View Full Version : Latest On Age 60-plus

17th Jun 2002, 06:38
Posted to their Web site June 13, a new petition by 10 members of the Professional Pilots Federation (PPF) seeks their exemption from the age-60 mandatory retirement rule. The petition says the rule was a favor to American Airlines in 1959 to get older pilots out of the cockpit, not a safety move. The PPF's lengthy petition includes a February 5, 1959, letter from C.R. Smith, the then-CEO of American, to then-FAA Administrator Gen. Elwood Quesada. The PPF claims the two were longtime friends when Smith told Quesada that the pilots' association was balking at the company's mandatory retirement age of 60 and suggested the FAA make it law. The FAA set the age at 60 about 10 months later, according to the petition.

http://www.ppf.org/newpetition.htm (http://)

17th Jun 2002, 07:44

Why can't these old people just 'accept' retirement gracefully

It gives the young person an opportunity to learn and 'acquire' the necessary skills The dead man's shoes philosophy should be eradicated allowing a natural flow of employment in the industry

Notso Fantastic
17th Jun 2002, 07:50
Engineer- perhaps one of the skills you should acquire is spelling! Try 'accept' and 'acquire' for a start! If, according to your moniker, you are an Engineer, why do you feel the necessity to comment and express an opinion about pilot employment in a Professional Pilots Forum?

C Montgomery Burns
17th Jun 2002, 08:00
Simple, Engineer. One word: experience. I'd rather fly with a co-jo that's 65, in good health and has seen and done it all than some wet behind the ears type that is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard the moment things get tough. And yes, before you raise the issue of training, I have been in a situation working for a major airline where the FO simply cracked under the strain and I had to do everything myself - this guy could barely handle the radio. Needless to say, he received his marching orders very quickly after that.

17th Jun 2002, 09:35

How do you know he is medically fit and fully alert. If so why not rise the age to seventy

Reference your incident with the FO (411a must be lurking somewhere ;) )

maybe he would benefit from this link


Accept that when your time is up and go quietly instead of kicking and screaming. It is more professional. Take solace from the fact that you are giving an opportunity to a younger person to receive the benefits that were bestowed on you.

(corrected to appease Notso Fantastic requirement for spelling retraining was necessary and carried out)

17th Jun 2002, 10:16
Well Engineer, how about you accepting that the retirement age was 65, (55 in certain companies, dictated by themselves and their pension schemes) and that it was reduced to 60, how about accepting that it is simply going back to where it ought to be?

17th Jun 2002, 11:03
Surely demography and economics should be used in planning policy for the retirement age, assuming of course a medically fit senior individual. We are an increasingly ageing population, where there will be a relatively smaller working population supporting those in retirement. A way to rebalance this is to allow certain fit individuals to work longer. Also, due to better health care and health education, people are living longer, so will have to be supported by the rest of us for longer. If people remain productive in the workforce for a greater span then surely we all benefit, providing that the economy continues to grow and therefore demand is created for young entrants at the start of their careers.

Other economic realities which favour this argument are pension plans which are underperforming, endowment mortgages supported by underperforming life policies, and the exorbitant cost of houses, particularly in areas of high employment. Surely even a recently qualified 22 year old waiting to get his/her first flying job will recognise the advantages of a later retirement age when he/she faces the possibility of a fifty year mortgage.

Ours is an industry protected from the prospect of an old timer wasting O2 while not contributing much: our oldies have to pass a simulator check every 6 months and a stringent medical - if they can't do the job they're out.

They have a life time of experience to pass on and the fact that they've kept a job in an industry which is not sympathetic to big mistakes means they must be doing something right.

If you are young and thinking they are keeping you out of a job think again: if you are determined and good enough, you will get a job eventually - you have youth on your side.

17th Jun 2002, 13:47
In the USA, mandatory FAA age 60 retirement does not coincide with entitlement to government pension (Social Security); full benefits are available only upon reaching age 65. This retirement gap should be closed by raising the arbitrary "age 60" rule to age 65 for medically fit pilots.

