AV8OR
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2001
- Posts
- 696
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
Repeal of Age 60 rule
- Thread starter 250scp
- Start date
- Watchers 23
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
250scp
A rebuttal to the argument you used under several different titles that implies younger pilots are safer than older ones. Granted a pilot 90 is safer than one 40, but is there a quantifiable difference between 61 or 65 yr old pilot versus a 30 yr old or 40 yr old. This study would indicate there is no medical evidence or empirical data to justify such a claim. I enjoyed reading your thoughts though, unemotional with some detail & thought. Just wanted to give another opinion on the "safety" issue.
May 22, 2003
MEDIA CONTACT: Karen Blum
PHONE: 410-955-1534
E-MAIL: [email protected]
Older Pilots Ok to Fly, Study Shows
An airplane pilot's experience is a better indication of crash risk
than his or her age, Johns Hopkins researchers say.
They found in a study of 3,306 commuter plane pilots that those
with more than 5,000 hours of flight experience had less than half the
risk of a crash
than less experienced counterparts. Results are published in the
May 15 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology.
During the study period, the pilots flew 12.9 million flight hours
and had 66 aviation crashes, yielding a crash rate of 5.1 per million
pilot flight hours.
Crash risk remained stable as the pilots aged from their late 40s
to late 50s. One hundred and five study subjects died, 27 of whom were
fatally injured
in aviation crashes.
"Federal aviation regulations prohibit airline pilots from flying
beyond the age of 60, but the relationship between pilot age and safety
had never been
rigorously assessed," says Guohua Li, M.D., Dr.P.H., lead author of
the study and professor of emergency medicine and of health policy and
management. "Performance in most flight-related tasks such as
decision-making, tracking, takeoff and landing does not differ
significantly between older
and younger pilots. The lack of an association between pilot age
and crash risk may reflect a strong 'healthy worker effect' from the
rigorous medical
standards and periodic physical examinations required for
professional pilots."
Among the pilots studied by Li and colleagues, 99 percent were male
and 69 percent were ages 45 to 49. On average, the pilots had 9,749
hours of
total flight time and 287 flight hours in the six months prior to
the start of the study. The majority of pilots (86 percent) did not have
any health problems
although 68 percent required corrective lenses for distant or near
vision.
Researchers tracked their exposure to flight and safety performance
from 1987 to 1997, using records from the Federal Aviation
Administration, the
National Transportation Safety Board and the National Death Index
as guidelines.
"Our study indicates that chronologic age by itself has little
bearing on safety performance," says Susan P. Baker, co-author of the
study and professor
of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School
of Public Health. "What really matters are age-related changes, such as
health
status and flight experience."
The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Other
authors were Jurek G. Grabowski, Yandong Qiang, Melissa L. McCarthy and
George W. Rebok.
- -JHMI- -
Li, Guohua et al, "Age, Flight Experience and Risk of Crash
Involvement in a Cohort of Professional Pilots," American Journal of
Epidemiology, Vol. 157, No. 10, pages 874-880.
Links:
Johns Hopkins' Department of Emergency Medicine
http://www.acenet.jhmi.edu/emerg/index.html
American Journal of Epidemiology
http://aje.oupjournals.org/
A rebuttal to the argument you used under several different titles that implies younger pilots are safer than older ones. Granted a pilot 90 is safer than one 40, but is there a quantifiable difference between 61 or 65 yr old pilot versus a 30 yr old or 40 yr old. This study would indicate there is no medical evidence or empirical data to justify such a claim. I enjoyed reading your thoughts though, unemotional with some detail & thought. Just wanted to give another opinion on the "safety" issue.
May 22, 2003
MEDIA CONTACT: Karen Blum
PHONE: 410-955-1534
E-MAIL: [email protected]
Older Pilots Ok to Fly, Study Shows
An airplane pilot's experience is a better indication of crash risk
than his or her age, Johns Hopkins researchers say.
They found in a study of 3,306 commuter plane pilots that those
with more than 5,000 hours of flight experience had less than half the
risk of a crash
than less experienced counterparts. Results are published in the
May 15 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology.
