Pilot Sues For Forced Retirement
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The risk of having a stroke increses with age.
https://strokefoundation.org.au/Abou...e-risk-factors
The risk of having a heart attack increases with age. Understand Your Risks to Prevent a Heart Attack
The risk of getting diabetes increses with age.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-inf...ype-2-diabetes
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Deeply Concerned
Completely misleading graph as it refers to cardiovascular disease, which simply isn't a heart attack.
Age is a major factor when it comes to stroke and heart attack.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem
You forgot to read the links. The picture was supposed to be below the other links as a general picture of age vs disease risk.
Age is a major factor when it comes to stroke and heart attack.
Age is not so much a factor as a measure of the time over which adverse lifestyle factors have a chance to develop! I watched a documentary just this last weekend where a 92 year old Costa Rican under a wide brimmed hat to keep off the sun walked a kilometre and back every day on a diet of mostly homegrown beans ! (he visits his mother daily who could also still just about get about the house on her feet when necessary!)
What are the main lifestyle factors which cause heart disease and stroke? I'll start with smoking, alcohol, and cream buns for ten
What are the main lifestyle factors which cause heart disease and stroke? I'll start with smoking, alcohol, and cream buns for ten
Good to see some science in the topic.
However, those figures would be for the general populace no doubt, not for the pilot sub group which I would wager is healthier than the total population due to regular medicals and (mostly) taking care of themselves.
However, those figures would be for the general populace no doubt, not for the pilot sub group which I would wager is healthier than the total population due to regular medicals and (mostly) taking care of themselves.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if that’s the case, are you really saying that, uniquely and inexplicably, our rates of heart attack and strokes don’t increase with age like all other humans?
Last edited by ShotOne; 19th Jul 2018 at 18:26.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunnydale
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
Good to see some science in the topic.
However, those figures would be for the general populace no doubt, not for the pilot sub group which I would wager is healthier than the total population due to regular medicals and (mostly) taking care of themselves.
However, those figures would be for the general populace no doubt, not for the pilot sub group which I would wager is healthier than the total population due to regular medicals and (mostly) taking care of themselves.
No I agree the rates for the pilot population would also increase with age. Again all I can say is it is not a problem here in Australia.
I was trying to think how many pilots at my company lost their medical in the last few years, I can think of three in ten years. One was for cancer which is not likely to incapacitate a pilot at the controls.
How about bus drivers with sixty passengers on board screaming down the motorway? No autopilot and no second driver to take over? Do they get forced out by age based criteria?
I was trying to think how many pilots at my company lost their medical in the last few years, I can think of three in ten years. One was for cancer which is not likely to incapacitate a pilot at the controls.
How about bus drivers with sixty passengers on board screaming down the motorway? No autopilot and no second driver to take over? Do they get forced out by age based criteria?
I am afraid neither anecdotes of Costa Ricans nor graphs demonstrating relative risk have any value. Nobody denies the ageing process decreases health and increases risk. The question is when is it unsafe, and that depends on absolute risk. Over on the medical forum pilots post daily about losing their medical for what they see as minor or irrelevant pathology not understanding their illness has increased the absolute risk of incapacitation above the magic level (The UK CAA allows an unrestricted Class 1 eg for cancer with a 0.1% annual risk, and a Class 1 OML with a 1% annual risk!!). Yet on ageism threads the same population of pilots (and possibly even the same posters!) trash science claiming pilots should be grounded on age when the absolute risk is now well below what it was 20 yeas ago and more importantly below that magic number
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to see politicians subject to the same standards as aircrew. Including alcohol/drug testing.
Arguably many lives in their hands too.
Some of that profession would appear at least partially incapacitated.
Arguably many lives in their hands too.
Some of that profession would appear at least partially incapacitated.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+1 to that currawong. I’m baffled why other safety-critical professional aren’t subject to testing as pilots are.
Radgirl you clearly understand the medical graphs and have observed how steeply they climb so please explain how risk factor could possibly be kept below 1%,or indeed any “magic number” in the face of removing the upper age limit. It MIGHT be possible to mitigate a finite increase as the 60-65 increase was mitigated. But to argue that removing the upper limit doesn’t increase incapacitation risks is simply absurd.