STS-61 (1993) Endeavour Shuttle Pilot Story Musgrave at age 61 already had demonstrated that "age 60" is not the magical age of reduced flying competency.


Notso Fantastic
17th Jun 2002, 17:01
Engineer, you seem to be persisting in the belief that your opinion on pilot employment practices carries any weight in this forum. As you appear to be a visitor, perhaps better to behave like a guest and keep quiet! I would not dream of popping up in an Engineering forum expressing controversial opinions on Engineer employment practices!

17th Jun 2002, 18:03
the raf had a sqn ldr called geoff timms who was flying harriers until he was 62.

17th Jun 2002, 18:25
I can't speak for the situation in the Americas but we in Europe have a demographic time -bomb ticking away with older people living longer and a reduced birth rate meaning a shrinking working population to support an increasing social security burden. Citizens of the advanced nations are living longer and staying fit longer, so it is imperative that there is a general re-think about retirement ages across the board, not just in aviation. The present system is pensions based with the inherent inflexibility this entails. I believe we must break away from these fixed and highly arbitrary retirement dates and introduce some flexibility. Some people could and should retire at sixty, or even before, whereas others would be both able and happy to soldier on to their seventies. I suspect that only by empowering this latter group will the pensions book be balanced long term. With regard to our own safety critical profession the criteria need to be more stringent than for, say, office workers but we already have the checks and balances of medicals and recurrent training to ensure competence. Again, some pilots could and should call it a day at fifty-five but there are many around who would be both happy and competent to go to sixty-five. Others might need to stop somewhere between those parameters. All it takes is for the pensions industry to do a bit of constructive work (for a change!) and allow such a flexible pattern of retirement to happen. To the Young Turks who are forever saying that older pilots block their prospects, I am personally very happy to see a silver haired guy in the left hand seat when I'm a passenger. He's got that pension in sight and he's not going to do anything stupid to stop him enjoying it. For the record, I'm fifty two.

17th Jun 2002, 18:41
Just another question. If it is "not safe" for a pilot over 60 to be in command on a public transport flight, what is the stand point on a private flight!!!
excuse the spelling mistakes up is up down is down

Fr8t M8te
17th Jun 2002, 20:22
Mowgli and Pirate. I think you are both spot on.

No question about it that, due to personal circumstances beyond my control, I have to soldier on quite a bit longer yet. Sadly no big yacht in a sleepy lagoon for me!

I have to say the thought of going back to my roots at age 60 I find quite scary - night freight to Europe in miserable winter wx in a beat up old turboprop followed by a most enjoyable drive home on our super slick road system. Ah the romance of it!!!

There has to be a suitable compromise along the way and I hope we get some intelligent posts, and suggestions, on this thread.

Best regards

Fr8t M8te

17th Jun 2002, 20:39
Why anybody should want to continue beyond sixty is beyond me
unless they have several sets of alimony to find each month. I have seen the good and bad of elderly pilots from the very sharp
to the ones who can barely keep awake on the approach. There
can be little doubt that in the UK at least, the enforced retirement
of pilots from BA who then acquire instant commands in second
division carriers does inhibit the progress of younger colleagues
who did not find their way into the national carrier. I guess its
just a question of supply and demand or is it perhaps that much
quoted statistic that BA pensions are not paid for long after final
retirement due to the grim reaper ?

Personally I hope to get out before sixty and live a normal life but
then again my pension will not be on a par with our silver braided
comrades in Birdseed..........

As Nigel would say toodle pip old boy

Semaphore Sam
17th Jun 2002, 21:39
Doctors (brain surgeons, etc), dentists, lawyers (but then, they can bend the law any old way anyway!), postmen, Lotharios (viagra aided), Presidents & Dictators, game-show hosts, just about ANYBODY BUT PILOTS, are not age-restricted. I doubt if any of the above (except pilots) are given the equivilent of a Class I or Proficiency Check (Surgeons given 6-month proficiency checks? Are You Kidding? And, do surgeons have co-surgeons?).

