mandatory retirement age for pilots
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Britain
Age: 74
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ambidextrous.
I'm afraid you really haven't thought things through very well. A regulator being answerable to it's regulatees is a contradiction in terms. The UK CAA does a pretty good job, by and large. The fact that some people sometimes don't get what they want doesn't make it a bad organisation, merely one that had to be even-handed. It does answer to the Department of Transport, so there is oversight and it's worth remembering that it doesn't receive a penny from the public purse, so has to fund itself from the aviation community. Like any large organisation - probably even the one you work for - it has an irreducible percentage of idiots but the vast majority who work for CAA are surprisingly helpful if approached in a constructive manner.
I'm afraid you really haven't thought things through very well. A regulator being answerable to it's regulatees is a contradiction in terms. The UK CAA does a pretty good job, by and large. The fact that some people sometimes don't get what they want doesn't make it a bad organisation, merely one that had to be even-handed. It does answer to the Department of Transport, so there is oversight and it's worth remembering that it doesn't receive a penny from the public purse, so has to fund itself from the aviation community. Like any large organisation - probably even the one you work for - it has an irreducible percentage of idiots but the vast majority who work for CAA are surprisingly helpful if approached in a constructive manner.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why BristolScout was so dismissive of ambidextrous post, but one point of information:
Although the CAA charges those whom it regulates (ie those compelled to be its customers), it does not have a remit to "Promote the industry".
In what some may regard as a contrast, the FAA's mission includes "being responsive to our customers and accountable to the public."
"A regulator being answerable to it's regulatees is a contradiction in terms."
Some may think it's possible for a regulator to be answerable to both the public and to those it regulates. ie If circumstances arise where there really is a conflict (or potential conflict) between the two then, after proper evaluation of the competing interests and arguments, the decision should be that which is most likely to achieve the greater good. In short, a balancing exercise in which proper regard is had to both interests.
FL
Although the CAA charges those whom it regulates (ie those compelled to be its customers), it does not have a remit to "Promote the industry".
In what some may regard as a contrast, the FAA's mission includes "being responsive to our customers and accountable to the public."
"A regulator being answerable to it's regulatees is a contradiction in terms."
Some may think it's possible for a regulator to be answerable to both the public and to those it regulates. ie If circumstances arise where there really is a conflict (or potential conflict) between the two then, after proper evaluation of the competing interests and arguments, the decision should be that which is most likely to achieve the greater good. In short, a balancing exercise in which proper regard is had to both interests.
FL
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Shooey wants information about the health of pilots he should ask the aviation doctors. I discussed this question with our company doctor. He said that the studies show that health does not deteriorate more quickly after 60 than before 60. However, after 65 the graph starts to move upwards indicating an increased risk of ill health. The CAA and other aviation bodies could not justify 60 as the cut off on the basis of the evidence, but it appears they can justify 65.
I am 68 years old, fully employed as a public transport commander and thoroughly enjoying it. As I have done over the last 48 years.
When my CAA licence ran out I went to Australia and obtained a CASA ATPL(H) at the age of 65. Subsequently I obtained a Chinese ATPL when I was 66. Neither country has an age limit. Both medical requirements are similar inasmuch as a full medical with a stress ECG is required every year with an intermediate medical at six months.
The Chinese annual is more comprehensive and intrusive with Xrays and echograms. Other Pprune posters have complained that it is up to Astronaut standards but I would disagree with that. You do not have an aviation GP to do it as is done in the West. It is done by CAAC doctors at the CAAC hospital in Guangzhou. I then have to do another similar medical to renew my residence visa. I my case I did my medical last week and flew my OPCs with a Chinese examiner last Saturday. In case anybody wants to slag the standards the examiner in question also holds a JAA ATPL(H).
In the last two years I have flown an Australian aircraft several times with over 130 years in the cockpit quite legally. In China the guide is 120 years but it is not chiselled in stone as we have had to exceed that when necessary when they run out of sub 52-year-old co-pilots.
I will admit that my case is unusual. A decade ago I would not have considered it possible but with oil at $100+ a barrel and a desperate shortage of experienced multi engine offshore helicopter pilots I have been dragged out of retirement twice. Having done both retirement and flying over the age of 60 I definitely recommend flying.
As far as age limits are concerned I know personally several pilots over 60 who continue quite happily but there are others who know when they are losing the edge and they have sensibly packed it in. It all depends on how you feel. Should the usual buggerances of early starts, programme/roster changes, dragged out of bed to go flying start to upset you then you have had enough. That could happen at any age. That is when you change your job or retire. It will certainly happen to me..
When my CAA licence ran out I went to Australia and obtained a CASA ATPL(H) at the age of 65. Subsequently I obtained a Chinese ATPL when I was 66. Neither country has an age limit. Both medical requirements are similar inasmuch as a full medical with a stress ECG is required every year with an intermediate medical at six months.
