age 65

[FoxHunter]

Originally Posted by slamer.

quote=parabellum
Slamer -Dr Ian Perry, has for the last thirty years, to my knowledge, been conducting a survey on pilots over sixty and the overwhelming evidence suggests that the age of sixty as a 'cut-off' has no basis in medical fact.
If that is so, why under the new standard, in the case of multi pilot operations, for the pilot to operate as pilot-in-command up until the age of 65, the other pilot must be younger than 60 yrs of age.
Surely this is an indicator that pilot performance past the age of 60 (as based on medical fact) is a cause for concern, otherwise this caveat would not exist?
I'm not sure if the "other pilot" potentially refers to the Cruise pilot, although one would have to assume it does.

ICAO SAYS,
>>older pilots do not present any particular risk to flight safety. Neither is the Secretariat aware of scientific research that dictates the maintenance of the current upper age limit. On the contrary, studies conducted in Japan (1990) and United States (1993) both gave indication that pilots’ retirement age could safely be increased by several years, and a very recent study of 165 commuter aircraft accidents in the United States between 1983 and 1997 points to no notable differences between the age groups except that the percentage of crashes involving pilot error decreased somewhat with age, being lowest for pilots between 58 and 63. The over-all conclusion was that neither the prevalence nor the pattern of aircraft accidents change significantly as age increases from the 40s to the SOs and early 60s. In another recent study in the United States, a cohort of more than 3 300 commuter and air taxi pilots, who were between 45 and 54 years old in 1987, were followed for eleven years. No age-related increase in crash risk was shown, but the risk of crash decreased by half among pilots with more than 5 000 flying hours at baseline. In Japan, in a study of its 60-63 year-old airline pilots, it was found that none had been involved in an accident during the ten-year study period (1992- 2001) while during the same period 323 accidents including twenty-seven airline accidents had been reported to the authorities. The purpose of simulator checks, line flying checks and regulatory health examinations is to contain the risk of pilot ‘failure’ during the period of validity of the rating or medical certificate; it appears from available evidence that such checks do ensure adequate protection of flight safety for those aged under 60 years. The Secretariat knows of no reason to believe that they will fail to do so for those aged 60 to 64 years. Moreover, there is still today, as stated by AsMA, insufficient medical evidence to support any restrictions based on age alone. In the JAA countries, the upper age limit of 60 has been maintained for pilots in single-crew operations, but since 1 July 1999, the JAA regulations have allowed airline pilots to continue flying until age 65 with limitation to multi-crew operations and with the proviso that no other member of the flight crew is older than 59. However, the Secretariat is aware that this proviso was not based on medical grounds but rather the result of a compromise between the different parties. Although recommended by IATA, the Secretariat does not consider this proviso safety relevant for the following reason: For the individual pilot engaged in multi-crew operations, it is today generally accepted that a medical incapacitation risk of one percent per annum (“The 1% Rule”) is fully compatible with the desired flight safety level for airline operations. This risk level corresponds to one medical incapacitation per 100 years or approximately one million hours. Male pilots from Scandinavia, United Kingdom and NorthAmerica are lilely to approach this risk level when they are around 65, female pilots three to four years later. The risk of two older pilots becoming medically incapacitated at the same time, during the same one-hour flight, is thus one per trillion hours (1 trillion — 1012 or one million x one million), a risk so low that it can safely he disregarded.<<

[stilton]

As a Captain for a US Major and 43 years of age my perspective is slightly biased.

Due to bad timing on my part it took me 13 years before our nonexistent growth allowed me to hold a left seat.

On September 11th 2001 I woke up in my hotel room in Madrid to watch the word turn upside down, and with it my LHS.

A few more years went by and I decided to hold out for the larger equipment, (10 years of flying short haul was enough)

When I finally upgraded it was after 19 years in the Engineer and RHS.

Now I see people who were hired 2 years before me (and upgraded in 3 or 4 years) drooling at the prospect of another 5 years holding myself and my peers back.

I don't care that, theoretically I could work another 5 years, I don't bloody want to, move on and let us have our turn.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm not sure that they see it in quite the same way Stilton - which makes it all a bit difficult doesn't it.

G

Note to Foxhunter Can you tell us exactly where that ICAO quote came from? - I'd love to show it to one of our human factors chaps at work, it might be useful to him.

[Five Green]

"Moreover, there is still today, as stated by AsMA, insufficient medical evidence to support any restrictions based on age alone."

This does not say "....and there IS sufficient medical evidence to support increasing the retirement age" hmmmmm

You sure won't find me working past sixty, at least if I keep the current wife !

Any of the statistics I have looked at all point to higher probabilities of incapacitation the older you get. Whether that means it jumps from 1% to 1.5% it will still be higher. Pilots will also medical out more often after age 60 (even if only slightly) and that may affect the ability of pilots to get loss of licence, and will almost certainly increase the cost of said insurance.

Cheers

[Five Green]

Think again

Oh yeah, and it is overly simple to say that the retirement age extension is offset by being able to work an extra five years.