Case made. We are the only group checked so thoroughly for mental/physical skills & proficiency. So, then, what are the reasons, except politicical/economic, supporting the violation of our rights to negotiate our job skills past 60 into gainful employment?

Younger pilots: we are all in different situations, as we approach 60. If I could retire with a 30-year DAL pension & golden handshake, I might agree, beamer, engineer, etc. I'd love that! Life didn't fall like that for many of us, though; so, we should be unjustifiably 'forced out', in many cases into near-poverty? Talk about 'pilot solidarity' all you like; you guys, in the name of 'solidarity', are just like those ALPA people of the '60's & 70's who, in the name of 'solidarity', kept many of us out, and are doing it again. Some 'Pilots'!......Some 'Solidarity'!

As per a similar thread in 'Questions' that I started: 1)Is there a lawyer in the house willing to pursue a 'class action' suit against the FAA age 60 rule on the basis of age discrimination? Any recommendations for a suitable lawyer? 2)Anyone out there willing to join me in this suit? Sam

Kaptin M
17th Jun 2002, 21:45
"I'd rather fly with a co-jo that's 65, in good health and has seen and done it all than some wet behind the ears type that is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard the moment things get tough." - a couple of points here, 411A, er sorry, C. Montgomery B, on the SAFETY side of the argument having 2 Captains working on the same flight deck (and I DELIBERATELY avoided the wording "working together) is undeniably not often the optimum configuration. Especially when the "co-jo" feels that he has "seen and done it all" ending up in a "That's not how it's done son - I have control!" situation.
Remember the Korean B737 that crashed a couple of years back because the "co-jo" in the rhs was an ex-Air Force Captain (or General).

Typical of 411A's "I was born a Captain" attitude, is the statement wrt to F/O's " some wet behind the ears type that is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard the moment things get tough".
EVERY GOOD Captain is well aware that there are some F/O's with whom he will fly who are slower to "develop" than others.
EVERY GOOD Captain will find it within his ABILITY to carry that F/O - perhaps that's one of the reasons we are made aware of passive incapacitation, and are taught how to handle it. EVERY GOOD airline will check that any Captain - before he is checked to line - is CAPABLE of operating without the F/O.

Believe it or not, CMB YOU were once one of those " some wet behind the ears type that is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard the moment things get tough."
One sometimes wonders if 411A (and you, of course CMB :cool: ) would pass a Command proficiency check in today's world, considering the number of stories you relate where the F/O "Needless to say, he received his marching orders very quickly after that.".

I have flown with several F/O's older than myself, all of whom had held commands before - one stands out as being probably the epitome of the ideal F/O, relaxed, efficient, knowledgable - but not a "know it all" - reliable, observant, yet understanding that there IS only ONE Captain on the flight deck.
He's also great company on night stops - a good ol' bad boy!

Unfortunately I've experienced the other end of the spectrum as well. An old guy who didn't give a rat's @ss, and was a poor manipulator to boot - as a matter of fact he was downright dangerous on a couple of occasions when he was flying. For sure, had the sh!t hit the fan with this guy, he would have provided no back-up at ALL.
He was ONLY there because he wanted/needed the $$$$'s!

I guess if airline pilots are going to be employed over 60 years of age - and they allow Captains to continue to 62 in Japan, and indefinitely in Australia as long as they are able to pass their medical - the airline companies are going to need to ensure that the "Safety Culture" of their organisation isn't compromised.

In reality, I doubt that the numbers (of over 60's) who will want AND are able to do so, will not be significant. Regardless of that number - however small though - they MUST affect the career growth and available job opportunities of young up and comers. But from the guys I've known, who want to fly over 60, they couldn't care less about anyone except themselves!

If the predicted (severe) pilot shortage does eventuate within the next few years, flying over 60 may offer a temporary solution, however in the medium-longer term it could cause a problem, as younger pilots, seeing no prospects of promotion (on type and salary) LEAVE the industry.

17th Jun 2002, 22:07

Notso Fantastic your silver penned prose befits your apt pseudonym, thus making one rush for dictionary elegance

Advice would be to read the following link second paragraph


Also this second link which may steer you


Finally not all engineers work on the ground.

