Jonty

This is quite interesting really. In my company your contracted untill the age of 60, you contract expires on your 60th birthday. Now the company are quite will in to give you another contract, but guess what? Its in the RHS on a first officers salary.
They say that its nothing to do with age discrimination law, but contract law and they dont need to re-employ captains on year 20 pay when they can have captains on year 1 pay. They also argued that you signed the contract and therefore knew what the terms of the deal were when you joined.
Anyone want to comment on the legality of this?

President Bush

It's a no brainer-pilots of 60+ are hugely more experienced and capable than some ignorant whippersnapper in his 20s.It's down to options and will remain so.Hotel Charlie,I was goung to say you're something of a wit..................but I'm only half right!

Flying Guy

Dear Skol,

I am curious how you regard your own flying. You say you are "close to sixty." In your appraisal of your own skills do you feel you are starting to loose your reasoning power? Do you feel your judgment is diminishing? Are you loosing you coordination - struggling to fly a good airplane? Are your reactions to difficult situations in the air not as good as they were ten years ago?

Do you feel you are less safe in the left seat of the jumbo than you were in your younger years?

Lets hear it.

Hotel Charlie

President BushI do agree. You do have a lot more experience at 60 than at 20! That is a " no brainer". But there comes a point when your vast experience does not compensate your age! That crossing point seems to be around 60. Some should probably leave at 55 even (the arrogant ones).
If 60+ is such a good thing why won´t the legislator allow both pilots being 60+ ?
Oh.. and mister President just for your info it´s been a couple of decades since I were: Get a life! Go fishing enjoy your grandchildren and leave the flying to us "old geasers" with not so vast experience (but can hold our own)and with some mental capacity left.

skol

Wing Commander,
How much do you need to retire, not such a stupid question.

I am not suggesting you are incapable of arranging your affairs but some clearly are. I've flown with individuals who have such colossal amounts of debt that they have no show of paying it off. As I said in a previous post, how do you convince a financially strapped pilot with a finite working life, who is not performing too well, to retire? Instead of going gracefully when they suspect time's up they're going to be dragged out.

Flying Guy,

I think I'm performing quite well but definitely not as sharp as 5 years ago.
But having flown with quite a number well over 60 I have personal experience with a couple of individuals who are performing abysmally. If you talk to them about it they still think they're doing OK.

If when I turn 60 my employer or the department asked me to undergo extra medical checks, simulator, training, to ensure I'm up to the job I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Japanese CAA refuse to let 2 pilots over 60 fly with each other. Why do think that is?

Wing Commander Fowler

Skol - I never said it was a stupid question. If I felt that way I wouldn'a answered it. I'm not wallowing in self pity either just a victim of my own marital ineptitude and a late re-starter in life. So for me it's work of some sort or another until I drop. Whether it be flying now - well we'll see. I hope to have the sense though to stop when I feel incapable. I've shown such common sense in the past when, many moons ago, I realised I wasn't as safe in an aeroplane as I was when I was fresh out of the navy..... Put the ppl in the drawer for five years until I had the funds to do it regularly enough to remain current and safe. I think I know where you're coming from but it isn't good to generalise. Anyway, good luck with it all!

Romeo 87

I've read all the comments on this subject and thought that I would appraise you all of my position.
I would certainly like to retire and make room for a younger guy to get a command. Problem is, I was constructively dismissed by those BA swines and as a consequence I cannot live on my meagre pension. I need to keep my command for a couple more years so that I too will be able to retire and sail and ride my bike. Luckily I was hired by a great airline that saw the injustice immediately, so when the French are brought into line I will be to continue in the left seat for the minimum time and then retire gracefully.

ZQA297/30

Well, s'obvious then, innit?
Them two old geezers would pro'lly spend so much time reminiscing(sp?) about all the old trolley dollies that they would never find time to fill in all that new-fangled paperwork.

Wingswinger

This encapsulates what the argument is all about. Skol is putting forward a personal anecdote to justify an attitude which he thinks should be a policy continuing to apply to everyone. I could just as easily put forward some anecdotes of my own to support the counter argument - that there are plenty of "old" pilots who are far sharper than their younger brethren. I won't bore you all with them.

