Mandatory Retirement Eliminated

[Guest rattler]

Just read the full decision. AC/ACPA got killed on all points. Tribunal reserving judgement on remedy subject to further submissions. Interesting that Jazz is mentioned several times but neither Jazz nor ALPA were parties to the proceeding.

Looks like a new issue for all Canadian carriers will be post age 65 pilots.

http://www1.carp.ca/PDF/20090828%20Tribuna...ilven-Kelly.pdf

Seems that Jazz is already in accordance with the ruling.

[150] This is similar to what was done at Air Canada Jazz to accommodate over 60 Captainswhen the pre-November 2006 ICAO restrictions prevented them from flying internationally.

Age 60 captains were required to bid a monthly Block which consisted solely of domesticpairings. An age 60 captain who was unable to hold a Block containing solely domestic pairingswas assigned a Reserve Block. If after 6 months, an age 60 captain could not hold a domestic Flying Block, he or she was required to choose from a list of specified options or, at the Company’s discretion, remain in his/her position.

[151] The kinds of arrangements made by Air Canada Jazz to accommodate over 60 captains are consistent with Professor Carmichael’s evidence. He testified that mandatory retirement is not the only way to protect the seniority and deferred compensation systems. Instead of forcing workers to retire at a certain age, the parties can agree that at a certain age, the terms and conditions of employment will change.

[rudder]

The question is whether the F/O will override protocol and culture if he senses that the old Geezer is freezing up.

Congrats dagger for the most ignorant comment on the thread. Exactly how many hours have you logged as a crew member on the flight deck?

You can sleep comfortably knowing that there are communications protocols (that will not be explained on this forum) contained in all carrier SOP's that deal with subtle or total pilot incapacitation. They apply equally to pilots under and over the age of 60.

[Vsplat]

Ignorant or not, Dagger is trying to express what a lot of us, including pilots feel.

It is a fact that risk of death and incapacitation from all causes increases with age. No one gets out alive in the end.

For all the hype about how good the over 60 crowd is, the sad fact is that decline is inescapable. Was 60 too early because pilots were retiring while fit? Isn't that the idea? What if you have the emergency of your career on your last day? The complainants all said they could handle it. Well, they damn well better have or they should have left earlier.

Now we are engaged in a grand experiment. At what point is the health of any subset of the pilot population no longer predictable using the aviation medical? How do we assess cognitive decline, knowing that most cases of dementia today are diagnosed years after the onset of symptoms?

This is nothing but a cash grab, aided an abetted by a vacuum-wrapped CHRT who are suckers for the 'poor me' argument. Even when 'poor me' is already enjoying a pension that is double the salary of the pilots whose careers have just stagnated, maybe ended. Of course, the remedies sought include suing the colleagues they now seek to fly with in the flight deck. If that isn't a sign of cognitive failure, I don't know what is.

Rant over

Vs

[CD]

Speaking of a grand experiment, I wonder how this might also play into the Multi-Crew Pilot Licence (MPL) experiment...

[rudder]

Ignorant or not, Dagger is trying to express what a lot of us, including pilots feel.

It is a fact that risk of death and incapacitation from all causes increases with age.  No one gets out alive in the end.

For all the hype about how good the over 60 crowd is, the sad fact is that decline is inescapable.  Was 60 too early because pilots were retiring while fit?  Isn't that the idea?  What if you have the emergency of your career on your last day?  The complainants all said they could handle it.  Well, they damn well better have or they should have left earlier.

Now we are engaged in a grand experiment.  At what point is the health of any subset of the pilot population no longer predictable using the aviation medical?  How do we assess cognitive decline, knowing that most cases of dementia today are diagnosed years after the onset of symptoms?

This is nothing but a cash grab, aided an abetted by a vacuum-wrapped CHRT who are suckers for the 'poor me' argument.  Even when 'poor me' is already enjoying a pension that is double the salary of the pilots whose careers have just stagnated, maybe ended.  Of course, the remedies sought include suing the colleagues they now seek to fly with in the flight deck.  If that isn't a sign of cognitive failure, I don't know what is.

Rant over

Vs

Wow. Perhaps we could also exclude the obese as they are at a higher risk of heart attack. And unlike aging, it is a self-inflicted condition. Did you know that there was a time when the prevailing wisdom was that women did not possess the competency to vote?

This is not about the will of the majority but rather about the rights of the minority. When the first post age 60 AC pilot takes his seat, I wonder if his fellow crew member, without the benefit of cyber anonymity, will make his or her true sentiments known? Probably not.

This is no grand experiment as almost all other Canadian commercial carriers and every major US airline employ pilots over the age of 60. Best to focus now on how to manage this new reality rather than to lament change.