The Chinese annual is more comprehensive and intrusive with Xrays and echograms. Other Pprune posters have complained that it is up to Astronaut standards but I would disagree with that. You do not have an aviation GP to do it as is done in the West. It is done by CAAC doctors at the CAAC hospital in Guangzhou. I then have to do another similar medical to renew my residence visa. I my case I did my medical last week and flew my OPCs with a Chinese examiner last Saturday. In case anybody wants to slag the standards the examiner in question also holds a JAA ATPL(H).
In the last two years I have flown an Australian aircraft several times with over 130 years in the cockpit quite legally. In China the guide is 120 years but it is not chiselled in stone as we have had to exceed that when necessary when they run out of sub 52-year-old co-pilots.
I will admit that my case is unusual. A decade ago I would not have considered it possible but with oil at $100+ a barrel and a desperate shortage of experienced multi engine offshore helicopter pilots I have been dragged out of retirement twice. Having done both retirement and flying over the age of 60 I definitely recommend flying.
As far as age limits are concerned I know personally several pilots over 60 who continue quite happily but there are others who know when they are losing the edge and they have sensibly packed it in. It all depends on how you feel. Should the usual buggerances of early starts, programme/roster changes, dragged out of bed to go flying start to upset you then you have had enough. That could happen at any age. That is when you change your job or retire. It will certainly happen to me..
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 5th Mar 2008 at 11:59.
[B]"Bristol Scout"[B]-You miss my point entirely. It's because, unlike the FAA, they're unaccountable to the public & unresponsive to their customers that the CAA should be reformed. Being overseen by the Dept.of Transport doesn't fill me with too much enthusiasm if our F/W brethren's comments on the Security thread are anything to go by!
The UK CAA are, I believe the only EU regulator without an element of public funding. Public funding would bring in control, oversight, value for money, external auditing of their activities, best value practices etc. Come to think of it, there's another 'hot air chamber' not far down the road at Westminster that could benefit from a dose of the same medicine!
I have no problem with the "front of house" public office occupants, it's the back room bureaucrats hiding behind the regulations who need shaking up.
with fraternal greetings,
ambi
The UK CAA are, I believe the only EU regulator without an element of public funding. Public funding would bring in control, oversight, value for money, external auditing of their activities, best value practices etc. Come to think of it, there's another 'hot air chamber' not far down the road at Westminster that could benefit from a dose of the same medicine!
I have no problem with the "front of house" public office occupants, it's the back room bureaucrats hiding behind the regulations who need shaking up.
with fraternal greetings,
ambi
Age 60+ discrim!
To all single pilot op ppruners:
I was present yesterday (Friday) at the tribunal where Capt.Evans is making a valiant stand against this career shortening edict(unamended since 1960),of the CAA.
It was interesting to find that this matter may shortly become academic with the transition from national regulators to EASA, beginning in [B]March 2008.[B]!
Both Germany & Switzerland have recently increased the age for single pilot ops to 65 and as members of EASA this will become the norm as there will be no alleviation/differences between member states under EU law, which transcends national law.
Q-Why then are the CAA wasting thousands of pounds of yours & my fees/charges on trying to squash Capt.Evans challenge when the matter is shortly going to become academic & a done deal for 65?
Please write to your MP and the abysmal Minister for Transport, Ruth Kelly, to protest at this misuse of the levy on the UK aviation industry.
with fraternal greetings,
ambi
I was present yesterday (Friday) at the tribunal where Capt.Evans is making a valiant stand against this career shortening edict(unamended since 1960),of the CAA.
It was interesting to find that this matter may shortly become academic with the transition from national regulators to EASA, beginning in [B]March 2008.[B]!
Both Germany & Switzerland have recently increased the age for single pilot ops to 65 and as members of EASA this will become the norm as there will be no alleviation/differences between member states under EU law, which transcends national law.
Q-Why then are the CAA wasting thousands of pounds of yours & my fees/charges on trying to squash Capt.Evans challenge when the matter is shortly going to become academic & a done deal for 65?
Please write to your MP and the abysmal Minister for Transport, Ruth Kelly, to protest at this misuse of the levy on the UK aviation industry.
with fraternal greetings,
ambi
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I have stated in previous posts about this topic:
i am for GRADUAL increase from 60 to 6...; eg for now untill 63 for 4 years (not retroactive) and then up to 65 or whichever age all provided medical statistics can prove flying below the new limitage isn't at a bigger risk as the previous limit; it would have this advantage:not braking the whole cyclechain of events like new assumptions for 200 hr guys, fo upgrdes to LHS, some people continue retiring.
So "older-sorry for all close to 60" guys get a bonus (in monetary terms) which previously they hadn't so they can not complain if they get 3 years or so on top; fo's can't complain as their long awaited command is getting 2 years longer (life is tough but they'll get there-nobody will shortcircuit them and they'll benefit from the measure as well in 20 years or so)-younger 200hrs will wait just a bit longer (maybe they could have free licence renewals if they aren't being hired by a company...let's have our CAA's come up with something if they are interested-because nowadays many have to pay their type-rating which most of us definitely did not!!)
i am for GRADUAL increase from 60 to 6...; eg for now untill 63 for 4 years (not retroactive) and then up to 65 or whichever age all provided medical statistics can prove flying below the new limitage isn't at a bigger risk as the previous limit; it would have this advantage:not braking the whole cyclechain of events like new assumptions for 200 hr guys, fo upgrdes to LHS, some people continue retiring.