Fortunately, the decision in this is being made by wiser counsel. In Europe it will soon be illegal to force pilots to retire at an age earlier than that stipulated by the licensing authorities and the company which has just forced me out at 55 will no longer be able to do such things. In November, ICAO is expected to adopt the JAA standard of 65 with certain provisos. When this happens, countries such as France which bans commanders over the age of 60 in its airspace will no longer be able to do so. They may be able to ban their own nationals over the age of 60, but not others.

As to the Japanese ban on two over 60s flying with each other - that is the rule in JAA states as well and it is because of a slightly increased risk of heart-attack or stroke in those over the age of 60. It is, of course, based on historical evidence. There is every chance that when a future generation looks back at the medical data from our age they will wonder what the fuss was about. There may be some merit in Skol's idea that those over 60 should have more frequent medical exams and simulator checks and I could have no objection should that turn out to be the way ahead. However, I am not convinced that, for example, four-month medicals would have any value over six-month medicals. Simulator checks and recurrent training are another matter. As an ex-RAF instructor and training captain, I have long felt that the present six-monthly visits to the training block are inadequate - and that is regardless of one's age.

We live in a time when arbitrary rules which suited earlier generations are being overturned everywhere. They are no longer acceptable. We are living longer and we are fitter. This is an economic and social challenge to all advanced societies. Were I to retire now I have the real prospect (being very fit and still "young") of spending more years in retirement than I have spent in full-time employment. To those who don't welcome the change there is only one thing to say: Get used to it.

Flying Guy

Wingswinger,

Thank you for your intelligent, well written essay. You hit the points perfectly and stay away from the childish name calling, kindergarten type comments which, unfortunately, so often find their way into these forums.

I applaud you, not just because I agree with your view point, but for your professional well written opinion.

Johnbr

Amigos,

In my country,that is Brazil,you can fly,domestic, for as long as your medical is valid...No matter how old you are..I know guys well past 60 that are still flying..I guess the argument of fitness is a bit falacious..It all comes down to economics,be the airlines willing to layoff the costly "older"guys or the newcomers willing to go LHS.Anyway,I personally think that it should be a personal decision and not regulations.Myself,I wouldn't like to,but if needed, I want to able to choose to keep flying or not.
I just have my opinion,that,provided one has the means to a good and reasonably confortable life out of the cockpit,there's a lot to enjoy out there.(sailing,riding bikes,grandchildren,friends,etc..)Don't get me wrong,
I'm pro choice in this matter,and mine,will be to go home,God permit ,for when I turn 60 I'll have almost 40 years in this business.

MercenaryAli

I have read very carefully all the previous posts. Most are well thought out, some are rather selfish and some downright stupid. At the end of the day if a pilot is fit, can pass a Class 1 medical, can pass his sim rides etc AND he want to keep flying then it is nobody's business but his.
For those of you that would rather sail your little boat around the great oceans - good for you and God Speed! For those who want to go fishing with their grandsons - good for you and hope you have a great catch! For those of you/us who want to keep flying be it for financial gain or just the pure pleasure of it then you/we must be given that choice not dictated to my the various "Nanny States - PC You Do As I Say Brigade"
And please no silly remarks about "Zimmers" eh?

skol

Wingswinger,
In some countries there are no restrictions on age as long as you pass a medical. That means 2 80 or 90 year olds can fly individually or together on air transport ops. Does that make sense to you?
On a recent medical I asked the doctor how he weeds out old pilots. With great difficulty he tells me. He had only failed one on the basis of being 'past it'. He explained that he had no idea how a pilot performed or how he managed to keep the show on the road at 0300hrs on the basis of a 20 min medical. As far as he was concerned the best way was to have an age limit where everyone gave it away.

