Age
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: suffolk uk
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Psyan,
You are, of course, entitled, even encouraged in this forum, to express your opinions. May I be so bold as to inform your opinion by pointing out that, with the active (that is to say financial) support of some 50 PPruners, I am seeking to change the legislation in the UK by taking the CAA to court for Age Discrimination. So rather than sitting tapping away at a keyboard many of us are doing something.
All the evidence that I can find indicates that that there is no significant deterioration in ability nor any greatly enhanced risk of an incapacitating cardiac event as the 60th birthday is reached. The risks do increase with age but not significantly in that decade.
I've been flying since 1973, I don't want to stop because I love it and I'm better at it now than I ever was despite having many other interests outside of aviation.
My opinion is that no one should have the right to stop me flying paying passengers without demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that to do so puts the public at risk.
Kind regards,
Ian Evans
You are, of course, entitled, even encouraged in this forum, to express your opinions. May I be so bold as to inform your opinion by pointing out that, with the active (that is to say financial) support of some 50 PPruners, I am seeking to change the legislation in the UK by taking the CAA to court for Age Discrimination. So rather than sitting tapping away at a keyboard many of us are doing something.
All the evidence that I can find indicates that that there is no significant deterioration in ability nor any greatly enhanced risk of an incapacitating cardiac event as the 60th birthday is reached. The risks do increase with age but not significantly in that decade.
I've been flying since 1973, I don't want to stop because I love it and I'm better at it now than I ever was despite having many other interests outside of aviation.
My opinion is that no one should have the right to stop me flying paying passengers without demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that to do so puts the public at risk.
Kind regards,
Ian Evans
uncle ian,
I wouldn't worry about what psyan thinks. He has demonstrated classic 'troll' behaviour in the past and has hopefully gone away for good.
Best of luck with your campaign,
B73
I wouldn't worry about what psyan thinks. He has demonstrated classic 'troll' behaviour in the past and has hopefully gone away for good.
Best of luck with your campaign,
B73
I agree completely with Uncle Ian. Like I mentioned before if one passes his/her test, medicals, etc why not continue if one wants. Quit if you want anytime but don't force those who want to continue to also quit. And for those young copilots/first officers who think they will climb the ladder to captain faster if they get rid of the older ones....wait until they get older themselves and we will see what they have to say!!!Good Luck Uncle Ian.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 413 Likes
on
218 Posts
Smokers should retire at 60. Normal, healthy folk should be allowed to go on to 65 or beyond.
I want to die peacefully in my sleep, not screaming like my passengers.
I want to die peacefully in my sleep, not screaming like my passengers.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 413 Likes
on
218 Posts
I think the only fact mentioned so far is that according to the CAA, pilots may just as well turn into pumpkins at 60. 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1st hill west of the Urals
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle Ian,
PM me with a postal address and I will send you copies of the correspondance between me, my MP, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Robert Sturdy MEP (European Parliament spokesman for international trade), Philip Bushill-Matthews MEP and the answer he got to his oral question (H-0379/07) put to the European Commission.
Following that flurry of correspondance the best advice I got was see if you can get them under Human Rights Legislation !!!!
Mick Hemingway
PS: When is AOM's next golf day?
PM me with a postal address and I will send you copies of the correspondance between me, my MP, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Robert Sturdy MEP (European Parliament spokesman for international trade), Philip Bushill-Matthews MEP and the answer he got to his oral question (H-0379/07) put to the European Commission.
Following that flurry of correspondance the best advice I got was see if you can get them under Human Rights Legislation !!!!
Mick Hemingway
PS: When is AOM's next golf day?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
Age: 79
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cyclicmick:
When I came to Trinidad in 1988, we operated under "The Colonial Air Navigation Orders of 1965".
This former colony has advanced their Regulations at least twice since then. In Feb, 2005, they increased the age to 63. In Apr, 2007, it was increased to 65.
I am not aware of how many other former Commonwealth Nations have done the same.
Is the 'Home Country" stuck in the past?
