age 65
 

A panel today was split up the middle about raising the retirement age for U.S pilots and made no recommendation on the issue except to state that if the age were raised retired pilots would not be allowed to return.
The members of the panel who opposed any change included representatives from ALPA, APA and American Airlines. Members in favor were reps. from SWAPA, Southwest Airlines, Jet Blue, and Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination.

No word on what the decision of the FAA might be but at the end of the day it will be a political decision and since 70% of all U.S pilots are represented by ALPA and APA it's not a streach to assume that age 60 will prevail.

ALPA had a poll conducted, 55%v45% for keeping age 60, not a vote. That is after the ALPA education campaign that stressed increased medical standards, loss of part of pension plans due to IRS rules, but prior to the loss/freezing of pensions at a number of airlines. The new President of ALPA is on record for changing the age to 65.
The rule will change either by the FAA or the US Congress. My guess is that the FAA will want to change on their terms. The age 60 rule is either about safety or a jobs/promotion rule for junior pilots. If it is a safety rule it will change soon, if it is a jobs program it may not. There are a number of political forces taking the pro change side that dwarf the ALPA/APA numbers.:ok:

According to "flight International" from this week, JAA medical committee wants to permit flying until 70.

Well, I'm hearing that age has nothing to do with performance. Well well, if I could only believe...

Mmmm....better get a move on.:eek:

FH, please allow me tell a little more of the story.

From former ALPA president Woerth's testimony before the US Senate:


The results of the survey show that a majority of ALPA pilots favor maintaining the Age 60 Rule. Consider the following statistics from the survey:

When asked in a straight-forward yes or no format, “Do you favor changing the FAA Age 60 Rule?” 56% of ALPA pilots support maintaining the current rule; 42% want it to change.

When we asked pilots specifically about changing the rule to age 65, support for maintaining the current rule rose to 58% and support for change dropped to 39%.

The more specific we got, the fewer pilots supported change. When given a series of options and asked which they would most support, 54% support the current rule, while only 10% support increasing the age limit to 62, and only 22% support increasing it to 65. Further, fewer than 10% support the option of changing the rule to one that measures physical ability and health on an individual basis, regardless of age. And, fewer than 5% support increasing the age limit to higher than age 65 (2%) or lifting the age limit completely (3%).

The retirement age in the USA will, eventually, rise to 65 years there is no good reason or evidence for it not to and discriminatory laws will make it a certainty. The major opponents at the moment are the long serving FOs and SFOs who, for some reason, can't take on board the fact that an additional five years at a senior captains salary will be of benefit to them.
There are none so blind etc........
Huck, how old are you? And in this day and age just how representative of the majority of American pilots is ALPA?

Ummm ... but now they will have to wait another 5 years for that promotion ?? (dont assume this only effects FO's)

Dani & Loose Rivets:

It would suggest that all pilots over 65 are going to need an onboard supply of Viagra, especially the long-haul jockies. How else will they be able to keep it up for so long? Gravity will always win in the end.::)

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 .....

Why anyone would want to work to 65 is beyond me .... :hmm:

Does this mean I should feel unsafe flying with someone who is 59 years and 364 days old because tomorrow he will be deemed unfit to perform his duties?

Crazy.

:confused: :confused:

Doc C

I've edited out the funny answer to Viagra...as one does not know what that is....and as this is the serious thread, I'll make a serious comment. I'll only concern myself with the medical side. Fairness is another issue, and I've seldom found much of that about.

For me, at 67 something is wrong. I wouldn't want me as the captain of an aircraft that my family was on. In fact, as I mentioned on another thread a few hours ago, I am too mindful now of my responsibilities, to be free of concern for them while I'm coping with an emergency for example. Being just a little gung-ho is good.

I still like youthful things, superbikes and hot cars. I love to swim, and can go a couple of lengths of my son's 35' long pool under water without puffing. I have bewilderingly low blood pressure, but have never fainted, but whatever is wrong is nagging deep down in there somewhere. Perhaps it's just knowing a little about the science of ageing, or perhaps my concerns are totally unfounded, I don't know, but I doubt it.