[RFL]

My condolences to the F/O's. You are in for some very long, hard days when you should rightfully be able to put in a claim for CA pay. Be sure to start the day very well rested. Having spent 60% of my career as an F/O, I observed hundreds of pilots reach 60. About 20% were sharp to the end, I won't comment on the others.

My hope is that not many will take advantage of the "new" 60. As with the trio that instigated the ruling they will most likely fall into 3 categories:

1. Insecure types addicted to the ego boost of position and title and power

2. The avaricious

3. The fiscally incompetent

[Guest rattler]

Ignorant or not, Dagger is trying to express what a lot of us, including pilots feel.

It is a fact that risk of death and incapacitation from all causes increases with age. No one gets out alive in the end.

For all the hype about how good the over 60 crowd is, the sad fact is that decline is inescapable. Was 60 too early because pilots were retiring while fit? Isn't that the idea? What if you have the emergency of your career on your last day? The complainants all said they could handle it. Well, they damn well better have or they should have left earlier.

Now we are engaged in a grand experiment. At what point is the health of any subset of the pilot population no longer predictable using the aviation medical? How do we assess cognitive decline, knowing that most cases of dementia today are diagnosed years after the onset of symptoms?

This is nothing but a cash grab, aided an abetted by a vacuum-wrapped CHRT who are suckers for the 'poor me' argument. Even when 'poor me' is already enjoying a pension that is double the salary of the pilots whose careers have just stagnated, maybe ended. Of course, the remedies sought include suing the colleagues they now seek to fly with in the flight deck. If that isn't a sign of cognitive failure, I don't know what is.

Rant over

Vs

It is however interesting when you review the various fatal incidnets over the past few years that are due to pilot error and then look at the age of those involved. It would seem that advanced age is not a factor.

Human error causes more than half of all aviation accidents. Records of all the fatal human error accidents available at Dte. of Flight Safety from 01 Apr 1996 to 01 May 2001 were analysed for various

factors such as age of the Pilot, total flying hours, type of aircraft and rating of the Pilot. Human factors were analysed in detail for factors such as inexperience, breach of discipline and lack of situational awareness. Pilot error accounted for 68% of all fatal aircraft accidents followed by Technical defect 22.9%.

Mig–21 is the commonest aircraft involved and accounted for 50% of all accidents. Nearly 50% of the aircrew were aged between 24 – 26 years with mean service flying hours of 900 hours and 200 hours on type with Ops/White instrument rating. Among the human factors incorrect decision accounted for 48.6% of all

accidents followed by lack of situational awareness (40%) and Poor Skills (36%). Weather accounts for 10% of all fatal aircraft accidents.

IJASM 2003;

http://medind.nic.in/iab/t03/i1/iabt03i1p30.pdf

[Vsplat]

rattler, the number of carriers using over age 60 pilots to date has been small. The US has only just changed, AC not yet.

The sad thing about stats is that they are generated forensically, so it will take time for the effects of this to really register.

Rudder - your bias is clear and your post bizarre.

Vs

[rudder]

My condolences to the F/O's. You are in for some very long, hard days when you should rightfully be able to put in a claim for CA pay. Be sure to start the day very well rested. Having spent 60% of my career as an F/O, I observed hundreds of pilots reach 60. About 20% were sharp to the end, I won't comment on the others.

My hope is that not many will take advantage of the "new" 60. As with the trio that instigated the ruling they will most likely fall into 3 categories:

1. Insecure types addicted to the ego boost of position and title and power

2. The avaricious

3. The fiscally incompetent

Here is the good news:

- at least 25% of the affected pilots will lose their medical before age 65

- another 25% will realise that they have already accrued a full pension and that they are basically working for free if they stay after age 60

- another 25% have life plans that do not include sitting up all night at 37,000 feet over yet another ocean only to arrive in daylight at a hotel dead tired and be told that the rooms aren't ready yet

Giving pilots the right to remain after age 60 does not necessarily mean that they can or will.

[moeman]

Could ACPA vote in a clause in the contract stating that pilots go to the bottom of the list at age 60, or is it too late for that?

[Vsplat]

That would be age discrimination between active employees - verboten.

Vs

[Canus Chinookus]

If ANY airline allows an incompetent captain to get through sim and be allowed to touch the controls of an airplane, REGARDLESS of age, then they deserve to have the book thrown at them. We have medicals and simulator sessions every 6 months for a reason, so I thought. I don't give a damn about any pilot's age, as long as they are safe behind the stick.

[Guest rattler]

rattler, the number of carriers using over age 60 pilots to date has been small.  The US has only just changed, AC not yet.

The sad thing about stats is that they are generated forensically, so it will take time for the effects of this to really register. 