With the implementation of JAR-FCL this should have been the opportunitity to level the playing field on curtailment of licence privileges at the age of sixty. This was not carried out so JAR FCL 1.060 refers to three areas France Czech Republic and the rest.

For me I side with the French and the Americans on this topic and as KM states flying with two Captains can cause its own problems.

Simple solution Sixty and out. If you love aviation or need to maintain your life style seek employment as a DFO

18th Jun 2002, 00:52
Glueball,what ever happened to the Bill that passed in Congress ,stating the limit in the US to 63????(I know the FAA is against it??)
One case in point against going tp the EU level of 65:one european Airline allowed the option of going to 63,with three medicals a year!!Once the EU adopted 65,as the norm,said Co' required all their guys to go to 65 for the full pension.:rolleyes:

18th Jun 2002, 03:10
The Bill to raise the FAA age 60 limit still is stuck somewhere in the legislature. I haven't kept up with it as I am not anywhere near age 60. But I know that ALPA lobbyists are working hard to keep it from passing.

C Montgomery Burns
18th Jun 2002, 07:04
Why should there be any reason for these gentlemen to have to fly as FOs after 55 or 60? Why should they not remain Captains, passing on the benefit of their many years of experience to the children that follow them ... a number of whom have posted on this thread?

There seems to be a disturbing trend towards a climate of expectation in this industry: "I want it and I want it NOW" ... "I have spent £50k so the world owes me a living and a high paid pilot's job" ... "I'm 29 and I deserve to be a long haul widebody Captain" ... "Let's lower the retirement age to 40 so I get into the left seat faster" etc.

Kaptin M, your arrogance shows through. Not one of those dreadful '89ers, are you, always whinging about how you were "done in" by everyone and it was everyone's fault apart from your own? No, I am not 411a but I have been around the block many many times and like him and Notso Fantastic I have acquired a patina of cynicism as well as a healthy respect for both experience and the fact that ours is a profession in which we learn something new every day. No one (apart from you - after all, you even call yourself 'Kaptin' in your monicker!) is saying that one is "born a captain" - that is a position one achieves through dint of sheer hard work and aptitude. In my case, as I am here, I was indeed able to cope without that FO; my point being that had I had an experienced older chap sitting beside me that situation would never have arisen in the first place. To extend your argument laterally, you seem to be making a case that there should be no second pilot and that aircraft should be capable of being operated by a single crew member! From the point of view of CRM, it's the bitter wannabe-in-the-left-hand-seat-but-circumstances- conspired-against-me types that are the real danger.

The French are about to change their stance on overflights by over 60s which is unworkable anyway and of course illegal under EU law. No doubt the Czechs will do the same as they are keen to join the EU (as long as the dark spectre of claims by Sudentenland Germans can be kept brushed under the carpet) and they don't want to rock the boat.

Norfolk in breaks
18th Jun 2002, 09:24
Legislation will always lag behind reality. For a long while the trend was for retirement age to fall and it was seen as an advantage to retire early. in our own industry, pensions were adjusted to this. Now it is undoubtedly the case that we are living longer and having to confront our potential lack of ability to pay for those extra years of leisure.
In the UK, just for a change, we lag behind the US. As I understand it, we become subject to European legislation in 2006 which makes it illegal to discriminate on grounds of age. This will of course, in our profession, be suject to the possession of a valid licence and age limits on this are a matter for continuing debate.
The question arises as to what happens in airlines that currently retire pilots at 55.(Is this still true of anyone else but BA?) I understand that they can apply for an exemption and then spend as much time as is convenient to themselves arguing the toss.
Do any legal eagles out there have more specific information on the likely movements in this sphere of the retirement debate?

18th Jun 2002, 09:51
This sounds like a case for SUPERLAWYER!!!! "calling T. Owen esq...calling T Owen esq...You are required in the Forums thank you" . ;)

18th Jun 2002, 10:48
The ALPA lobbyists mentioned above are a caucus of F/Os and SFOs in the USA majors who dont just want it but want it NOW!!!

