Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Age limit will increase to 67 by years end.

  • Thread starter pave driver
  • Start date
  • Watchers 42

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
There are some random formatting anomalies scattered through this PDF conversion (such as lots of question marks). I taken most out but don't have time to completely clean these to posts up. Sorry 'bout that.

CHAPTER 2. Licences and Ratings for Pilots
. . .
2.1.10 Limitation of privileges of pilots who have attained their 60th birthday and curtailment of privileges of pilots who have attained their 65th birthday.
2.1.10.1 A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, shall not permit the holders thereof to act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot, where the other pilot is younger than 60 years of age, their 65th birthday.
2.1.10.2 Recommendation.? A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, should shall not permit the holders thereof to act as co-pilot of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 65th birthday.
Note.? Attention is drawn to 1.2.5.2.3 on the validity period of Medical Assessments for pilots over the age of 60 who are engaged in commercial air transport operations.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
ATTACHMENT C to State letter AN5/16.1-13/33
Proposed change
Rationale
Chapter 2
2.1.10.1, 2.1.10.2
Rationale
For permitting two pilots aged 60-64 years and engaged in international commercial air transport operations to be simultaneously at the controls:
1. The flight safety risk is acceptable, calculated as likely to be no more than 1 x10-12 per flight hour for a double incapacitation of two pilots aged 60-64. This is a lower risk than ?extremely improbable? and significantly below the maximum acceptable risk per flight hour for a ?catastrophic? airworthiness failure in commercial air transport operations (1 x10-9) or the risk of a fatal accident due to loss of vertical separation (5 x10 -9).
2. Data from major airlines in a number of different regions does not indicate that performance falls substantially between 60 and 65 years, and should an individual pilot have difficulties this would be identified by routine simulator and operational checks.
For amending the 65 year upper age limit for co-pilots from a Recommendation (2.1.10.2) to a Standard, incorporated into paragraph 2.1.10.1:
1. Ensure recognition by States of 65 years as the co-pilot upper age limit.
? ? ?? ? ?? ?
ATTACHMENTD to State letter AN 5/16.1-13/33
RESPONSE FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED TO ICAO TOGETHER WITH ANY COMMENTS YOUMAY HAVE ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
To: The Secretary General
International Civil Aviation Organization
999 University Street Montreal, Quebec Canada, H3C 5H7
(State)
Please make a checkmark () against one option for each amendment. If you choose options ?agreement with comments? or ?disagreement with comments?, please provide your comments on separate sheets.
Agreement without comments
Agreement with comments*
Disagreement without comments
Disagreement with comments
No position
Amendment Annex 1 ? Personnel Licensing
(Attachment B refers)
* ?Agreement with comments? indicates that your State or organization agrees with the intent and overall thrust of the amendment proposal; the comments themselves may include, as necessary, your reservations concerning certain parts of the proposal and/or offer an alternative proposal in this regard.
Signature Date
?END?
 
Last edited:
I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong point. This thread is about increasing the retirement age to 67....not rehashing 65. I will say again, I have no issue with age 65. I am against increasing it. I bear no malice towards the guys who stay until 65. They got a windfall and we paid for it. The young guys you berate as selfish and greedy should not have to pay again.
which turns out to be a hoax, but original thread has drifted into the ole anyone over age 60 is unsafe and everyone under 60 is astronaut candidate thread. BTW Neither of which is true.
 
That's what YOU say yip because you're a troll who refuses to hear what's actually being said

You say that we say <60= astronaut, and >60 diaper wearing mind slush

What we actually say- <60 pilots are pilots, we all age at varying rates depending on lots of factors, but age is a factor. I was sharper at 27 then at 43- my experience more than makes up for it-
>60- 65% are fine, 15-20% are marginal- it's annoying, but no less annoying than anybody of any age serving as captain that's less than sharp. And 15-20% are flat out incompetent in their jobs at this point. Meaning up to 85% are not a problem- so again I ask? We as FOs, without political power in our airlines are seeing these trends and correlations-

HOW MUCH OF A PERCENTAGE OF BAD PILOTS SHOULD I HAVE TO SERVE UNDER BEFORE WE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?

It's acceptable to you that 1 out of every 5 or 6 gummers that I fly with I'm doing their job in the safety compromised awkwardness of no authority and for less money? That's acceptable to you?

Or is it like Asiana- not a REAL safety issue to a management pilot like you until I let one crash?

Is that your standard yip?. Got to die or trash an airplane to be deemed unsafe or inappropriate?

Fly til you die if you can, no capts after 60.
 