Rudder - your bias is clear and your post bizarre. 

Vs

VS, based on your reasoning regarding older pilots, the group nearing 60 should have many more accidents that those who are younger and the stats do not bear that out...... In fact it seems that the older the pilot gets, the safer he / she is. Why is 60 a magic age regarding lost abilities?

consider the following article:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UB...12/ai_53174130/

I support Canus Chinookus's viewpoint, if you can pass the medical and are otherwise judged fit to fly, why shouldn't you?????????

[IFG]

.... Rudder - your bias is clear and your post bizarre. 

... as is your own, V-splat. The problem with your posts is that they do not in any way deal with the record of over-60 flying, in either the medical area, or the management of risk. Instead, you conflate an unsubstantiated safety concern with the economic considerations that clearly drive the passions of those ranting on here about flying past age 60 - and there is plenty of bizarre nonsense on that front!

I'm sure that you've been at this long enough to be keenly aware of the pitfalls that lie in the conflation of economic self-interest with alleged safety issues, and the indirect effect of that on genuine ones. That's what seems to be going on here, unless somebody produces some substantiation.

Otherwise, how about arguing the economic or ethical cases on their own merits.

IMHO - Cheers, IFG

p.s. ... not sure of my own bias here. I don't favor the type of law that the US had, and many pilots have made no collective commitments to scheduled retirement, but any well-intentioned but misdirected push to intercept cognitive (or any other) decline in a non-discriminitory manner could well be a trip down a road we don't want to travel ... some sort of mandated retirement at least ducks the issue

[dagger]

Congrats dagger for the most ignorant comment on the thread. Exactly how many hours have you logged as a crew member on the flight deck?

You can sleep comfortably knowing that there are communications protocols (that will not be explained on this forum) contained in all carrier SOP's that deal with subtle or total pilot incapacitation. They apply equally to pilots under and over the age of 60.

Rudder, like it or not passengers have a view on this, too. While I wouldn't be disturbed flying with a 62 year old in control, where's the cutoff? 70? 75? I don't care if a 75 year old can dance a hornpipe while whistling Rule Britannia - I'd consider walking off his aircraft. I'm not sure he should be behind the wheel of a car either, but at least I don't have to pay to be a passenger in his car.

I also don't know how this helps the pilot community with its argument against long duty days. What's long for a 50 year old is probably way too long for a 75 year old, but if the 75 year old who is flying mainly for the ego or the hell of it thinks he's up to flying the daily maximum, then surely a 50 year old should have no gripe about the safety of the current max duty day.

[Canus Chinookus]

I don't think you have to worry, Daggy baby, about a similar scenario to letting grandma or grandpa behind the wheel past their due date. We have a system in place for that.

[Cargo Agent]

I don't think you have to worry, Daggy baby, about a similar scenario to letting grandma or grandpa behind the wheel past their due date.  We have a system in place for that.

In Ontario,

" Once you reach 80 years of age, your driver's licence will be renewed every 2 years instead of every 5 years. You will have to go through a different process to renew your licence.

To renew your licence you will have to attend a driver's licence renewal session with other senior drivers. At this session, you will:

* Have your vision tested — to learn more, go to the vision section below

* Take a multiple-choice test on traffic rules and signs — to learn more, go to the test section below.

* Participate in a group education session — a ministry counsellor will teach a small group of seniors about how aging affects driving, tips on driving and new traffic laws (lasts about 90 minutes) — to learn more, go to the group education section below."

Where's the sim time? Not exactly inspiring confidence that the aged that pass are actually roadworthy.

[conehead]

Where's the sim time? Not exactly inspiring confidence that the aged that pass are actually roadworthy.

The driving school I sent my teenagers to uses simulators. A fair bit more expensive than most other driving schools, but I see the value in sim time.

http://www.drivewisecanada.com/

[Vsplat]

rattler, IFG. Let's talk about safety before 60 and safety after.

The curve of decline is not linear. As I indicated in my posts up the line on this thread, I fully expect pilots who retire at 60 to be fit. Otherwise, for the reasons others have already posted, they should have already left the line.

The problem is not what happens the week after one turns 60. It is in finding out when that person is no longer fit. We simply do not have a method of measuring fitness in a pilot group that has aged significantly beyond 60. All we knew was that 60 was good enough.

You don't have to take my word for it. ICAO recognised this problem when they looked at age 60 in 1989.

Pointing to current stats is, as I've mentioned, pointless. The body of pilots flying well beyond 60 remains statistically insignificant. It will take years for the group to grow and for enough pilots to reach the point of medical decline while active. Remember that pilots who fail their medical are generally not fit when they walk in, but there isn't a measure of when they lost fitness. A day, a week, 5 months?