They even stooped to publishing a lobbying document that depicted an over sixty pilot as being in a dressing gown and pushing a Zimmer frame! How low can you go, especially to avoid doing a bit of extra work.

Eventually they will be defeated by the law of common sense that is slowly creeping over the rest of the world.

How ever much 411A gets up your nose he gets most things right.

Kaptin M, for once I think you are talking rubbish.

18th Jun 2002, 14:15
Well, am certainly pleased that....411A gets most things right...considering that this is his first post on THIS thread.

Hmmm, the good Kaptin M does get a bit long winded at times.:rolleyes:

Kaptin M
18th Jun 2002, 15:11
"Hmmm, the good Kaptin M does get a bit long winded at times."

Tends to happen approaching age 60, 411!! :(

* What I used once to do all night, now takes me all night to do!" :(

19th Jun 2002, 07:32
Guys, We all understood the rules when we signed on. It is not right to change them since we are in now. The guys before us retired at 60 so we could move up and now it's our turn to retire so the guys behind us can move up. If we want to pass along our "experience" we should consider teaching the next generation our skills. Those folks just starting out would love to have that perk just as we did on our very first few flights.

Norfolk in breaks
19th Jun 2002, 09:23
To address the point raised by penltbx2:
If you are going to argue the case for a particular retirement age, do it on its own merit. If we all took the line that we knew the rules when we joined and they are immutable for all time then you would still be bashing your wife over the head with a club for foreplay.
Contracts that are not reasonable are not ultimately enforceable in law and the definition of what is reasonable changes with time. I'm not too sure about 60, but 55 is ludicrous.

19th Jun 2002, 10:41
65 WAS the retirement age whe I got my first licence, back in 1965, (UK) so yes, lets stick to the rules we signed up under!

Norfolk Breaks make a good point too.

19th Jun 2002, 13:12
You're all wrong. Everyone's wrong about everything except me.

25th Jun 2002, 15:47
I have to comment, as I reach the grand old age of 60 I will soon be pushed out as well. I don't have many counts of alimony to pay but need the job to have food on the table and to avoid the soup kitchen........... When I started you could go to 65 and that is all I needed then and could make it now if the extra five years come to pass, but any less screws up my plans and that is not good. So here is hoping it happens sooner not later:D

25th Jun 2002, 17:14

Another five years will only delay the onset of the soup kitchen. Best go now so that you can reserve a place in the queue and reflect on what financial decisions you should have taken to secure a better future. :p

26th Jun 2002, 14:16
When I was a young wannabe, I had to wait for the TOTAL situation to produce a vacancy that I could apply for. This included normal retirements, early retirements, medical LOL, growth or contraction in the industry, management style etc.etc.etc. Now I am approaching retirement this 'move out and let the young guys have a go' mentality seems to be very prevalent.

Why should I go early and compromise my lifestyle as a pensioner (and from a regional flying career, its nothing special I can assure you!) ? It seems to me that those in the union movement and in the 'heavy iron' end of it with their healthy salaries = healthy pensions simply use this 'red herring' so that no one will compromise their early retirement plans.

Let those who can go early go and the young wannabe's of today can start ealier than they otherwise could. Those of us who cant afford the luxury of early retirement and need the full time should not have to pay for their fantasies !

26th Jun 2002, 19:21
proof of competence and fitness is required.
all else is down to financial options.
all financial options up to now management driven..
if competence and fitness proven, all else is a whinge...

26th Jun 2002, 21:34
Oh! why do old people all ways want to live in the past. Is it the draw of those halcyon days or the need to hang on to what has past. :D

26th Jun 2002, 21:59
Besides which, though I didn't realise it at the time, it was the old duffers that had the experience and ability to deal with some young know it all punk - me at the time - with the result that I learned more from them than the younger pilots.

27th Jun 2002, 09:28
Looking through this post there does not appear to be a reference to the actual retirement age in the EU .I gather it may now be 63 and France overflys are currently being looked at. Some posts imply it is still 60.

