's Horses for Courses !

I will enjoy my retirement while i am young.

bet it won't be long before you're banging on the door to be let back in, I wish I had a job - any job - at least I'd get one day off week !!

Basil

21st Feb 2012, 22:47

Rather fly with a 69 yr. old
I'd be amused to see the expression on the face of the captain or FO who arrived at briefing to find they were off down the route with this grey-haired old sod - "Speak up, lad." :)
Cheers, Alan

fdr

22nd Feb 2012, 02:00

The discussion appears to be based on 2 factors...

1. fairness, &
2. competency

on the first matter, nothing in life apparently is necessarily fair; it's a dog eat dog world. If you expect to be given anything by right, then maybe go live in Cuba or Greece, they still have privilege based programs.

On the latter, the funny pages are replete with historical events that have involved disasters caused by wrong thinking and incompetence of the operators. If this was going to determine the fitness of any pilot to operate, then it would result in the grounding of almost all aircraft, as incompetence can be shown for all ages from 18-65. In fact, the only ages where there is no evidence of loss of competency is over 65... (just a matter of time). A pilot that is dangerous at 25 may or may not change his/her "spots"; personal experience has been discouraging on expectation of any substantive change of a personality over time. Situational awareness may improve in part by learning better coping mechanisms, but in general poor decision making, risk taking and manipulative skills do not often improve. Still, the recent history of mind numbing messes indicate a failure of competency of staggering proportions that are unrelated to age, more related to the decay of basic skills, which if anything are inverse to age.

Demanding that a competent operator should give up his/her occupation/career is fairly self serving and rather myopic; given luck all will attain the ripe old age of 45, 50, 53, 55, 58 60, 63, 65 (or unlimited...) that have been the constraining ages just in my experience of the industry. personally, I have watched an older fortunate group ride the age wave over the years and they have had a unique opportunity. Someone else having good fortune is hardly a reason to complain, it smacks of that fascinating characteristic of running a coin down the side of an exotic car, as it is not "yours".

"Calamities are of two kinds: misfortunes to ourselves, and good fortune to others."
Ambrose Bierce, (1842-1914) The Devil's Dictionary

The industry has become a sausage factory; as an individual, if you don't like it, then there are opportunities to use your skill sets in other fields, and looking on the bright side, the constraints to changing employment is diminishing with every case where the system is cheapened. A look around will show that there are a surprising number of occupations that pay far better now than almost all pilot positions, and the conditions of serv(itude) that exist in most companies today are worse than those that exist in alternative service. In fact the question really should be asked, why on earth would anyone want to stay in the business, and the most likely answer is that a lot of people actually get some professional pride in the industry despite the cheapening and demeaning of the profession that has become commonplace.

Stay, go, whatever; just please don't wake me in snooze... unless it is for more coffee or an EGPWS type IV or II alert...