Perhaps this is an argument you could use.
Being a "Yank", I don't understand the problem as well as those closer to the situation. I still can't figure out the difference between republicans and democrats.
Whatever happens, ya'all have to keep the Single-Malt flowing.
Chas A
SirVivr
When I came to Trinidad in 1988, we operated under "The Colonial Air Navigation Orders of 1965".
This former colony has advanced their Regulations at least twice since then. In Feb, 2005, they increased the age to 63. In Apr, 2007, it was increased to 65.
I am not aware of how many other former Commonwealth Nations have done the same.
Is the 'Home Country" stuck in the past?
Perhaps this is an argument you could use.
Being a "Yank", I don't understand the problem as well as those closer to the situation. I still can't figure out the difference between republicans and democrats.
Whatever happens, ya'all have to keep the Single-Malt flowing.
Chas A
SirVivr
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question no 73 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (H-0379/07 ) Subject: Possible age discrimination towards pilotsH-0379/07 Are public transport operations such as police helicopters or air ambulances flown by a single pilot within the airspace of a single Member State able under EU law to continue to employ suitably competent and medically certificated people as pilots beyond the age of 60?Does the UK Air Navigation Order 2005 constitute a breach of the EU age discrimination law? (Reference to Air Navigation Order: Basic Commercial Pilot's Licence (Aeroplanes) ...... (3) He shall not—........(e) fly such an aeroplane on a flight for the purpose of public transport after he attains the age of 60 years unless the aeroplane is fitted with dual controls and carries a second pilot who has not attained the age of 60 years and who holds an appropriate licence under this Order entitling him to act as pilot in command or co-pilot of that aeroplane.
Answer:
(EN) Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. It prohibits discrimination in employment and training on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation. The Directive applies to all the Member States.
Article 2(5) of Directive 2000/78/EC provides that it is without prejudice to measures laid down by national law which are necessary in a democratic society for public security and for the protection of health.
Article 6 of the Directive allows for the justification of differences of treatment on the grounds of age in certain circumstances, as long as this is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are proportionate and necessary. In addition, article 4(1) of the Directive allows differences of treatment based on age (as well as the other protected characteristics) where this is necessary for a genuine and determining occupational requirement.
The Commission is not aware of the details relating to the particular situation of the question. However, the Commission is of the opinion that the setting of a compulsory retirement age for pilots arising from the differences of treatment based on age could be justifiable under the above-mentioned provisions in order to ensure the air safety and protection of the public.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.. and about lower than 60 retirement age, page 2 on this one:
http://www.skyteampilots.org/files/s...etter_june.pdf
KLM has a 56yrs retirement age, upheld by dutch supreme court after beeing disputed by a few individual pilots.
http://www.skyteampilots.org/files/s...etter_june.pdf
KLM has a 56yrs retirement age, upheld by dutch supreme court after beeing disputed by a few individual pilots.
Last edited by northseaspray; 12th Sep 2007 at 21:46. Reason: editorial
Read it properly, northeastspray. It wasn't KLM who were insisting on them retiring at 56, it was VNV Dutch Alfa, the pilots union. One of the reasons being that it slows down the promotion of THEIR members. Howerver, come what may, they do not not lose their licences so than can fly for somebody else if they so choose.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read it properly, northeastspray. It wasn't KLM who were insisting on them retiring at 56, it was VNV Dutch Alfa, the pilots union. One of the reasons being that it slows down the promotion of THEIR members. Howerver, come what may, they do not not lose their licences so than can fly for somebody else if they so choose.
Who's northEASTspray, maybe he's a distant relative of farWESTdriver? And about reading properly,......
Anyway, the pilots are of course employed by KLM, not VNV, so KLM has a retirement age of 56, negotiated into the CLA by VNV, disputed by a few individual pilots who went to trial, and they all lost, at least one of the cases went to the dutch supreme court, and the pilot lost again.