Radgirl you clearly understand the medical graphs and have observed how steeply they climb so please explain how risk factor could possibly be kept below 1%,or indeed any “magic number” in the face of removing the upper age limit. It MIGHT be possible to mitigate a finite increase as the 60-65 increase was mitigated. But to argue that removing the upper limit doesn’t increase incapacitation risks is simply absurd.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ShotOne
...
Radgirl you clearly understand the medical graphs and have observed how steeply they climb so please explain how risk factor could possibly be kept below 1%,or indeed any “magic number” in the face of removing the upper age limit. It MIGHT be possible to mitigate a finite increase as the 60-65 increase was mitigated. But to argue that removing the upper limit doesn’t increase incapacitation risks is simply absurd.
currawong, I fully agree!!
Originally Posted by ShotOne
I’m baffled why other safety-critical professional aren’t subject to testing as pilots are.
Or perhaps other safety-critical professionals have a better lobby...and more money to spend assuring a desired outcome than airline pilots and their lobby.
And by the way, as long as these Perfumed Princes of the Kackistocracy have the power to impose things like drug testing, you can be sure of one outcome: they'll see to it they are exempted from such things.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In the bar later.
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think if I were going to challenge this I would look towards using EU age discrimination legislation. In general throughout the EU there isn't a formal retirement age any more and you cannot discriminate on the grounds of age. As far as I know pilots are the only occupation with a retirement age in law.
Its interesting also that you can be driving a public bus at any age with only a basic medical and that's single crew.
Another anomaly is that in the U.K. I cannot claim my state pension until I'm 67, yet I'm forced out of work at 65. All theses I would have thought are interesting areas to explore.
Its interesting also that you can be driving a public bus at any age with only a basic medical and that's single crew.
Another anomaly is that in the U.K. I cannot claim my state pension until I'm 67, yet I'm forced out of work at 65. All theses I would have thought are interesting areas to explore.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering the air traffic guys that control us have to retire at 56 I think we should feel grateful that they let us fly until 65. These guys get at least 2 hour or 4 hour breaks in a shift, not huddled under a blanket with the headset turned down, perhaps we should lobby for retirement at 60, the same age the medical frequency changes to 6 monthly. Of course, we would not get the same retirement benefits as ATC, the industry just wouldn't wear it!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: suffolk uk
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Employment Tribunal
I'm the rotary pilot who took the CAA to the employment Tribunal when I turned 60 back in 2007. As everyone knows I lost and the Tribunal ruling is posted under "Rotorheads".
As already stated the CAA acknowledged age discrimination but claimed it was permissible for "safety reasons" quoting very outdated statistics for the general population. This stuff has been well covered in this forum.
I'd just like to add that I was able to continue flying single pilot aerial work operations and only fully retired last year when I myself decided the time was right at age 70. My aerial work mostly involved aerial camera work for film and TV and, if I may say so, was very demanding of all my skills.To illustrate the folly of the CAA's position I was frequently flying over London at below 1000' (with CAA approvals in place) including over the Olympic Stadium during the opening ceremony of the 2012 Games.
Good luck to those of you who wish to exercise their right to employment in line with the general population and if I can be of any help feel free to ask (except for money, my case nearly wiped me out despite the generous help from many colleagues through PPRuNe forums).
As already stated the CAA acknowledged age discrimination but claimed it was permissible for "safety reasons" quoting very outdated statistics for the general population. This stuff has been well covered in this forum.
I'd just like to add that I was able to continue flying single pilot aerial work operations and only fully retired last year when I myself decided the time was right at age 70. My aerial work mostly involved aerial camera work for film and TV and, if I may say so, was very demanding of all my skills.To illustrate the folly of the CAA's position I was frequently flying over London at below 1000' (with CAA approvals in place) including over the Olympic Stadium during the opening ceremony of the 2012 Games.
Good luck to those of you who wish to exercise their right to employment in line with the general population and if I can be of any help feel free to ask (except for money, my case nearly wiped me out despite the generous help from many colleagues through PPRuNe forums).
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EIKY
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People are driving cars into their 70's, 80's and killing or maiming innocent people (and themselves) - no action taken. Pass strict medical test - you can fly. Increase the frequency of such test as pilot becomes older or have them as FO max?
Avoid imitations
Just a thought...Speaking for the population in general (to include passengers and other workers), how often do people over 65 take their last breath on a serviceable aircraft? These days, the whole concept of air travel is so stressful (two hour waits to clear security, cattle truck seating conditions, etc) that the pilots are probably among the most relaxed ones on board.
