ICAO Age 65 from 23 November 2006
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LONDON
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by packsonflite
As of 23rd November, the statement limiting the pilots' age to 60 as set out in the FAA foreign carrier permits will become null and void.
.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: uae
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dbmidway
The way the new rule is written I have no doubt you are correct in your view but I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for an amendment. The FAA will not like being told to change permits with their current stance and anyway who is going to make them .
.Reason Im interested; thats why the long post on the Senate committee vote from US Driver with Union action/reaction and calendar for whats next.
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Born too early
I've been waiting for this rule for four years - now they'll have to extend it to 70!
Only time I was born too late was when I wanted an E-Type Jag, which always seemed a couple of years' salary away...
Ah well, back to the weeds...
FC.
Only time I was born too late was when I wanted an E-Type Jag, which always seemed a couple of years' salary away...
Ah well, back to the weeds...
FC.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great ICAO decisions. Are we/the French operating JAR or ICAO? What does JAR OPS say?
And anyway, even if it does say we can operate into their airspace, is your company going to risk scheduled disruption by the French, if they see fit?
You may know, I may know, the company may know it is allowed, the French will know it is allowed but as in everything else, if they don't want it it will be NOT ALLOWED.
So, who will risk aircraft impounding/ ATC delays, aircrew arrests when they don't need to?
Oh, you say, the French will be fined if they don't fit in - after how many years? Will they ever pay up? How useful will the a/c be (or its crew after all that time?
I am not convinced yet.
And anyway, even if it does say we can operate into their airspace, is your company going to risk scheduled disruption by the French, if they see fit?
You may know, I may know, the company may know it is allowed, the French will know it is allowed but as in everything else, if they don't want it it will be NOT ALLOWED.
So, who will risk aircraft impounding/ ATC delays, aircrew arrests when they don't need to?
Oh, you say, the French will be fined if they don't fit in - after how many years? Will they ever pay up? How useful will the a/c be (or its crew after all that time?
I am not convinced yet.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Hartlepool
Age: 79
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French have always quoted the ICAO limit as their reason for not accepting pilots over the age of 60 as PIC within their airspace.
Given that and the fact that the EU age discrimination rules take effect 3 weeks before the ICAO change, then it would seem bizarre that they would continue to oppose age 60+ pilots.
My personal view would be that they'll continue to limit their own pilots to age 60 whilst complying with Article 33.
But then...........????
Given that and the fact that the EU age discrimination rules take effect 3 weeks before the ICAO change, then it would seem bizarre that they would continue to oppose age 60+ pilots.
My personal view would be that they'll continue to limit their own pilots to age 60 whilst complying with Article 33.
But then...........????
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over 60s
Well with fingers crossed, and to borrow that American phrase " It ain't over until the fat lady sings," it does look like it might be the beginning of the end.
It has been just over eleven years since the fiasco began. The CAA wrote to all 180 something ICAO countries asking for blanket clearance for all Brits over 60 to be allowed in their airspace. Big error! most of the countries had never thought about it until we asked. Most said OK straight away, but clearly a few of the bu***rs thought why should we. Our guys have to stop at 60 so why should we let anybody else in. The rest is history and a lot of valuable experience was lost to several airlines.
It has been just over eleven years since the fiasco began. The CAA wrote to all 180 something ICAO countries asking for blanket clearance for all Brits over 60 to be allowed in their airspace. Big error! most of the countries had never thought about it until we asked. Most said OK straight away, but clearly a few of the bu***rs thought why should we. Our guys have to stop at 60 so why should we let anybody else in. The rest is history and a lot of valuable experience was lost to several airlines.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This wouldn't have anything to do with the assertion that British Airways pilots are going to have to work for another 30 years to pay for their pensions is it?
