PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rotorheads (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads-23/)
-   -   Age (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/289511-age.html)

micraman 26th Aug 2007 13:25

Age
 
Where does it say that 2 60 year old pilots cannot fly together and WHY????.

CS-Hover 26th Aug 2007 13:50

by the JAA, see JAR-FCL 2.060

JAR–FCL 2.060 Curtailment of privileges of licence holders aged 60 years or more
(a) Age 60–64. The holder of a pilot licence who has attained the age of 60 years shall not act as a pilot of an aircraft engaged in commercial air transport operations except:
(1) as a member of a multi-pilot crew and provided that,
(2) such holder is the only pilot in the flight crew who has attained age 60.
(b) Age 65. The holder of a pilot licence who has attained the age of 65 years shall not act as a pilot of an aircraft engaged in commercial air transport operations.

can found it here

gulliBell 26th Aug 2007 14:12

That really sucks. I know of a particular ICAO jurisdiction where a 70+ year old is still flying on single-pilot commercial ops. As long as they meet the Class 1 medical standard, they are good to go.

To me it seems narrow minded to stop someone from flying solely upon reaching a certain age. And what's the logic for age 65, I know of some 40 year olds who dropped dead at the controls following a sudden heart attack.

soggyboxers 26th Aug 2007 14:19

ICAO Annex 1, Personnel Licensing, amendment 197, effective 23 November 2006:


2.1.10.1 A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, shall not permit the holders thereof to act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot where the other pilot is younger than 60 years of age, their 65th birthday.

2.1.10.2 Recommendation.- A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, should not permit the holders thereof to act as co-pilot of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 65th birthday.
Althought this applies to ICAO airspace, contracting states have to either adopt the change or publish an exception to the ICAO change. A State may wish to impose a lower maximum age limit than that specified by ICAO in 2.1.10.1. It may do this for the licenses it issues, but, as stated above, it cannot prevent an aircraft operated by a PIC holding a licence from another State, who is below the ICAO upper limit, from operating in its airspace.

Farmer 1 26th Aug 2007 14:23

Isn't ageism illegal these days, or am I being a tad naïve?

Whirlygig 26th Aug 2007 14:30

No Farmer, you're not being naive - it's all here!

Age_discrimination

GulliBell, which particular ICAO jurisdiction is this please?

Cheers

Whirls

gulliBell 26th Aug 2007 14:56

Whirls, check your PM's

Whirlygig 26th Aug 2007 16:04

True but one can still fly "commercially" up to whatever age (current medicals notwithstanding) and that is by flying aerial work i.e. instructing or some photography work. And that is where it starts to become a nonsense.

Cheers

Whirls

HillerBee 26th Aug 2007 16:18

Don't forget flying as a corporate pilot.

soggyboxers 26th Aug 2007 22:20

TTT,

As we get older, we are at risk of more sudden, unexpected and potentially incapacitating illnesses which are not all likely to show up on Class 1 medicals (unless they start routine CAT scans, and angiograms), so there has to be some sort of age cut off doesn't there??
On what do you base this - gut instinct, personal feeling or medical research? This correspondence between the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the FAA seems to refute that:
Discussion on Raising Pilot Retirement age in USA
Particularly:

As with age 60, there is no credible medical, scientific or aviation evidence to suggest that concerns for safety require a mandatory retirement age for pilots of 65. Raising the age limit to 65, however, will serve as a useful transitional step, allowing commercial pilots to continue flying beyond age 60 while the FAA plans a full transition to individualized testing of the skills and health of all pilots, regardless of age.

Moreover, far from being a liability, having older pilots in the cockpit may enhance aviation safety, as the practical experience of these pilots has great value in a profession calling for complex and split-second judgments.
This is also borne out by findings, published in the February 27, 2007, issue of Neurology®, the scientific journal of the American Academy of Neurology:

The study's results come as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) considers a proposal to raise the mandatory age of retirement for commercial airline pilots to 65 from the current age of 60.
For the study, researchers tested 118 non-commercial airline pilots, age 40 to 69, annually for three years. All pilots were currently flying, had between 300 and 15,000 hours of total flight time, and had a FAA medical certificate. Pilots were tested on accuracy of executing communications, traffic avoidance, scanning cockpit instruments to detect emergencies, and executing a visual approach landing.
The study found while older pilots initially performed worse than younger pilots, older pilots showed less of a decline in overall flight summary scores than younger pilots, and over time their traffic avoidance performances improved more than that of younger pilots. The study also found pilots with advanced FAA pilot ratings and certifications showed less performance decline over time, regardless of age.
"These findings show the advantageous effect of prior experience and specialized expertise on older adults' skilled cognitive performances," said study author Joy L. Taylor, PhD, with the Stanford/VA Aging Clinical Research Center in Palo Alto, California. "Our discovery has broader implications beyond aviation to the general issue of aging in the workplace and the objective assessment of competency in older workers."
Researchers suggest that pilots with advanced FAA pilot ratings may maintain performance over time due to a mechanism of preserved task-specific knowledge, known as crystallized intelligence, which is similar to what is seen in music or expert chess playing.
The study was supported by the Sierra-Pacific Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center, the Medical Research Service of the Department of Veteran Affairs, and the National Institute on Aging.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by American Academy of Neurology.
There is indeed evidence published to show that as one gets older there is more chance of an incapacitating illness, but an Israeli Air force study seems to think that fatal accidents due to human error are far more than those due to pilot incapacity and inexperienced pilots have a 2 - 3 times greater incidence of accidents due to pilot error. A balanced crew with a younger pilot with better health and faster reflexes, coupled with the greater experience of an older pilot probably provides the safest 2 crew flight regime:

The epidemiology of sudden death, the etiology of inflight sudden incapacitation, and the influence of pilot age and experience on air accident rates are reviewed in order to determine the aeromedical emphasis needed to minimize accidents. Sudden deaths in men over age 35 are nearly all due to coronary artery disease, whereas in those under 35 years they are mostly due to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The incidence of fatal accidents from human error is, however, far greater than that from physical illness. Since inexperienced pilots have a 2-3 times increased incidence of mishaps due to pilot error, the estimated risk of disease related in-flight sudden incapacitation should be balanced by consideration of pilot experience. Therefore, it may be preferable to grant waivers to experienced pilots with an increased incidence of disease-related inflight sudden incapacitation than to replace them with novices. We conclude that overly strict medical criteria may paradoxically increase accident rates.
Here's a questionnaire ICAO sent out to member states when it was considering the change:
ICAO Position on Age
In fact CASA in response to the questionnaire said:

... with respect to whether the [older] pilots have significantly more medical problems ...., we would say a
qualified yes. The qualification is that incidence of medical problems rises from about the age of 45, not from
60. CASA medical certification data do not show that incapacitation as a medical problem is more significant
for pilots older than 60 years compared to those under 60 years.
Canada
So based on this maybe we should stop all pilots over the age of 45 flying with another pilot who has already attained the age of 45! :E
Finally, the ICAO secretariat commented:

SECRETARIAT’S COMMENTS
Australia points to the well-known fact that the incidence of medical problems [in the population at large]
increases with age and becomes significant much earlier than at age 60, usually already after the fourth
decade. Canada emphasizes that airline pilots as a group are healthier than the background population owing
to close medical surveillance and elimination from the group of those with serious diseases. New Zealand
considers the accident rates too low for the age of the pilots involved to have any statistical significance. The
Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States has observed no change in safety record and competence in
older pilots when compared with their younger colleagues. The Secretariat agrees fully with the viewpoints
presented by Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The information provided by the Organisation of
Eastern Caribbean States is corroborated by the answers from a large majority of the States that have
replied to the State letter. Mongolia is the only State indicating a “not good” experience with older pilots.
This is difficult to understand as Mongolia also indicates fewer incidents and accidents involving older pilots
and even state that their older pilots have the same incidence of medical problems as other pilots. Moreover,
this State has currently no active pilots above the age of 57 years. Slovakia is the only State indicating that
older pilots have more incidents and accidents than their younger colleagues. Even so, Slovakia states that
its experience with older pilots is good.
The full final report of the member states to ICAO before it revised the age rule can be found at:
Age 60 Rule - Full Analysis
Hope that helps :}

Max_Chat 27th Aug 2007 00:54

Retire gracefully with enough time to have a good time and forget this ageism cr@p. :ugh:

To hell with it, I vote for a retirement age of 55. :D

Why are people obsessed with working until they die. GET A LIFE and enjoy it! :confused:

Fareastdriver 27th Aug 2007 04:43

I am 67 years old. Flying full time commercial public transport, in command and salaried, now working in China. In the last two years I have flown in both Australia and the South Pacific.
I HAVE GOT A LIFE!!!!!!!

Whirlybird 27th Aug 2007 07:21

I started learning to fly helicopters at the age of 50 and got my FI rating at the age of 54. I didn't have the chance earlier in life, unlike some of you lucky sods. And I now have MUCH MORE of a life than I had before! So I intend to go on instructing while I can and/or until I get tired of it. If I'm healthy, Max_Chat, what right do you or anyone else have to tell me that I shouldn't or I can/t????!!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad: Ever heard of individual choice?

eagle 86 27th Aug 2007 07:41

MC,
Due you consider flying and being paid for it as "work"? I certainly don't - in fact I don't know what I'm going to do for a living! But seeing as I started my aviation career in 1964 I just might consider doing it for a bit longer. Have thoroughly enjoyed my "life" so far!
GAGS
E86

psyan 27th Aug 2007 09:57

MC has my vote. :D All this whining about ageism is tiresome. If you can change it then do so don't just sit there whining "I couldn't get to do it until later in life"..........."why should I have to stop when I can get the medical?"....blah blah blah.:ugh: Heard it all before. If you go past yer sell by date you end up on the special offers counter before being discarded.