So what is to be learned from this? Well, it seems like the employers and the unions are free to negotiate any retirement age they like, of course within the laws and regulations of their respective nations. And I quite like the thought that the law and the EU Council Directive 2000/78/EC supports legally binding agreements, not individuals trying to make a deal for themselves at the cost of their colleagues.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1st hill west of the Urals
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SirVivr: Thanks for the info, hopefully Uncle Ian has picked up on it as well.
Northseaspray: Thanks for posting the question and answer, didn't have time to type it out myself!
Northseaspray: Thanks for posting the question and answer, didn't have time to type it out myself!
Legally binding agreements are one thing but if the law of the land changes then they are nullified. Taking Shytorques case if there is a union agreement about permitting a place to smoke within a smoke free company legislation that bans smoking in a public area nulllifies that agreement.
However this thread is about legistrated enforced retirement from a profession, not from a job.
The argument is that any pilot who desires to follow his profession, if he or she is proven to be fit enough and skilled enough, shoud be allowed to do so as long as he or she likes.
However this thread is about legistrated enforced retirement from a profession, not from a job.
The argument is that any pilot who desires to follow his profession, if he or she is proven to be fit enough and skilled enough, shoud be allowed to do so as long as he or she likes.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Nigeria
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a 3rd option:
1. Fly til you lose the med
2. Fly til you die
3. Fly til you fail the ride
As far as forward thinking states:
Canada, as far as I am aware, imposes no restriction on commercial flying other than twice annual medicals after age 40. I know of 2 pilots flying in their 70's. One single pilot in the bush, the other air ambulance as a copilot (because he has repeatedly refused the captaincy as just too much pain in the a$$) and part time check pilot on singles.
Psyan, the only reason for putting age restrictions on [private] driver's licences is because there is no effective testing mechanism so the bureaucracy resorts to age limits to ensure competence. Commercial aviation is not the same beast.
1. Fly til you lose the med
2. Fly til you die
3. Fly til you fail the ride
As far as forward thinking states:
Canada, as far as I am aware, imposes no restriction on commercial flying other than twice annual medicals after age 40. I know of 2 pilots flying in their 70's. One single pilot in the bush, the other air ambulance as a copilot (because he has repeatedly refused the captaincy as just too much pain in the a$$) and part time check pilot on singles.
Psyan, the only reason for putting age restrictions on [private] driver's licences is because there is no effective testing mechanism so the bureaucracy resorts to age limits to ensure competence. Commercial aviation is not the same beast.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lost and Legless somewhere in LaLaLand
Age: 77
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When reviewing the age limits for pilots, ICAO consulted with all member states and the Aerospace Medical Association (AsMA), the International Academy of Aviation and Space Medicine (IAASM), the International Air Transport Association (IATA), and the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations (IFALPA). It's interesting that IFALP was the only one in favour of continuing with an arbitrary age 60 restriction and indeed the AMA commented that there was insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based on age alone.
The following link shows the replies received by ICAO before deciding to make a recommendation to review the age upwards to 65 (whilst commenting that it is still arbitrary and due to pressure from the IFALPA):
Review of Replies on Proposal to Increase Pilot Retirement Age
The final conclusions are quite enlightening:
The following link shows the replies received by ICAO before deciding to make a recommendation to review the age upwards to 65 (whilst commenting that it is still arbitrary and due to pressure from the IFALPA):
Review of Replies on Proposal to Increase Pilot Retirement Age
The final conclusions are quite enlightening:
The Secretariat agrees with United Kingdom and United States that statistical evidence cannot be used to predict with certainty the medical future of the individual pilot. Such evidence only shows what risk group the pilot belongs to. An applicant, whose medical examination indicates that he/she belongs to the group of young and healthy persons, can safely be certificated although it is impossible to predict the medical future of the individual applicant. All that can be said is that he/she belongs to a statistically defined risk group where the probability - on average - of any incapacitating event is very low. For many years now, statistical grouping of applicants for medical certificates has been considered a reasonable way of evaluating and assessing those who do not fully meet the medical requirements for certification. Although it is impossible to predict the future for an applicant with a certain medical condition, it is possible, often with a high degree of certainty, to predict the outcome for a group of such applicants. Many Contracting States, accepting this viewpoint, have for decades certificated applicants with medical conditions that place the individual pilot in a group that has a higher than normal risk but still - on average - no greater than one percent probability per year for developing an in-flight incapacitating event (this is often referred to as "The 1% Rule" - when the 1% Rule is applied to airline pilots, the licence is limited to multi-crew operations). The experience accumulated in these States supports continued application of the 1% rule. Worldwide experience of fatal accidents indicates that physical incapacitation in two-pilot aircraft operations poses little risk to flight safety since the second pilot takes control and operates the aircraft to a safe landing. In one Contracting State, no accidents arose from 127 reported in-flight incapacitations in 19 million flying hours over a ten-year period. Since 1980, as far as the Secretariat is aware, there is no recorded fatal accident in the world with a two-pilot airliner that has had cardiovascular incapacitation cited as a contributory cause despite the occurrence of many such incapacitations during this period.