The average age for earning a full pension provision now being 83 :-)
The average age for earning a full pension provision now being 83 :-)
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO Age 65
DD, you may have your tongue imbedded well into your cheek, but if serious, this problem has been running for a hell of a lot longer than the BA pilots winge on this subject and secondly, I hardly think ICAO could give a twopenny damn for BA pilots opinion.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ft, Lauderdale,FL
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got an update about pending legislation on 65 in the States from the union. After having passed in the House some time ago, it is now in Senate committee with no indication of any movement. The consensus here, at this moment, is that it will probably never be voted on in the full Senate and become law regardless of the new ICAO rules.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Hartlepool
Age: 79
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would be interesting to establish is which takes precedence, US Law or International law (ICAO). Any statement in an foreign air carriers FAA permit limiting the age of a pilot below that set by ICAO would be a violation of ICAO Annex 1.
Further preventing any pilot who licence meets the ICAO standard as set out in Annex 1, Amendment 167 would violate Article 33 of the Chicago Convention.
.....or would the US defy the UN (ICAO) to be able to enforce it's own intransigent viewpoint? Surely they wouldn't defy the UN!!!!!!
Further preventing any pilot who licence meets the ICAO standard as set out in Annex 1, Amendment 167 would violate Article 33 of the Chicago Convention.
.....or would the US defy the UN (ICAO) to be able to enforce it's own intransigent viewpoint? Surely they wouldn't defy the UN!!!!!!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ft, Lauderdale,FL
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As per previous postings, it appears that member States are free to set a mandatory retirement age below 65 but the U.S. will not be able to legaly prevent Airlines to overfly or land that have pilots over 60. If anything, it sets a tricky precedent. I'm sure 65 is coming to the States but not as fast as some people think. Many people are against it as is the FAA. We will know within the next year weather or not the Senate wants to move on the new law. Personally I hope we have a few more years before the inevitable.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One other consideration that may sway the US is that a number of their larger carriers are in trouble over the funding of their Pilot Pension plans. It would seem that the higher age limit would decrease the liability of the pension plans along with the payout based on the average life expectancy of those who retire at 65 vs those who retire at 60. There have been a number of studies that suggest those who retire at 60 or earlier, have a longer life on average than those who wait to 65 or later.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, Longtimer, I remember these early studies from the 1970's.
One at PanAmerican, where many long haul flights were performed, it was found that those pilots/flight engineers that retired several years before age 60 many times lived somewhat longer (5 years) than those that waited until age 60.
This was generally assumed to be the case mainly due to the seniority bidding system whereby the senior pilots/flight engineers could arrange most of their flights (and monthly hours) into the least number of duty days, and thus find themselves constantly fatiqued, due to the many time zones crossed.
There seemed to be some credibility to this when it was discovered that those pilots who spread out their flights throughout the monthly period, consistantly lived longer, after retirement.
This study was unique to PanAmerican at the time, as I recall.
One at PanAmerican, where many long haul flights were performed, it was found that those pilots/flight engineers that retired several years before age 60 many times lived somewhat longer (5 years) than those that waited until age 60.
This was generally assumed to be the case mainly due to the seniority bidding system whereby the senior pilots/flight engineers could arrange most of their flights (and monthly hours) into the least number of duty days, and thus find themselves constantly fatiqued, due to the many time zones crossed.
There seemed to be some credibility to this when it was discovered that those pilots who spread out their flights throughout the monthly period, consistantly lived longer, after retirement.
This study was unique to PanAmerican at the time, as I recall.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how accurate this data is but it does make one wonder.....
http://www.seeya-downtheroad.com/Inf...tireYoung.html
http://www.seeya-downtheroad.com/Inf...tireYoung.html
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read with interest the feature “Fire in Flight” in the July 2006 issue of Business & Commercial Aviation magazine. I did an Internet search and have also read the ASN Aircraft accident description of the same crash that occurred on 12 July 2004. The important fact is that the captain was 81 years old.
This Convair 440 was an N-registered aircraft, N4826C, operating for an American company (Dodita Air Cargo, a subsidiary of Tolair Services), at 21,772kg maximum take-off weight obviously in the transport category requiring two crew, and it was on an international commercial flight between US territory (San Juan, Puerto Rico) and Dutch territory (St. Maarten, Netherlands Antilles). There is no indication in either report that the flight was illegal because the crew did not meet any legal age requirements. I have to assume that this flight was conducted legally.
