Why the objection? Especially when the current medicals are not much of a pain at all, at least in my experience.
Age 60 rule, according to Len Morgan
- Thread starter MikeD
- Start date
Why the objection? Especially when the current medicals are not much of a pain at all, at least in my experience.
Springer
Well-Known Member
Bingo. I saw more than a few copilots lacking that. "Would you mind putting that book away until we at least passed the transition altitude?"
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I consider anything a pain in the ass that can prematurely end a career.
You know, they were pretty simple, almost wanted to look for the hidden camera and see if Allen Funt was going to pop out and say "You're on candid camera!".
The MMPI was cake as you just answer it honestly without trying to "outthink" it.
I could see it annually, every six months completing an MMPI and psych module would be a little extreme. However if it thinned the herd of some people that really don't belong behind the yoke and we were paid for the professionals we are (again, I know, fat chance, but don't we have guys in Herndon that are supposedly working on this?
), I would entertain a discussion about this.If it's one less whackadoo blathering about burying weapons and cans of Spaghetti-O's in their front yard for the apocalypse... Good! (*)
Now back to why I hate flow-through programs...
* - Yes, my opinion on this is privy to change at any point before I croak.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
Well I will probably get roasted for saying this but... We all want the same thing: pilot scarcity. So when your looking for a job you don't have to grovel, while you have a job you don't have to grovel and when you leave a job you don't have to grovel. You can just get a good job. We all want a world where a pilots experience and reliability commands a great salary. I'm sure we would all like to live in that reality. The best way is to tighten the medical standards to the point that a pilot likely wouldn't make it to age 65. Now before you get out your flame throwers and rocks to beat me down. Just consider it for a moment. Disability insurance is available. Employers would have to pay attention to the pilots health in fear of losing a valuable pilot. Unlike now where pilots are ground into dust until they can reach retirement and die. Once the pilot supply had been reduced the wages, quality of life and schedules would all improve. Pilot shortage? Well here is one way.
Even for legitimate reasons, such as heart conditions, mental health issues, etc.?
Bumblebee
Commodore
Age 60
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
No, obviously if someone has a heart condition, it sucks, but their career probably has to end. But much like Boris was talking about in another thread about mental health screening, I just don't trust the cognitive testing to be accurate enough to end someone's career. I think a lot of people would see their careers unnecessarily end.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Age 60 isn't "premature." It's what we all signed up for.
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
A pilot with a heart condition may well never have an issue that would incapacitate him, and the chances of it happening at a critical phase of flight (as opposed to walking up a set of stairs at home) is probably pretty low, yet it is OK to remove him from the cockpit for the greater good. So how many pilots will lose their medical for this kind of condition, and what is the level of increase in flight safety? How often would we have an incident/accident if we DIDN'T screen for these medical issues, and isn't it blatantly unfair to remove pilots from the seat that will probably never have an issue that affects a flight? It appears to me that the odds of actually preventing a problem are really low, yet the stakes are high enough that we have decided that the cost to many, many pilot's lives is worth it.
How is mental health screening different?
Bumblebee
Commodore
it's different because it doesn't fit the narrative.
You're wrong, because that's what we all signed up for...except that it was an arbitrary rule put in place unscrupulously, and then later accepted by the young, who realized (shortsightedly) that they could have the seats when they forced the old buggers out.
Age sixty (or 65) should be rejected. Period. It's based on economics, not data. It is defended by those who want what they want when they want it...( so greedy junior people and greedy executives, both)
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Ok. I think you've convinced me to allow people with heart conditions to keep flying.
Still not convincing me to allow people to fly at any age, though.
seagull
Well-Known Member
Not true. Perhaps the types of scenarios you have experienced would not, but we do know enough to be able to run one that does, as I described.
seagull
Well-Known Member
Well, as you were the one to provide the information in that thread (you said), then can you not provide it here again?
seagull
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that you're pretty young. I know the move to change the age was afoot in the early 80s, so if you became a pilot on some assumption it would not change, it was you, amigo, who did not do their homework. I think the change was very predictable from the 1970's onward based on the changing demographics, health improvements and political factors. I actually thought it would have changed a lot sooner, I expected it to happen in the late 80s to early 90s, but recessions and other events got the issue sidetracked, I think.
My thinking is that cognitive & skill screening makes more sense than using an arbitrary age limit as a determining factor. But since you apparently would rather use an arbitrary guideline such as a person's age as a cutoff for cognitive ability and physical skills rather than actual testing, then why not also use a more arbitrary method of determining when to pull medicals for potential health issues as well? Rather then use direct evidence of heart disease, let's arbitrarily pull the medical of everyone that is more than 30 pounds over their ideal weight since obesity is huge risk factor for many potential health issues (not just heart conditions), just as age is risk factor for potential cognitive and physical issues?Ok. I think you've convinced me to allow people with heart conditions to keep flying.
The reality is that I don't think you want cognitive testing (in lieu of age limits) because it doesn't get more senior pilots out of your way quickly enough. You throw out the red herring of it being an additional hurdle for pilots and the additional potential for a few to lose their medical (rightfully so, I would argue!), while ignoring the fact that a hard retirement age is the biggest hurdle of all - nobody gets past that one.
It is interesting in Morgan's article what he mentions that the FAA does issue or re-issue pilots medicals for: pilots with personality or mental disorders or who were on meds for the same, former alcoholics, etc. Yet an arbitrary age is given as a hard-fast rule that no pilot can fly past.
ShyFlyer
CAP Member
I always thought that AA's C.R. Smith was the major force behind the rule. Basically, he wanted to kick out the older higher paid pilots and replace them with younger, lower paid pilots.
Similar threads
- Locked