Last edited:
"HOW MUCH OF A PERCENTAGE OF BAD PILOTS SHOULD I HAVE TO SERVE UNDER BEFORE WE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?"

The flip side of the coin, of course, are the younger pilots (20s -40s for example) who flail when the auto systems fail - blow through the loc on intercept, cannot fly a back course or VOR with a cross wind, etc. Or who are so busy trying to be party animals or trying to get laid (some of them even do!) that they cannot keep their eyes open and nod off. The list goes on.

Point is - the finger pointing at " gummers" can easily be balanced by finger pointing at irresponsible or inept pilots wearing not Depends but Pampers. It's all quite pointless. And shallow.

The tit for tat could go on forever and my hope was that bringing the subject back to the thread title might mellow things out. Guess I hoped for too much. :-(
 
"HOW MUCH OF A PERCENTAGE OF BAD PILOTS SHOULD I HAVE TO SERVE UNDER BEFORE WE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?"

The flip side of the coin, of course, are the younger pilots (20s -40s for example) who flail when the auto systems fail - blow through the loc on intercept, cannot fly a back course or VOR with a cross wind, etc. Or who are so busy trying to be party animals or trying to get laid (some of them even do!) that they cannot keep their eyes open and nod off. The list goes on.

Point is - the finger pointing at " gummers" can easily be balanced by finger pointing at irresponsible or inept pilots wearing not Depends but Pampers. It's all quite pointless. And shallow.

The tit for tat could go on forever and my hope was that bringing the subject back to the thread title might mellow things out. Guess I hoped for too much. :-(
Thank you Laker, I think we have pretty well established this about perceived greed, the younger guys want the money the over 60 guys are making.
 
"HOW MUCH OF A PERCENTAGE OF BAD PILOTS SHOULD I HAVE TO SERVE UNDER BEFORE WE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?"

The flip side of the coin, of course, are the younger pilots (20s -40s for example) who flail when the auto systems fail - blow through the loc on intercept, cannot fly a back course or VOR with a cross wind, etc. Or who are so busy trying to be party animals or trying to get laid (some of them even do!) that they cannot keep their eyes open and nod off. The list goes on.

Point is - the finger pointing at " gummers" can easily be balanced by finger pointing at irresponsible or inept pilots wearing not Depends but Pampers. It's all quite pointless. And shallow.

The tit for tat could go on forever and my hope was that bringing the subject back to the thread title might mellow things out. Guess I hoped for too much. :-(

40's? Really?

Here's the difference- one is a first officer. One is a captain. Which one gets paid to mentor the other? Which one doesn't?
 
Thank you Laker, I think we have pretty well established this about perceived greed, the younger guys want the money the over 60 guys are making.

ATFQ yip or just shut it- you're a one trick pony.

And yes- if I'm doing their job, and making the decisions in spite of them- I ought to be making the money they are. Why do you refuse to admit that pilots like all people decline with age?

I asked you a very straightforward question many posts ago: you highlighted your cargo schedule where pilots in their 20's and 30's were catching naps to make it through. And I asked, "true, but who could handle that schedule better, yip at 30 or yip at 60?

Says volumes that you won't answer.
 
The tit for tat could go on forever and my hope was that bringing the subject back to the thread title might mellow things out. Guess I hoped for too much. :-(

You want the tit for tat to stop? What needs to happen is for a well spoken, knowledgeable pilot like yourself to step forward an issue a bit of social enforcement. Something to the effect: "Age 65 was enough and it's time to get out guys".

Younger guys aren't playing a game; They have to take this sort of thread seriously. If the age gets raised again overnight, the same pilots furloughed the last two times will be furloughed again. There is no way in hell an increase in retirement age (one meant to correct age discrimination) should result in 7+ years of unexpected furlough for one age group, and 7 unexpected years of work for an older age group.

Second issue: If the age gets increased again, and like the last time it is absent any sort of way to allocate the experienced pilots who will be furloughed, it is a huge safety issue. If the age increase to 65 had been done without the seniority aggression, panic and greed of the older pilots who wanted it, there were at least two opportunities to have insured experience would have been kept on more flightdecks. Not just in the ones where an over age 60 pilot sat. Those opportunities were squandered last time in the old guy haste and Colgan happened. That can't be allowed to happen again.
 
ATFQ yip or just shut it- Why do you refuse to admit that pilots like all people decline with age?.
Still don't what the question is? BTW Something we agree on, ability declines with age, just not uniformly. To set one age as a the cut off ignores the more rapid decline of some of the younger pilots. One standard for all regardless of age.:laugh:
 

Latest resources

Back
Top