27th Jun 2002, 10:34
Look here

Age Restrictions (http://www.jaa.nl/section1/jars/35/53/355312/355312.pdf)

page 10/para 1.060. You need adobe acrobat reader to view this page. Hope it helps.

28th Jun 2002, 00:03
In Canada we don't have an age restriction ,as yet.Providing one can still do the job,competently(don't scare the f'o's)and maintain the medical.....
What's the latest re' the French over fly ban,and how about italy?:confused:

28th Jun 2002, 10:38
Engineer, occasionally in life one comes across an obnoxious, conceited and arrogant individual such as you. Who are you to make statements such as; another five years will only delay the onset of the soup kitchen. Best go now so that you can reserve a place in the queue and reflect on what financial decisions you should have taken to secure a better future
In 1990 I joined an airline that I wished to stay with until my retirement, that airline, followed by several others to whom I gave my all sadly went into liquidation.
At that time I made financial decisions based on the best pension advice available and a legal retirement age of 65.

The fact that the goalposts have moved and that my pension pot will buy one third of what the experts told me and the retirement age has changed with no compensation is not something that you should sneer about.

Getting down to the nitty gritty, yes I am 59, yes I can run most 30 year olds off the squash court, yes I can fly the aircraft as well as any 30 year old and no I donít fall asleep at the controls. Statistically I was more likely to have a heart attack or testicular cancer in my 40s and yes I want to carry on.

Why do I want to carry on, most importantly I actually enjoy what I am doing, I enjoy flying, I enjoy training and examining and passing on skills to other pilots, I am proud to be a professional and to achieve a high professional standard, and what is more, notwithstanding what you think, it is actually legal to do so.

28th Jun 2002, 16:12
Engineer quotes a link for age limits - although I have acrobat I can't seem to access the information. Could someone make a precis of what it says and publish it here?
Like a lot of pilots I still enjoy the flying, but the money is the major consideration - still educating the children!
Cheers, Y

28th Jun 2002, 16:37

Link still works This link

JAR Sections (http://www.jaa.nl/section1/jarsec1.html)

will take you to the html page from there open pdf file on JAR-FCL 1 Flight Crew Licensing (Aeroplane) then it is JAR-FCL 1.060 page 1-A-8

Good Luck


You are entitled to your opinion as everyone else. If that differs from others and you perceive this as "obnoxious, conceited and arrogant " then that is your problem.

Your physical attributes, financial dependency or the fact that the employment market was not kind to your case have no relevant to the consideration of retirement. If the rules say go then go you must.

May be like Notso Fantastic you should read this link

Educate (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=56706)

However as this is your first post and considering your old age maybe an exception can be granted this time

28th Jun 2002, 23:47
Everyone knows that 60 is the time to go so we all have enough time to prepare for it. Research shows that risk for an accident or incident increases past that age. As we can all see from most of the comments made by our older generation pilots, the mind becomes stubborn and closed to new ideas and new operating philosophies. Considering any pilot sitting in the flight deck of a large transport aircraft "wet behind the ears" because he/ she did not get their wings when the DC3 was state of the art equipment is disqualified as a competent team leader.
does the airline need the burden to schedule their pilots based on the fact that overflight permissions are not available because the pilot is too old?
speaking of this, i think in australia pilots are only allowed to operate domestic services once they are 60 and are subject to very strict psychological and medical testing. can anyone provide a list of the countries that prohibit overflight past 60?

29th Jun 2002, 00:45
As has been stated already on this thread, when those who are now about to reach the age of sixty started their commercial career, in the UK, the retirement age was 65 and it was on that age we made our plans.

There is absolutely no evidence within aviation to suggest that pilots over 60 are more likely to have an accident/incident, just more rubbish of the same ilk Magnum, check it out with AME's who have done a study on over 60 pilots.

Provided all the countries involved abide by the same age regulations there is no burden to schedule older pilots any differently to the younger ones, those countries that currently keep the age at sixty do not do so for any safety considerations but from union pressure and lobbying, (France, Italy, India, USA etc.).

Before entering a discussion with inflamatory nonsense how about a bit of genuine research Magnum?