IFG, you mention risk. There is not a single change to risk mitigation in place to address an unbounded upper age. The increased medical frequency starts at age 40, but the medical itself is unchanged. That is contrary to ICAO's own study (again referencing the 89 paper)

I am approaching my final years in the flight deck. The docs tell me I am in better shape than the average in my group. Like most my age, I feel the ridiculously eary wakeups, the numerous time zone changes more than I used to. What about those who the docs pass with a warning? Where will they be at age 64?

Hanging up my spurs and turning attention to more life giving interests at 60 has been a goal, not a punishment. Despite all the spin, there comes a time when we have to recognise that the curve of human physiology intercepts the curve of experience. The trouble is, we do not come with built in self test equipment.

Relying on our checkers and physicians to tell a once-proud pilot that they have stayed too long and are now a liability is a mistake.

But that is just my opinion.

Vs

[Seeker]

I support Canus Chinookus's viewpoint, if you can pass the medical and are otherwise judged fit to fly, why shouldn't you?????????

I think you're missing the point. Every AC pilot I've talked too has the same thing to say; no one is against working to age 65 in general, the problem is that at AC retirement has always been 60 so to suddenly extend it to 65 is hugely destabilizing. Every year there would be approximately 100 retirements and of course these would be from the top of the list - a somewhat predictable upward flow of upgrades to 777 Capt from 767 Capt and to 767 Capt from 320 Capt. Now imagine that for 5 years there are no retirements (yes, I do know that some will still retire or be medicaled out) and you see the problem. I have no issue with age 65 except for the fact that age 60 retirement was written into our contract and has been the accepted norm.

[anonymous]

The issue here is economic greed, that's it. Don't wrap in anything else...When did Mr Kelly or Vilven file their complaints about age discrimination? At age xx when they were hired? No? How about 59 1/2 or 60, just about the time they were up on the chopping block. If they had filed 20 or 30 years ago, then they would have had every right to complain....but funny enough, they didn't, and now they want their cake and tort and pie and custard and pudding and gateau and eat them all. The ultimate in hypocrites. And yes, just wait until one of they types gets in the seat and the FO and or CRP walks off. It will happen.

[Guest rattler]

Rudder, like it or not passengers have a view on this, too. While I wouldn't be disturbed flying with a 62 year old in control, where's the cutoff? 70? 75? I don't care if a 75 year old can dance a hornpipe while whistling Rule Britannia - I'd consider walking off his aircraft. I'm not sure he should be behind the wheel of a car either, but at least I don't have to pay to be a passenger in his car.

I also don't know how this helps the pilot community with its argument against long duty days. What's long for a 50 year old is probably way too long for a 75 year old, but if the 75 year old who is flying mainly for the ego or the hell of it thinks he's up to flying the daily maximum, then surely a 50 year old should have no gripe about the safety of the current max duty day.

Dagger, do you feel the same way about older Physicians and Surgeons who typically continue to practise until they feel the need to quit? For my part I would prefer to be in an aircraft operated by a 65 year old pilot who has passed all recent qualifications / tests (medical and otherwise) than be treated by a medical professional of the same age who does not have to submit to the same standards to continue their practise. Perhaps it is time to review the standards for other occupations and bring them up to the same level as those applied to older pilots.

On a lighter note, I guess the new ruling will also allow our Senators to serve beyond their present age 75 cap.

[chockalicious]

Why can't we start these damn pairings earlier in the day????

[Mr Sparkler]

The issue here is economic greed, that's it. Don't wrap in anything else...When did Mr Kelly or Vilven file their complaints about age discrimination? At age xx when they were hired? No? How about 59 1/2 or 60, just about the time they were up on the chopping block. If they had filed 20 or 30 years ago, then they would have had every right to complain....but funny enough, they didn't, and now they want their cake and tort and pie and custard and pudding and gateau and eat them all. The ultimate in hypocrites. And yes, just wait until one of they types gets in the seat and the FO and or CRP walks off. It will happen.

+1

[RFL]

+1

The issue here is economic greed, that's it. Don't wrap in anything else...When did Mr Kelly or Vilven file their complaints about age discrimination? At age xx when they were hired? No? How about 59 1/2 or 60, just about the time they were up on the chopping block. If they had filed 20 or 30 years ago, then they would have had every right to complain....but funny enough, they didn't, and now they want their cake and tort and pie and custard and pudding and gateau and eat them all. The ultimate in hypocrites. And yes, just wait until one of they types gets in the seat and the FO and or CRP walks off. It will happen.

Absolutely. And don't forget Mr. H's fingerprints are all over this one. Some people are in for some very lonely overnights, but having seen their social skills it will be nothing new to them.