During the study period, the pilots flew 12.9 million flight hours
and had 66 aviation crashes, yielding a crash rate of 5.1 per million
pilot flight hours.
Crash risk remained stable as the pilots aged from their late 40s
to late 50s. One hundred and five study subjects died, 27 of whom were
fatally injured
in aviation crashes.
"Federal aviation regulations prohibit airline pilots from flying
beyond the age of 60, but the relationship between pilot age and safety
had never been
rigorously assessed," says Guohua Li, M.D., Dr.P.H., lead author of
the study and professor of emergency medicine and of health policy and
management. "Performance in most flight-related tasks such as
decision-making, tracking, takeoff and landing does not differ
significantly between older
and younger pilots. The lack of an association between pilot age
and crash risk may reflect a strong 'healthy worker effect' from the
rigorous medical
standards and periodic physical examinations required for
professional pilots."
Among the pilots studied by Li and colleagues, 99 percent were male
and 69 percent were ages 45 to 49. On average, the pilots had 9,749
hours of
total flight time and 287 flight hours in the six months prior to
the start of the study. The majority of pilots (86 percent) did not have
any health problems
although 68 percent required corrective lenses for distant or near
vision.
Researchers tracked their exposure to flight and safety performance
from 1987 to 1997, using records from the Federal Aviation
Administration, the
National Transportation Safety Board and the National Death Index
as guidelines.
"Our study indicates that chronologic age by itself has little
bearing on safety performance," says Susan P. Baker, co-author of the
study and professor
of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School
of Public Health. "What really matters are age-related changes, such as
health
status and flight experience."
The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Other
authors were Jurek G. Grabowski, Yandong Qiang, Melissa L. McCarthy and
George W. Rebok.
- -JHMI- -
Li, Guohua et al, "Age, Flight Experience and Risk of Crash
Involvement in a Cohort of Professional Pilots," American Journal of
Epidemiology, Vol. 157, No. 10, pages 874-880.
Links:
Johns Hopkins' Department of Emergency Medicine
http://www.acenet.jhmi.edu/emerg/index.html
American Journal of Epidemiology
http://aje.oupjournals.org/
250scp
Active member
- Joined
- May 9, 2002
- Posts
- 30
Chase
I think you misunderstood my previous posts. I've never meant to imply younger pilots are safer than older pilots. Experience counts alot and, as the saying goes, "there are no old, bold pilots." The longer you've flown, the more options you'll have in your bag of tricks. Thats a simple fact.
My point all along is this; if the Age 60 rule is changed, a UAL furloughee like myself won't be able to get back on the property for another 10 years. The delay will be caused by the retired pilots who will go to court to get their jobs back, seniority stagnation caused by pushing the retirement ceremonies back another 3-5 years, the unknown time it will take for the economy to rebound, and the need for the flying public to once again have faith in the airline industry as a reliable and not tragic form of transportation.
Age 60 is an aribitrary number. If it had been 63 all these years and the Congress or FAA wanted to change it to 65 or 67 I'd still have heartburn. The longer people wait to retire after a prosperous career, the longer it takes guys like myself the opportunity to experience what they've already enjoyed.
From my vantage point, any change in the retirement age would be the flying equivalent of a fecal tsunami...and I don't know how to surf.
I think you misunderstood my previous posts. I've never meant to imply younger pilots are safer than older pilots. Experience counts alot and, as the saying goes, "there are no old, bold pilots." The longer you've flown, the more options you'll have in your bag of tricks. Thats a simple fact.
My point all along is this; if the Age 60 rule is changed, a UAL furloughee like myself won't be able to get back on the property for another 10 years. The delay will be caused by the retired pilots who will go to court to get their jobs back, seniority stagnation caused by pushing the retirement ceremonies back another 3-5 years, the unknown time it will take for the economy to rebound, and the need for the flying public to once again have faith in the airline industry as a reliable and not tragic form of transportation.