Wingswinger

No, it doesn't. Do you know of any 80/90-year-olds who do fly on air transport ops? That is not the argument, in any case. Unless I have missed something, we are talking about a general raising of the retirement age from 60 to 65 for commercial pilots operating on public transport aircraft over 20 tonnes MTOW. I am not arguing about a cut-off age and I do believe there should be one. I am arguing about what that age should be in the light of the increased longevity and much-improved health now evident in Western societies. I am happy to accept whatever final retirement age the authorities decide upon. You have to admit that it looks as thought that will be 65.

First, unfortunately, this anecdote falls because it is only one man's opinion. Second, Twenty minute medicals?! That could be construed as a dereliction of duty! Mine last an hour. In any case, one has to question whether or not it is in his gift to "weed out" old pilots. He is supposed to assess their physical fitness, not make subjective judgements about how they cope in the wee small hours. Over the years there have been many instances of doctors making wrong decisions about the physical fitness of pilots. I recall the case of one acquaintance (a marathon runner) who was told by a doctor that his heart rate was too low and he would be grounded for tests some of which were invasive. He was too fit! Make of that what you will. Common sense prevailed but not until my acquaintance had been off flying for nearly a year.

Johnbr

Now I get it!!!
Now I understand why,in Brazil,we are allowed to fly for as long as our class 1 is valid!!!20 minutes medicals???1 hour medicals??
In here,every 6 months,we have to go to an Air Force Hospital,spend the whole morning and go through lab tests,dentist,hearing test,chest X-ray,clinical tests,cardiology,oftalmology,eletroencefalogram,every once in a while a little chat with a shrink and it costs about U$90 which the airlines usually refunds.I also have a friend who,at 35,had his licence taken from him because his heart rate was too slow,happened some 20 years ago and he's still around as a senior squash champion!!

P.S. Still pro choice and still willing to call it a day when 60.....

Wingswinger

Only USD 90? That's good value. We have to do most of that too, Johnbr, apart form the brain-scan and the shrink bit. We usually get through it in an hour.

skol

My medicals are usually 20 mins but that is excluding the ECG. Did one once in 15m after giving the doctor a windup for keeping me waiting.

Wingswinger,
I agree that it looks as if it will go to 65 which I don't think is unreasonable. I emailed the FAA in Oklahoma City 2.5 years ago and requested their intentions. The reply was that they did not intend to increase the retirement age above 60 but posts here from the USA indicate that something's going to happen.
I don't know of any 80/90 year olds, but it's early days yet. This politically correct vote buying legislation which was enacted in recent times has yet to manifest itself, but I do know of a mid 70's ATPL. Unsuspecting punters may find themselves in the aluminium tube behind geriatrics while the politicians who enacted this legislation will have long retired on their government pension.

Rottamo

Do you know of any 80/90-year-olds who do fly on air transport ops?

The oldest ATPL holder is 79.

And the oldest PPL holder is 88.

Pilot Licence Holders by Age and Sex who held a valid Medical Certificate:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/srg_fc...sex_age_04.pdf

Rottamo

Metro man

Depends on the pilot and the job, known a few pilots in their 60s who could run a marathon and were far better physical condition than many 30 years younger. I probably wouldn't want 4-5 sector days in busy airspace, or unusual hours. But a 2-3 day week all daylight in good weather conditions appeals.

If it's still around in 20 years time a senior captains job were you draw full pay and bid reserve the whole time, only flying once a month to stay current would suit.

GW1

March 11, 2006: “…a change to the upper age limit has been agreed by the ICAO Council earlier today, as per the proposal. The debate lasted the whole of the morning and the voting was 27 in favour, four against (USA, France, Columbia and Pakistan) and four abstentions (Canada, China, Mozambique and Cameroon).”

The US has legislation pending that would raise the US age from 60 to 65. The biggest unions are fighting it (American Air pilots and ALPA) although ALPA seems to be fractured on it. The American FAA bureaucrats are opposing it too.

There are a few groups leading the charge to change it: the pilots of Southwest Airlines, a group that calls itself APAAD (Airline Pilots Aginst Age Discrimination) and another called the PPF (Professional Pilots Federation).

The US was the leader in making retirement 60 (back in the late 50s). Now they are tail-end-Charlies in changing it to something higher.