What then is the issue and why does this thread exist? It seems there have always been opportunities for American and presumably other pilots to indefinitely continue flying transport category aircraft on commercial flights as long as they continue to pass the six-monthly medicals and annual PPCs or equivalents. Apart from transport category aircraft, there have always been commercial pilot jobs for old geezers. I seem to recall a story a few years ago about a 90 year old commercial pilot in the US still delivering newspapers by air to remote communities. As another option, how about instructing and passing on all of that accumulated experience? Is there any reason apart from snobbery why a pilot who has retired from a major airline and wants to keep flying commercially should not do such jobs and be paid for doing them? There is plenty of demand for older pilots. The more intelligent and better run non-airline operators prefer older pilots because of their experience, maturity and responsibility, as against hiring a 250 hour pimple-faced CPL Top Gun wannabee who beats up every airfield on arrival, drives maintenance costs through the roof, cheeks the pax, smashes the freight, and turns up to work as and when it fits in with his party schedule and hangover recovery ability.
Would someone kindly explain how N4826C could legally conduct international commercial flights with an 81 year old captain and why there is some sort of issue for pilots regarding ages 60 and 65?
This Convair 440 was an N-registered aircraft, N4826C, operating for an American company (Dodita Air Cargo, a subsidiary of Tolair Services), at 21,772kg maximum take-off weight obviously in the transport category requiring two crew, and it was on an international commercial flight between US territory (San Juan, Puerto Rico) and Dutch territory (St. Maarten, Netherlands Antilles). There is no indication in either report that the flight was illegal because the crew did not meet any legal age requirements. I have to assume that this flight was conducted legally.
What then is the issue and why does this thread exist? It seems there have always been opportunities for American and presumably other pilots to indefinitely continue flying transport category aircraft on commercial flights as long as they continue to pass the six-monthly medicals and annual PPCs or equivalents. Apart from transport category aircraft, there have always been commercial pilot jobs for old geezers. I seem to recall a story a few years ago about a 90 year old commercial pilot in the US still delivering newspapers by air to remote communities. As another option, how about instructing and passing on all of that accumulated experience? Is there any reason apart from snobbery why a pilot who has retired from a major airline and wants to keep flying commercially should not do such jobs and be paid for doing them? There is plenty of demand for older pilots. The more intelligent and better run non-airline operators prefer older pilots because of their experience, maturity and responsibility, as against hiring a 250 hour pimple-faced CPL Top Gun wannabee who beats up every airfield on arrival, drives maintenance costs through the roof, cheeks the pax, smashes the freight, and turns up to work as and when it fits in with his party schedule and hangover recovery ability.
Would someone kindly explain how N4826C could legally conduct international commercial flights with an 81 year old captain and why there is some sort of issue for pilots regarding ages 60 and 65?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Age 60 Rule applies to Air Carrier, Part 121 Operations, only. And soon it shall apply to USA Part 121 Operators only, if I understand what has been posted correctly. This is why some retired airline pilots take jobs flying bizjets, fro instance. The change of category means that there is no age restriction.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ft, Lauderdale,FL
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct. The Tolair flight was not operated under 121 but under some other supp. cargo reg.
I just spoke via e-mail to both our union president and legislative affairs people in Washington and there is still no indication that age 60 will change anytime soon in the States. It is a safety and a political issue and as such there are a lot of interested parties with much at stake both within the airlines and the various pilot groups. The bottom line is that, in general, the pilots don't want the change and neither do the airlnes.
It will happen eventually but with stagnant seniority lists among the main lines don't hold your breath.
I just spoke via e-mail to both our union president and legislative affairs people in Washington and there is still no indication that age 60 will change anytime soon in the States. It is a safety and a political issue and as such there are a lot of interested parties with much at stake both within the airlines and the various pilot groups. The bottom line is that, in general, the pilots don't want the change and neither do the airlnes.
It will happen eventually but with stagnant seniority lists among the main lines don't hold your breath.