The thing that has stopped me running is back pain. By the grace of God I can still cycle, but it's not the same. My fitness level has plummeted.

The point of this is that such a small thing can echo round the body lowering one's entire well-being. One bearing out on an otherwise serviceable machine.

I have dozens of MRI pix in my computer and they spell out just what aging is all about. A little stenosis here, and a little wear there...not enough to stop me doing DIY all day, but just signs of the clock ticking. But this is all physical, the MRI of my brain was another thing altogether.

I had this done due to a small area of vison ( 0.01% of the total ) that was not responding to lines between 300 and 320 degrees. I don't suppose anyone else on Earth would have picked up on this, but I wanted to know what was going on. It's the way my mind works. The report was a shock. "Numerous hyper opacities -- presumably caused by small blood vessel disease." Those words are burned into my memory.

"Quite normal at your age."

Was I to be relieved at the revelation? Just a natural small change...so who am I -- now that part of ‘Me' is missing? Is it just areas that were not being used? How will the people that vet our health be able to discern the subtle differences?

I am totally convinced that there are people in their 70s that would be perfectly safe as commanders of large aircraft. It's just that I can not imagine the authorities taking the time needed to filter out the ones with the hidden defects.

To counter this, we all know there is a statistically dangerous time around 50 years of age...indeed, if I had been flying when I had a gall-bladder flare up, it would have been a full emergency. I was about 52, and totally incapacitated.

I would think that the only way forward would be for a detailed statistical analysis to build a framework on. This will take years, and it would be breaking new ground in a way. As crews have historically gone out to pasture at 60, the records, if not totally stopping, have changed to data about people who are no longer under the stresses of the job. We will need a new set of rules.

I think the captain should not only be able to go through all the normal 6M vetting, but be able to assist in the event of an evacuation in real terms, not just pulling a toggle and blowing a whistle in time to a check-list. I would want a man/woman that could help open jammed doors, cope in real smoke (as much as anyone can) and pick up a child and run with it. I would hate to see the day come when a captain had to be assisted to the exit by his crew.

Getting very pissed off writing reasoned responses to other posts only to see them evaporate when I hit the 'submit' button, so I now apologise for the brevity of this post:

Only a few pilots will continue from 60 to 65 for the time being, eventually it will become the 'norm' and life expectancy, even for pilots, is for ever increasing so 'nearer to the grave' won't apply.

Loose Rivets - the few points that you make about your own medical history suggest that you are not a good example of the 'norm'.

Slammer -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.

Sorry, my original post carried a bit more meat but it has been lost to cyber space twice now!!!

Okay, my professional flying doesn't involve passengers, so strictly this doesn't affect me personally.

But, I really don't understand a lot of the mentality behind the age 60/65 cut-off, since...

(1) Most countries are heading towards age descrimination legislation in most other fields.

(2) All the current human-factors data that I see says very strongly that experience and teamwork create safety on a multi-crew flight deck, not "youthful" fast reactions and hand-eye skills.

(3) I can't imagine anybody mandating that airline pilots stay working past 60/65, it is surely going to be optional anyhow and there are many reasons why a pilot may decide that it's time to stop.

(4) Regular medical and competence checks will never go away, and clearly if somebody fails either, at either 40 or 70, they cease to fly - this is a lot more sensible than an arbitrary age cut-off.

G

Gents,
I am 43 and a skipper on a 747 classic. My old man is 65 and retired with 19000 hrs of hard slog and mental arithmetic (sp? maybe). I come from a family of flyers....father, aunt, brother, cousin all current or previous airline captains on hvy jets..... makes for some pretty boring dinner party conversation for the spouses. Given previous stated I think I have something of value to input to the discussion of age v performance. Granted this observation of mine may not be representative....just an observation so here goes....

Based on what I have seen I am all for guys flying after 60 but with the following provisios..........no long haul and absolutely no short term rest between flights. This is based on observations of numerous much loved crew members who displayed alarming lack of mental agility when not given adequate time off to recuperate....more than is given by our piss poor FTLS. As the clock ticks we all suffer and the time to recuperate takes more hours than the younger folk. Dismiss this if you like but before doing so ask yourself this question........ the last time you made a mistake or error of judgement(and for those that are vain...and we all do) I would garner that fatugue was an issue either overt of in the background.

