It has nothing to do with fitness. Flying an airline is not physically challenging. Sudden incapacitation is not a significant problem and, in the rare cases where it can occurred, the other pilot has always been able to land the airplane safetly.

The problem is the deterioration in mental function with age. The ability to maintain situational awareness, monitor and perform multiple tasks simultaneously, avoid becoming too easily confused, etc. are the issues that are otherwise not addressed. There is nothing in the current recurrent training and medical certification that addresses these issues.

Acltually, the US is not in compliance with the ICAO age recommondations either. The ICAO recommondation is age 60 for Captains and age 65 for First Officers. The US rule applies age 60 to both pilots.

Well, but.... certainly it is true that there is a gradual mental deterioration that occurs with aging; a slowing of reaction times, and many other changes. BUT there are also HUGE individual differences among people, such that there are SOME 60-year-olds who are much more alert, perceptive, and capable of multi-tasking than SOME 20-year-olds. You only need to look at the way people drive to realize this!!! :eek:

And on the other topic of mandatory retirement ages for FAs, as many of you already know, there is at least one FA in her eighties still working for UA; she's been with them since the 1940's, I believe. I have mixed feelings about this. I saw her in action on a KIX-SFO flight. She was the purser, and seemed very nice, conscientious, hard-working, etc., but there are reports that she is absent-minded and others have to "cover" her in case she forgets something important. :( But I do have to applaud her amazing spirit and dedication. ^

I agree 100%.

But, how would you suggest we come up with a fair and impartial test to quantify this, and verify one's fitness for command??

And, one that would be accepted by the various pilot's unions?

It's a really knotty subject.

Much as LarryJ said with regard to pilots, with ATCs it also has to go with the deterioriation in mental function with regard to performing multiple tasks and maintaining situational awareness and so forth. While there is an upper age hiring limit, this situation has played out in the rehiring of some of the fired PATCO controllers. Of those I know, even they admit that after having a lengthy break, they are no longer able to do the job with a great degree of skill. There are actually few controllers above age 50 who can perform well at the busiest sectors. Many realize this and decide by then to take desk jobs if they're unprepared for retirement. Then there's also the issue of the working conditions - most work rotating shifts, often with eight hours in between shifts (keep in mind this period includes commute both ways, showering, eating, etc). There aren't many 30somethings who perform well with five hours of sleep. It can be much worse the older one gets.

As for testing, the FAA has done tests and has found controllers peak at their jobs in their 30s.

If a person has these problems at 20 then it's unlikely that they would be able to aquire the skills necessary to be an airline pilot. It is much harder to learn somthing new than it is to continue doing what you have been doing for years.

In many cases these older pilots have lost their jobs when they were unable to transition to new airplanes as their older airplanes were phased out of the fleet. Many older pilots were unable to make the transition from props to jets and some had the same problem going to the automated cockpits. There isn't much challenge in passing a checkride in an airplane that you've been flying for a decade or more even if you aren't thinking as fast as you should. The checkride can be done mostly by rote after a few years. You know what manuevers are required and you know how to make the simulator do them within tollerances.

Most pilots can safely fly to age 60. The problem is that we don't have anyway to weed them out when deterioration begins but BEFORE they've become unsafe. Age 60 gets most pilots out of the cockpit before they become unsafe which is what it is intended to do.

I think a lot of these mandatory retirement age things are union-driven to ensure a smaller supply and therefore higher price for labor. It also is very attractive to the newer members as it means less of a wiat for someone to die so they can get a better job.

I would be very surprised if the Pilot's union was in support of repealing this, as it totally works to their advantage. Even for the older pilots, since one of the justifications for high pilot wages is that they face mandatory retirement.

I agree that a blanket number is preposterous and frankly, to me it is age discrimination. Why not have annual mandatory testing which should apply to all pilots regardless of age. I'm not suggesting that age is not a factor in safety; it is one of the factors hence there ought to be testing.

Excellent point. I'm sure you are right....unfortunately.

They do. All pilots have medical checks at least annually (if not twice a year) and undergo simulator training /evaluations twice a year.

In addition, there are line check flights, where they are evaluated while flying a revenue flight.

Many pilots are prematurally retired due to medical problems. The ones that make it to 60 are the survivors.

Additionally, I have read in the past that pilots as a group have a substantially lower life expectancy than other groups. I don't recall the exact numbers, but was surprised at how few actually make it to 70.

Yes, of course that's true. My point was simply to illustrate that there are huge individual differences, and therefore that some pilots, in spite of aging, may very well still be fit to fly at 60, while others probably ought to have retired years earlier. :eek:

There is no one, single, pilot union. There are many pilot unions and each determines it's own policy. Here are a couple of examples.

The largest pilot's union is ALPA. ALPA's position is to oppose any change in age-60 retirement. In the past they have polled their membership and found that the majority supported the rule so their position reflects the desire of their membership. ALPA is currently conducting an education campaign to inform their membership of all of the implications of a change in the rule and, once that's complete, they will conduct another poll.

SWAPA is the pilot union for the SWA pilots. SWAPA supports changing the age-60 rule because the majority of their pilots want it changed.

IPA is the pilot union of the UPS pilots. The IPA takes no position on age-60 as the UPS pilot group is fairly evenly divided on the issue.

We already have extensive testing, some required annually, some every six months. The problem is that there is no test which accurately predicts, or measures, the subtle degradation in mental ability. I addressed this issue more exensively several posts ago so won't repeat it all again.

That's true. How would raising the retirement age help catch those who are slipping through the system now pre-60?

Remember, the system must catch deteriorating pilots BEFORE they deteriorate to the point that they pose a safety risk. We can't allow a deteriorating pilot to fly around for months, or years, until he gets bad enough that our current system--which doesn't even test for such conditions--happens to catch it.

[QUOTE=letiole]Much as LarryJ said with regard to pilots, with ATCs it also has to go with the deterioriation in mental function with regard to performing multiple tasks and maintaining situational awareness and so forth. While there is an upper age hiring limit, this situation has played out in the rehiring of some of the fired PATCO controllers. Of those I know, even they admit that after having a lengthy break, they are no longer able to do the job with a great degree of skill. There are actually few controllers above age 50 who can perform well at the busiest sectors.

ATC Controllers have to retire even earlier than part 121 do, at age 56

Actually, to listne to those that want it repealed, it was implemented by management. Labor fought this for a long, long, time.

ALPA is in the process of educating it's members on the pro's and con's and examining its' position. You may find yourself surprised one of these days.