As we all know the seniority list at most airlines does not have an equal number of Captains and First Officers. The more long haul the airline flies the greater the disparity (4 to 1 on a long haul a/c). An airline might have a ratio of two and a half or three FOs to one Captain. In this case a Five year extension means ten or fifteen years more in the right seat. It also increases the chance that the cyclical nature of aviation will rear it's ugly head. In other words you are at greater risk of spending longer in the right seat.

Another reality is that you will probably work for five more years and make about the same (or maybe less) than you did if you and those above you retire at 60. It is only good for current captains. Anyone not yet in the left seat will work longer for the same career total pay. In most countries you will also have less years to collect your retirement and therefore face a higher tax burden. So not worth it at any cost for me.

Most of all it is only good for the companies not for the pilots.

Happy flying

[chuks]

I think a lot of you are only looking at this from the point of view of airline pilots. There are a lot of other people working in aviation who are impacted by the Age 60 Rule. In my case it is so that many contracts specify a maximum age of 60, presumably basing that on the Age 60 Rule. Changing the rule would do a lot to help to eliminate the unfortunately unique way that age discrimination is allowed in aviation where it has been banned elsewhere.

I made my choice a long time ago not to go for an airline job, for a lot of reasons. (Mainly that I would probably make a crap airline pilot, to be brutally honest!) One of them was that the airline people I knew (admittedly a small sample) didn't really seem very happy for all the money they were making. It could be that those years waiting to upgrade make one bitter and twisted? I don't know.

Of course it is a truism that money won't make you happy. (On the other hand, if money won't make you happy, try poverty and see how that leaves you feeling!) I couldn't understand how a fellow making more money than God could be so miserable but there it was. It sure didn't look like what I wanted out of aviation so that what with one thing and another I went elsewhere.

A lot of the people here seem to be whining about their hard luck and somehow expect the rest of us, including many out in the wider world of non-airline aviation, to put up with this demonstrably unjustified and discriminatory and possibly unfair rule just to help them out of a situation that has developed for many reasons. I suppose that if the airline business had developed as hoped-for 20 or 30 years ago then the majority would now want to see the rules changed so that they could stay in the left-hand seat. Stuck waiting to upgrade, well, it is the other way around. Natural justice is still on the side of a rules change, I think.

Probably some of you would have chosen a different career if you knew how things would develop. You put down your bet to see how it paid off, basically. One guy went with Southwest, another with Delta. 20 years ago the Delta guy seemed to be way ahead, but now? Hey, life is unfair!

[Dani]

This topic isn't treated here for the first time, and the reaction is always the same, the supporters of the 65-y-rule are so radical against the non-supporters that I firmly believe that the older one gets, the more stubborn and narrow-minded one gets. This covers my experience in cockpits quite well...

What I said about this topic already once: It's not the pilots who decide, because they decide for their own right, and since human kind is a selfish nature, they vote for the 65 years. That's why it's some medical experts and finally the authorities who decide. And this is good so.

Dani

[FoxHunter]

Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer

I'm not sure that they see it in quite the same way Stilton - which makes it all a bit difficult doesn't it.
G
Note to Foxhunter Can you tell us exactly where that ICAO quote came from? - I'd love to show it to one of our human factors chaps at work, it might be useful to him.

http://www.icao.int/ICDB/HTML/Englis...82.APPC.EN.HTM

[Genghis the Engineer]

Excellent, thank you very much Foxhunter.

G

[RAT 5]

There are many Eu airlines, LoCo's especially, who have cutoff retirement ages of 60. This also meant no-one over 60 could join them, even if they did not fly over France etc. Has any of the companies issued a statement about future policy? Considering the shortage of captains at a time of expansion a change of policy must be in their thinking. If so, and considering that this abolishment of the age rule was known in advance, why has there been no declaration of change in retirement rule; if that is the case?
Generally, it is affected by pension plans etc. but not every airline has such a binding pension.

[JamesA]

After the magic 60

I would like to pick up on your personal situation, Loose Rivets. You follow your health in great detail, nothing wrong with that. But, You cannot lay your situation down as a standard for everybody else. Try getting a doctor to give an opinion or forecast, and he will say 'As a general rule........ but everyone is an individual, so.................' So, let the doc of the day decide if a pilot - captain, F.O, trainee, whatever is fit to fly, immaterial of age.

From my experience with colleagues, I think you hit the nail on the head - Five Greens, when you say if you stay with the current wife. I know many captains who would have loved to stop at 60 but, how many pensions will cover those alimony payments and put a crust on the table? Or pay anything, if the captain or whoever is with a US carrier?
And, here is the crux, the man moves from the left seat and remains flying. Unless the company rule says 60 and out, the man has not made way for some hopeful to get a foot in the door. I know a lot of 60+ four ringers in the eng. seat, still with a valid medical, who could probably do just as well in the front seat. So everybody is still on the treadmill trying for an extra loaf.

[Genghis the Engineer]

This may be of interest to the debate.

I've just come across a paper published by Dr Tony Segal of the BGA in 1996, which examined the issue of medical standards for ageing flying instructors. He shows the rates of death and accident at various ages. I've reproduced a few of his hard numbers here...