29th Jun 2002, 02:42
Well, one has to wonder just who is talking rubbish here!
When I joined the airlines in Oz at the age of 23 the last thing on my mind was to "make my plans" based on the then retiring age. Anybody who says otherwise is either disingenuous or decidedly strange!
Besides, the retiring age was then 55 and is now open ended...so, so much for that argument!
Why dont you do what I and most retired pilots did. Retire graciously when your time is up and stop bitching about how hard done by you have been! :cool:

29th Jun 2002, 10:15
Amos2 - my arguments are very valid and I stand by them, QANTAS may have had an INTERNALLY agreed retirement age of 55, as did CX, BA etc. all airlines one could join and expect a full career with about 30 years into a pension/provident fund. Just when exactly did the whole of Australia have a mandatory retirement age of 55?

Magnum said words to the effect that we knew the retirement age when we started and we should have planned accordingly, you are saying that no one would make such plans?
When I and many others started our commercial career in the UK the retirement age was 65 and we would have been plain stupid not to have used the agreed retirement age of the day as a significant point in our planning.

If you bothered to read this and other threads about retirement age you would discover, Amos2, that we are more concerned at the most arrogant attitude of youngsters who simply expect us to get out of their way than we are by the prospect of actual retirement. Suggest you read a few of the posts above and get the real picture, TBadger and Ooizcalling should do for a start.

Really glad that you are so happy and complacent, difficult to imagine a more selfish attitude.

29th Jun 2002, 12:00
I think that one should be thinking in the following terms:
1) That imposing an age limit of 55/56, or any other age up to and below the age of 60 yrs ( as a CDR), should be considered as discriminatory?
2) If, JAR rules stipulate, that you may fly as a CDR until you are 60 yr. Then, this should be the retirement age and not any other. After that I might add you can continue as a F/O, until 65yr (JAR-FCL 1.060).
3) Labour agreements suggest or impose the age limits, with the consent of the majority of it's members. Is this legal or not? Is this discrimination or not? Thes are the questions we should be asking ourselves.
4) For those of you whom still ponder on the fact that they did not sart flying on DC-3's and the likes. And refer to the ones who did, in certain, but, in aderogatory way. I would suggest, that they ponder more on the idea, that, when they reach the age of 60yrs, they might also be looked opon, as pilots from another era, whom started on a B-737! I just hope that by then, that their outlook on our profesion, would be more mature!

Me thinks, that if you meet the requirements, and you want to continue on flying. Then, you should be allowed too, untill you reach then legal age limit?;)

29th Jun 2002, 12:46
I wonder if my experience is typical of some of us forced out at age 60 but still wanting to fly.

Probably the saddest day of my life was cutting the start levers on my B737 at the aerobridge on my last flight after reaching forced retirement at age 60. I was desolated because I love flying and still do. Now 10 years later I still fly in GA despite the clapped out state of the aircraft. Why? Because I will always love flying - and the fact that as a matter of pride I still hold an ATPL and Command instrument rating.

I would have preferred to keep on flying the 737 of course - I still keep current in a simulator - but it will never ever happen. All I know is that it was a damned sight safer and easier to fly the 737 than it is to flog around in a beaten up Navajo without radar and terrible cockpit lighting.

The annoying thing is that each time I pick up thirty five bucks an hour for instructing on a Cessna 172, I have to declare it to Social Sucks (Welfare) - who promptly deduct it from my old age pension each fortnight.
Love of flying does that to you!!

30th Jun 2002, 08:16
No! Like Blue Eagle, you have a problem!

1st Jul 2002, 21:53
Any thoughts on moving over to the right hand seat at 60 and possibly giving someone the benefit of your experience. In the nicest possible way of course.

1st Jul 2002, 23:28
Quite an acceptable practice whilst waiting for the rules to revert to common sense and some operators do it. BUT, when a country has a 'no-overfly' rule as well then most companies reasonably, in my view, that require to overfly such countries have to say that, for the time being, sixty is the limit.

The age limit is on its way up but is taking longer than necessary for all the reasons stated above.