If certification of pilots, based on their membership of statistically defined risk groups, is acceptable for younger pilots with certain medical conditions, it is also acceptable for healthy pilots who because of their age belong in a higher risk group. The comments from Azerbaijan, Finland, Libya and Mexico all express confidence in the safety of a higher age limit for airline pilots and even that older pilots may enhance flight safety. Gabon points out that the rate of ageing varies from one person to another. The Secretariat agrees fully. This may be considered an argument for having more comprehensive and more frequent medical examinations of older pilots, as proposed by Argentina. The Secretariat has found no evidence that more frequent or more comprehensive examinations are required for the sake of flight safety and agrees with United Kingdom that the content of additional tests, if indeed necessary, still has to be determined. Australia mentions that national law does not permit age discrimination. Legal systems usually provide for safety exceptions to the general principles of non-discrimination. As the upper age limit is a safety specification, it may be assumed that it could make exception to the anti-discrimination laws and principles that may exist in some States. Lesotho points out the fact, most likely the case in many States, that available national data do not provide statistical information on which an upper age limit can be based. The Secretariat, however, bases its opinion on data compiled from sixty-four States, reflecting accumulated experience with well over 3 000 older pilots, totalling at least 15 000 pilot-years. These data indicate that a higher upper age limit is compatible with safe flying.
If certification of pilots, based on their membership of statistically defined risk groups, is acceptable for younger pilots with certain medical conditions, it is also acceptable for healthy pilots who because of their age belong in a higher risk group. The comments from Azerbaijan, Finland, Libya and Mexico all express confidence in the safety of a higher age limit for airline pilots and even that older pilots may enhance flight safety. Gabon points out that the rate of ageing varies from one person to another. The Secretariat agrees fully. This may be considered an argument for having more comprehensive and more frequent medical examinations of older pilots, as proposed by Argentina. The Secretariat has found no evidence that more frequent or more comprehensive examinations are required for the sake of flight safety and agrees with United Kingdom that the content of additional tests, if indeed necessary, still has to be determined. Australia mentions that national law does not permit age discrimination. Legal systems usually provide for safety exceptions to the general principles of non-discrimination. As the upper age limit is a safety specification, it may be assumed that it could make exception to the anti-discrimination laws and principles that may exist in some States. Lesotho points out the fact, most likely the case in many States, that available national data do not provide statistical information on which an upper age limit can be based. The Secretariat, however, bases its opinion on data compiled from sixty-four States, reflecting accumulated experience with well over 3 000 older pilots, totalling at least 15 000 pilot-years. These data indicate that a higher upper age limit is compatible with safe flying.
Last edited by Phone Wind; 19th Sep 2007 at 13:44. Reason: To Highlight the Conclusions of the Secretariat
You will never get any help from a pilot's union to raise the commercial flying age. They have to do what the majority of their members say. The majority will be F/Os and SF/Os who will see it as a block to their careers. A significant proportion of the captains look upon their job in the same way as a factory worker staring at a lathe and can't wait until they retire so the vote is always going to go against.