.....and parabellum I think you are incorrect.....loose riverts is the norm and hits the mark...... and I am proud to say I can still do all the fun runs and triathalons so fitness is not the issue but from my understanding the studies done concentrate little on cognitive agility under real mental stresses on the flt deck in abnormal situations but more on pure physiological health v age and the improvements of such a relationship given modern medicine and diets. I would be happy for you to direct me to evidence to the contrary.
Rgds

Quite wrong, actually.

We will get 5 more years as F/O's or S/O's. And others, young guys/gals with children, will get 5 more years at crap jobs waiting for the blessed good one. And twenty-somethings will get 5 more years waiting for their first flying job.

My total years as a captain will be the same, I'll just be older during them. And they will be worth much less, due to the time value of money.

Also, statistically there is a 25% chance I won't even make it to 60 at my company (I will lose my medical due to our back-side-of-the-clock operations). If that happens this rule change will do me much financial harm.

And do you folks really believe the days of hand/eye coordination are dead, replaced with the "crew concept?" I flew into Memphis last week with the wind 80 degrees to the runway, 20 gusting to 33. The captain, a 40 something, did a great job. What is the 64 year old captain supposed to say - "You take the landing, I feel too old." Not too many captains I know would be able to say that....

Hold your judgement until you are there please!
 

Fire Wall you are 43. When you reach 60 I will be interested in your opinion about how age affects us. I don't mean to be disrespectful and I am not picking a fight with you, your writing is earnest and on topic. But I resent people trying to stereotype us Grey hairs as muddled and not fit. I am fitter than most of the young stallions in the right seat who fly with me. My reaction time may be a tad slower these days but my response to any situation is tempered with experience and the resulting decision (discussed with the crew and their opinions considered) is usually a good one.

The ALPA polls (in my opinion) are all about economic issues and upgrades, and have little to do with safety, or mental and physical fitness to fly.

I am 63 and fly for an overseas carrier. As of November 23 I can (and will) now fly trips to and from the US, as well as within the US. That is going to really annoy over 60 pilots in the US who are forced to retire by the FAA. And they should be annoyed, it is a travesty - in my opinion.

Regarding ...er .. . what was it we were talking about?

parabellum Your frustration is palpable. Believe me, I know the feeling.


The main point I would pick up on (and with the greatest respect to Dr Perry) is that there is still no ‘norm'. If there were, this forum would be largely unnecessary: all the medical rules would be in place.

These studies are undertaken in some form or another for most complex medical issues, but as I said, when pilots are allowed to carry on for more years, the stresses that they encounter will change the datums. Dr Perry's work can't just be extrapolated, it will have to be extended to those that are on the over sixty front line. An extended data set.

I believe that my few issues are simply an example of problems that remain hidden in the supposed ‘normal' person. Certainly, if I had not been working on a broadcast quality T/V camera, I would never have noticed the visual anomaly. It was minute. So the way in which the brain slowly dies would have been something that I never thought much about.

Now with regard to fire wall's observation of the older members of the ‘aviation family' mentioned above. The recovery time is something that I have observed in older pilots and indeed thought quite a lot about. I'm surprised that I didn't bring it into the discussion. So as not to get too close to home, let's just say that I believe this to be correct. Older pilots (always I mean the average person) can not cope well with the stresses of sleep depravation -- despite naturally requiring less sleep than a younger person in the normal world. This spells as clearly as anything, why the studies would have to be extended under load, so to speak.

Having made myself the devil's advocate, let me say that a lot of healthy retired people do not want to fade away in their 60s. There is no reason that they should, but the vetting has to be based on good science.

Well, I think it is a very personal issue. I flew commercially until I was 65 and enjoyed every minute of it. I had no trouble with sleep and I still have a Class One medical.

In my last job, I only missed two flights in 19 years due to ill health (colds) and it was my experience that it was the youngsters who were always sick and couldn't hack the unsociable hours.

Very well said, good post.

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.