Death rates per million population - coronary heart disease, England and Wales, 1991

Age............Male............Female

25-35.........31...............8
35-45.........335.............55
45-55.........1468............274
55-65.........4987............1577
65-75.........12806...........5734
75-85.........27301...........15914
85+...........44544............35153


Which seems on the face of it (if you assume that the percentage risk of a cardiac problem going undetected is fairly constant) to make a strong case for an age cut-off around 60ish. This is not really borne out however by some data from ALPA in the 1960s which indicates that of 15 deaths in the air from coronary heart disease in airline cockpits between 1956-1966...

1 x 28 years old
4 x 30-39 years old
6 x 40-49 years old
4 x 50-59 years old (ages 50, 52, 52, 56)

- Not really showing much variation above age 30.

Then in the same paper was a table comparing accident rate with the age of the pilot in command (in GA rather than airlines I'm afraid) for the USA, apparently the data is from 1982...

Age...................Accidents per year per 1000 pilots
16-19..................24
20-24..................13
25-29...................10
30-34....................10
35-39....................7
40-44....................6
45-49....................6
50-54....................6
55-59....................6
60+.......................5

Such a shame that the data doesn't seem to be there for larger aircraft operations, nor by flying hour, which would be more informative to this debate.

Interesting however.


(The paper was in the BGA "Laws and rules for glider pilots", 12th edition, May 1996.)

G

[beamer]

Assuming they have not got half a dozen ex-wives to pay off, why anyone in their right mind would want to carry on after 60 is beyond my comprehension !

[chuks]

General population vs. pilots

Those statistics are interesting indeed. One point, though, is that most of the general population do not have regular ECGs, many not having regular medical checkups at all, when pilots over 40 have one every six months for a Class I medical. Since that should pick up signs of a developing heart problem I would think that death rates from a heart attack might be lower for the aged pilot group compared to the general population. Does anyone have the stats for that to post?

On the other hand, yes, the older guy is going to be more prone to fall off his perch compared to someone younger. Otherwise holding a pilot's licence would be the key to immortality. The big argument is 'Where do you draw the line?' though.

I noticed that the economic and social impact of the Age 60 Rule was cited in passing in this discussion. That raises another interesting point: which would bring the greater benefit to society, keeping or scrapping the rule? That would be a Utilitarian argument that ignores the unfairness or not of the Age 60 Rule. I doubt people are ready to discuss it on those terms.

[Ct.Yankee]

Irregardless of ex-wives

How about those of us who just like flying giant jets around the world??
What's wrong with that??
A little backround;
I am currently riding sideways in an eighteen wheeler that has Spiderman on the tail.
I am the son of an airline pilot who was vibrant and full of life when he was forced to retire in 1968. (BTW when I was in A300 sims in 1978 his buds let him fly the sim., I was embarrassed by his great performance 10 years later)
For those of you whingers, at the Wings of Man it was over sixteen years to the left seat in the 70's and 80's. Grow up!! Don't expect left seat in a couple of years!
Once again, some of us love commercial aviation and want to fly as long as we can pass two physicals and two checkrides a year!

[loofah]

Originally Posted by beamer

Assuming they have not got half a dozen ex-wives to pay off, why anyone in their right mind would want to carry on after 60 is beyond my comprehension !

Could it be because they have a greater physical and mental capacity than you?

[JamesA]

To Ct. Yankee

Who is this Spiderman????

I was always told it was a gay guy with a beach ball on his back. Or am I on the wrong tail???

See you somewhere around the trail.

[beamer]

Loofah

Perhaps it could be that after thirty years of flying I have better things to do with the rest of my life than be sitting halfway across the Atlantic in the middle of the night !

[Centaurus]

I've seen so many guys I've worked with, hit the road (the final road) in their late fifty's and early sixty's ...... these were good guys who worked hard all their lives and deserved a long retirement, and didn't get it .....

The reason why some pilots have a short innings after compulsory retirement is that may not want to retire - and believe me it's not the money. It is because flying has been their life and the view from 41,000 ft is just as beautiful at age 60 or 70 as it is at age 20.

Golf, bowls, the slippers and the old pipe may be enjoyed by a few who have looked forward to a quiet life contemplating the beach while sitting in a deck chair and watching the sunset. But I suspect that most of us who were forced from the flightdeck at 59 years and 364 days have sometimes lapsed into boredom and depression at being forced out of a job that we have loved ever since we first got our private pilots licence.

Unless you are qualified and also lucky enough to walk into another fulfilling job that keeps your mind alert, then with some types it is all downhill to an early grave. I believe a survey proved this a few years ago.

[BOAC]

Absolutely correct, Cent. - and it has been said before, and I'll say it again - I do not know of any plan to force anyone to work until 65. If you don't want to

be sitting halfway across the Atlantic in the middle of the night !

don't! Quit. If it hurts that much and is that difficult, 'arrange' to fail your medical or a sim check.

In any case, we are now heading for age 68, so it looks a bit bleak for you, beamer