So "older-sorry for all close to 60" guys get a bonus (in monetary terms) which previously they hadn't so they can not complain if they get 3 years or so on top; fo's can't complain as their long awaited command is getting 2 years longer (life is tough but they'll get there-nobody will shortcircuit them and they'll benefit from the measure as well in 20 years or so)-younger 200hrs will wait just a bit longer (maybe they could have free licence renewals if they aren't being hired by a company...let's have our CAA's come up with something if they are interested-because nowadays many have to pay their type-rating which most of us definitely did not!!)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(not retroactive)
Anyways, if it weren't retroactive the guy who put all the effort into fighting to change this stupid age limit wouldn't benefit and that don't seem fair to me.
There's more about how the case is going from post #280 in this thread -- link here
B.
Silly Old Git
How about ...
Single never married ==== = Retire Age 55
One ex wife kids etc ===== Retire Age 65
More than 3 ex wives ===== Retire Age 75
kids,sundry lawyers etc
Single never married ==== = Retire Age 55
One ex wife kids etc ===== Retire Age 65
More than 3 ex wives ===== Retire Age 75
kids,sundry lawyers etc
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Handflying - regarding medical statistic and evidence for pilots over sixty.
A well known specialist in aviation medicine in London started a study on over sixties from the day the age was arbitrarily reduced by the CAA (BofT) from sixty five to sixty, that study took place over many years using volunteers and showed conclusively that risk to passengers, aircraft or other third parties did not increase between the ages of sixty and sixty five. Let us hope Captain Evans is in possession of this evidence.
A well known specialist in aviation medicine in London started a study on over sixties from the day the age was arbitrarily reduced by the CAA (BofT) from sixty five to sixty, that study took place over many years using volunteers and showed conclusively that risk to passengers, aircraft or other third parties did not increase between the ages of sixty and sixty five. Let us hope Captain Evans is in possession of this evidence.
Parabellum,
Where is that evidence to be found & when did the CAA reduce the age from 65 to 60?
Further, for how long was the single pilot ops limit at 65 previously?
regards,
ambi
Where is that evidence to be found & when did the CAA reduce the age from 65 to 60?
Further, for how long was the single pilot ops limit at 65 previously?
regards,
ambi
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ambidextrous
I can't post peoples names on here but if Capt. Evans were to PM me I would pass him the details, that said, I would be surprised if he hasn't already got them
The age in the UK was reduced to sixty in the 1970s or early eighties, it was done over night without consultation. Many of us have been campaigning ever since to have the retirement age of 65 returned to us, it is what we originally signed up for. Not popular with a number of FOs, I know, but it was ours originally, possibly well before many of them became aviators and so may not be aware that 65 was where it all started, not 60.
The age in the UK was reduced to sixty in the 1970s or early eighties, it was done over night without consultation. Many of us have been campaigning ever since to have the retirement age of 65 returned to us, it is what we originally signed up for. Not popular with a number of FOs, I know, but it was ours originally, possibly well before many of them became aviators and so may not be aware that 65 was where it all started, not 60.
Bottums Up
Wee willie
Having waited 12 years to achieve a multi crew turbine command, and 16 years to achieve a jet command, why should I give up my achievements just to let a young, experienced highly capable Y generationer have a go? Why does a young person deserve more of a go than an "old, experienced, highly capable pilot"???
I'll be buggered if I'm going to walk away just because some one else believes they deserve what I've worked bloody hard to achieve. I just hope that I know when to go, rather than find out by failing proficiency tests.
Why should anyone who has enjoyed a long and fruitful flying career want to deprive many young, experienced and highly capable pilots of a job or the prospect of promotion to the left seat?
I'll be buggered if I'm going to walk away just because some one else believes they deserve what I've worked bloody hard to achieve. I just hope that I know when to go, rather than find out by failing proficiency tests.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has Wee Willy removed his post? He seems to forget it was us older ones who were deprived of five years at the top of the pay scale by an arbitrary bit of legislation that was never discussed, thus leaving the way open for youngsters to get their command five years earlier. All that has happened is that a loophole has been closed and the situation has finally started to return to a fair and normal state, try and remember, retiring at 65 is the norm. Which of these two options would today's young FO rather have, an extra five years at the bottom of the captains scale, retirement age sixty, or an extra five years at the top of the scale, retirement age sixty five?
Captain Claret, - well said!
Captain Claret, - well said!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until then, the younger ones can just put up with...gear up and button your lip, I'm in charge here, Bud.
Get out of the seat and head on over to the Sizzlers, they have an all you can eat senior-citizen's discount for early dinner at 330pm.