Best Wishes

:ok:

Whirlygig 27th Aug 2007 10:10


All this whining about ageism is tiresome
Then don't read it :rolleyes:


why should I have to stop when I can get the medical?
Go on then, ATFQ!! And then answer this .... if a commercially qualified pilot is deemed medically fit enough to instruct trial lessons at age 65, why is he not fit enough to take a pleasure flight? Eh?

You retire at whichever age you wish. Is it any skin off your nose if someone wants to keep flying?

Cheers

Whirls

check 27th Aug 2007 10:30

I was going to react to the comments by Pysan and MC, but then decided to have a cup of tea - more pleasure in that!

I then thought how sad it was that these two individuals and perhaps others have completely missed the point of the argument. What is being asked is for the right, should we wish, to continue flying when being fully qualified and meeting the medical standards beyond the current cut off date.

This request does not mean all pilots must continue to the bitter end. Many will wish to retire at 55 other 58, 60, or even to state pension age - whatever that will be. Each individual is entitled to live his or her life as they choose without some plonker saying they shouldn't.

For some flying is a job, others a means to an end, others a way of life, and for a few it is life. To MC and Pyson and those others who subscribe to their blinkered approach to life - I suggest they get a life, remove the chip on their shoulder and allow others to live their lives as they wish. After all we are only here once.

Max_Chat 27th Aug 2007 11:28

Amazing how many fish you can catch with one little hook, LOL. :)

All the best to anyone of any age in the wonderful world of flying helicopters. :ok:

psyan 27th Aug 2007 12:19

WG tapped away in annoyance: "Go on then, ATFQ!! And then answer this .... if a commercially qualified pilot is deemed medically fit enough to instruct trial lessons at age 65, why is he not fit enough to take a pleasure flight? Eh?"

Instructing/trial lessons is one thing, undertaking commercial activities is entirely another in the practical sense. The trend is not to legislate for every single variation but to do so en-mass within defined parameters. The current feeling is that [as another poster pointed out] that beyond a certain age [right or wrong] there is a higher incidence of sudden medical problems. Now tell me that isn't so.

"
You retire at whichever age you wish. Is it any skin off your nose if someone wants to keep flying?"

Nope certainly not sunshine, you or anyone else keep at it until you get fed up. From my own point of view, [I am 56] I'd like to retire as soon as I am able to. But I have been more fortunate than most having been in the flying game since 75.

The simple fact is that this whole subject is not about ageism or kicking out the old farts its about trying to do the best for public safety. Surely you can see that? It might not be the best way and may very well need adjusting to reflect more current trends but it aint going to happen in my flight lifetime.

I once [not too long ago] knew of an 'old' commercial pilot who persistently failed to fully check his aircraft simply because he physically was not able to do the climbing thing. Thankfully he is no longer employed in a commercial environment. :ok:


Check calmly wibbled:"
I was going to react to the comments by Pysan and MC, but then decided to have a cup of tea - more pleasure in that!"

Apparently not enough :=

I then thought how sad it was that these two individuals and perhaps others have completely missed the point of the argument. What is being asked is for the right, should we wish, to continue flying when being fully qualified and meeting the medical standards beyond the current cut off date."

No the point is not missed.

"This request does not mean all pilots must continue to the bitter end."

Assuming there was some form of enforcement?

"Many will wish to retire at 55 other 58, 60, or even to state pension age - whatever that will be. Each individual is entitled to live his or her life as they choose without some plonker saying they shouldn't."

I agree but providing that in doing so you do not affect others rights.

".......for a few it is life."

Sad

"To MC and Pyson and those others who subscribe to their blinkered approach to life - I suggest they get a life, remove the chip on their shoulder and allow others to live their lives as they wish. After all we are only here once."

LOL how on earth do you perceive that I am affecting your life or others?:mad: I have no chip that I am aware of. My approach to life is far from what you might imagine. We are all entitled to our opinions are we not? You seem to subscribe to that ideal. Or have I got that wrong as well.

It's only a game m'dear :D

Best Wishes


Whirlygig 27th Aug 2007 12:30

If I replied in in annoyance, then that was surely because the tone of your original post was rather antagonistic. I note that this tone has rather calmed down now so maybe you were another who was going fishing - I had already spotted that Max Chat was; not too sure about you Psyan!!!!


Instructing/trial lessons is one thing, undertaking commercial activities is entirely another in the practical sense. The trend is not to legislate for every single variation but to do so en-mass within defined parameters.
What, in practical terms, is the difference between a trial lesson and a pleasure except in the former, the customer has the chance to operate the controls. This has not bearing on the medical fitness of the pilot-in-command. You say that the trend is NOT to legislate for every single variant but the definitions of aerial work and public transport are variations. In some cases, especially with aerial work, it is not down to the nature of the work but the employment status of, say, a cameraman.

If you're 56, why don't you retire now? Is it because your pension isn't enough. That is certainly the case with some pilots and not necessarily through any fault of their own and therefore need to continue working. Why shouldn't they be allowed to if they can?

Cheers

Whirls


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:21.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.