Age 60 is an aribitrary number. If it had been 63 all these years and the Congress or FAA wanted to change it to 65 or 67 I'd still have heartburn. The longer people wait to retire after a prosperous career, the longer it takes guys like myself the opportunity to experience what they've already enjoyed.
From my vantage point, any change in the retirement age would be the flying equivalent of a fecal tsunami...and I don't know how to surf.
How can it be a safety issue when people say, "Go fly at NetJets...."? My other point is the flip side of 250scp - I have come to the conclusion that my odds of making it to a major grow slimmer with every passing day - my best bet is staying at my regional with my seniority and working a few extra years (the 6 extra in the bill would be a nice.) I do find it telling that ALPA dares not put this to a vote of its members....
shagadelic
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2002
- Posts
- 309
Just got a SWAPA Hot Flash telling us to call congressmen to support age 60 repeal...For those of us against Age 60 repeal, I've pulled out the highlights. If furloughees would like to see a cockpit anytime in the future, I'd call now and tell your congressman to vote no!
"It is extremely important that you fax and/or call your respective
Senators regarding age 60. Your call or fax must be done immediately.
There is a vote coming as early as Monday that will determine if this bill has any chance of passing this session. ALPA is agressively working against this repeal.
If you need fax and phone numbers, click on the following link:
http://www.swapa.org/union/committees/govtaffairs/govtaffairs.asp and then click 'Contact Congress'
Do it now!!!!"
"It is extremely important that you fax and/or call your respective
Senators regarding age 60. Your call or fax must be done immediately.
There is a vote coming as early as Monday that will determine if this bill has any chance of passing this session. ALPA is agressively working against this repeal.
If you need fax and phone numbers, click on the following link:
http://www.swapa.org/union/committees/govtaffairs/govtaffairs.asp and then click 'Contact Congress'
Do it now!!!!"
NEO
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2002
- Posts
- 29
This topic is POINTLESS to debate. It comes down to these two sides
CON: age 60 rule
1. I am getting ready to retire, the stock market is down.. therefore I need to work a couple of more years so I can retire like a fat cat. Or... I have been furloughed 5 times over my 20 year career and just when things are getting good, I have to retire. Or... I decided to retire from the military at age 48. The age 60 rule would force me out just as the money gets good.
PRO: age 60 rule
2. I am furloughed, about to be furloughed, waiting in an endless pool, or waiting to be interviewed. All the while working odd jobs to make ends meet or on the verge of bankruptcy. Since the airlines are not expanding (in fact shrinking), the only chance I have for employment again in the near future is through attrition. Or... I have been in the SWA / FDX pool for 2 years and will be bumped back another year because of slow growth and a reductions in the number of retirees. Or... I am young in the company and my seniority (i.e. bad schedule and pay) will stagnate due to no movement at the top.
ALL WHO WANT JOBS FOR THE YOUNG..... VOTE NO.
ALL WHO WANT TO PAD THE RETIREMENTS OF THE SENIOR... VOTE YES.
CON: age 60 rule
1. I am getting ready to retire, the stock market is down.. therefore I need to work a couple of more years so I can retire like a fat cat. Or... I have been furloughed 5 times over my 20 year career and just when things are getting good, I have to retire. Or... I decided to retire from the military at age 48. The age 60 rule would force me out just as the money gets good.
PRO: age 60 rule
2. I am furloughed, about to be furloughed, waiting in an endless pool, or waiting to be interviewed. All the while working odd jobs to make ends meet or on the verge of bankruptcy. Since the airlines are not expanding (in fact shrinking), the only chance I have for employment again in the near future is through attrition. Or... I have been in the SWA / FDX pool for 2 years and will be bumped back another year because of slow growth and a reductions in the number of retirees. Or... I am young in the company and my seniority (i.e. bad schedule and pay) will stagnate due to no movement at the top.
ALL WHO WANT JOBS FOR THE YOUNG..... VOTE NO.
ALL WHO WANT TO PAD THE RETIREMENTS OF THE SENIOR... VOTE YES.
WhiteCloud
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2002
- Posts
- 1,012
WhiteCloud
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2002
- Posts
- 1,012
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
