Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
Attitude: the most effective predictor of safety...Some guys I know do ok as they approach 65. Some guys should have been taken out behind the woodshed at 30.
Attitude: the most effective predictor of safety...Some guys I know do ok as they approach 65. Some guys should have been taken out behind the woodshed at 30.
There is no requirement for public hearings on regulations. It was legally implemented. And it should have stayed implemented.
WacoFan said:Interesting that the young pilots completely boned the older guys out of greed and selfishness...and then five years ago the older guys boned the young. Karma sucks when it goes against you.
Except the young pilots never did that. Age 60 was the result of management collusion with the FAA administrator to reduce longevity and sick time costs. Young pilots had nothing to do with it.
"Screw you, I got mine" is not limited to this industry.Interesting that the young pilots completely boned the older guys out of greed and selfishness...and then five years ago the older guys boned the young. Karma sucks when it goes against you.
I posted the data in the last thread that showed exactly what the value was. Accident/incident numbers start to increase at age 55, and they skyrocket at 60.
But there's no reason to have this debate again. No one is going to change their minds.
Some guys I know do ok as they approach 65. Some guys should have been taken out behind the woodshed at 30.
Except the young pilots never did that. Age 60 was the result of management collusion with the FAA administrator to reduce longevity and sick time costs. Young pilots had nothing to do with it.
There is no effective means of testing cognitive abilities in an efficient manner that you could do regularly for all pilots. The only efficient solution is an artificial cutoff line at a certain age based on the statistics, which is exactly what Age 60 was.
well maybe someone will change his mind...Accident/incident numbers start to increase at age 55, and they skyrocket at 60.
But there's no reason to have this debate again. No one is going to change their minds.
There is no effective means of testing cognitive abilities in an efficient manner that you could do regularly for all pilots. The only efficient solution is an artificial cutoff line at a certain age based on the statistics, which is exactly what Age 60 was.
I like to argue with myself...argue with myself oh oh oh....(to the tune of dancing with myself)Age 60 was the result of management collusion with the FAA administrator to reduce longevity and sick time costs.
Do you have a pointer to that data? I find it highly suspect.
If that's the case, then curiously, why was ALPA leadership seemingly for the extension to Age 65 prior to 1968? After that, they changed their mind and went with the FAA, at least according to Morgan in his article. What would've prompted that change of heart with the leadership, if not from the feelings of the junior membership?
This was true 5 years ago, but much less so now. We have several ways to conduct cognitive testing that appear fairly reliable. Even aside from that, I would say that a well designed sim eval would capture the issues involved, with a combination of looking at complex scenarios and startle situations.
There has been significant work on this topic in recent years. Pamela Tsang has been involved in some of this work. The fact is that there are metacognitive abilities that correlate with experience and offset the perceived value of a "younger" pilot.
I would be in favor of limited cog testing, HOWEVER, the compensation needs to increase
Of course I'll get called an uppity U-Boat Commander for this, but I'm pretty happy with my employers use of MMPI's, cognitive testing and psychologists during the screening process.
I could swiftly name five pilots at Skyway which I wanted to strangle, out of a group of 120 pilots. What, 5%?
After 15-ish years at Southernjets, out of almost 12,000 pilots, there are probably two or three which I'd love to conveniently run into in a dark alleyway. 0.025%?
Unscientific, of course.