http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills info@washingtonwatch.com http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1 http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#24938 This has nothing to do with PILOT GREED. This has everything to do with becomming consisant with ICOA rules worldwide. It will also help those pilots that have seen thier retirements raped over the past few years. You think that when they retired at age 60 many stopped flying? No, they are flying over your heads daily for companies such as NetJets and other fractional companies that are not restricted by the age 60 rule... Jon... your an idiot... 24938@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:56:28 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#24553 The assumption that the Age 60 restriction was based on medical or aging studies is wrong. The rule was a political favor by the new FAA (then CAA) Administrator for an old friend who just happened to be president of American Airlines, and tired of fighting senior pilots at contract renewal time. No aero-medical manager for the FAA has ever supported the rule. It was not promulgated, but established by fiat as a temporary rule, and illegally maintained thereafter to curry political favor - its rescission is long overdue.... 24553@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:38:17 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#24546 This is purely about PILOT GREED - they want to work longer, make more money under and sell it as safety. It's a disservice to the traveling public. Cognitive declines after 60 are proven and experience won't stop the effects of aging. Pilots are greedy and selfish - this is NOT about safety.... 24546@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:44:11 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#24541 I hope congress can live with this change when the fist accident happens due to deteriorated cognitive ability. If you want to change it, make eveeryone over 60 become copilots... 24541@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:52:12 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#24413 The new ICAO standard is inherently flawed, as it's language admits (for example) that a 64 year old's performance is (in and of itself) UNSAFE, UNLESS monitored/evaluated/checked by a pilot several years younger. What then should be the logical maximum age of the Pilot in Command? Logically, it should be the younger. The FAA should then require that all pilots in command of an aircraft (the captain) should be less than 60 years old. (However, isn’t this age discrimination?) Should a pilot (captain or first officer) over 60 be trusted to be alone, in command of the aircraft even for a short time, while the younger pilot is in the back using the restroom? Is the traveling public under the ICAO standard now only one half as safe as before?... 24413@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:02:35 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#24341 Oh come on now. This age 60 is pure and simple age discrimination. If it is unsafe to fly pass 60, how about a doctor operating, a congressman voting, a bus driver driving. The younger crowd have a sense of entitlement that they feel the rules are eched in stone. Times change and we all need to change with it. If one can pass the physical, an experienced pilot with 20,000 hours is one I want in the cockpit when things go awry, cahnces are he has seen it before. As far as the previous comment about 80% defined benefit plans, I don't believe they exist anymore or ever did. I think US Air had 65% if you had 30 years. It should not be an economic issue, just a performance issue. Pass the bill now, things have changed since it was set in 1959.... 24341@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:32:26 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#24329 Answer to Rik M. It's all about money. Pilots disagree with this because A: They want to retire with their defined benifits (80% salary for 0 work vs. 100% salary for full time work) package, or B: they want to improve their own seniority. Safety has never been an issue. NEVER an accident, incident, or scientific study that puts age as a contributing to decreased safety. As far as James Ross is concerned, you are pretty full of yourself aren't you. Why did you allow your captain to land at the wrong field? Why didn't you point it out during taxi? Why didn't you make deviation callouts prior to your self proclaimed heroics? Any guesses why you are at a commuter and not in the big leagues? I hope that I mever see you on the interview list at my airline. You need to get over yourself and maybe work on your CRM. I am hoping that you know what that means even if you don't practice it.... 24329@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:27:03 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#23303 This bill is long overdue and needs to pass now. Foreign carrier pilots can fly into our country until age 65. This is age discrimination. Pilots should not have to retire until they can collect full Social Security. Otherwise, let them collect full Social Security at age 60. Many pilots' pensions have been severely reduced and they have no way to make up for those losses so late in their careers. I urge passage ASAP.... 23303@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:30:36 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#22716 Walt B. I disagree; age 60 was set by the airlines for retirement planning. Something I think a lot of these pilots haven’t done. Yes there are robber barons running the airlines now, but to ask the rank and file to cover for you and your 3 ex-wives is ridicules. What were the results of the ALPA vote a few years ago? Why do you think such a large percent of current line pilots disagree with changing the law? No to age 65.... 22716@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:38:19 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#22702 This bill is long overdue and needs to be passed now.... 22702@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:36:55 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#22471 I disagree with Dean, Fox, and Vaughn above. Safety data indicate that as pilots gain experience saftey increases. Peak accident rates correlate with age 45 pilots. There is a vested interest in young pilots wishing to see older pilots retire. I think the prospect of rapid promotion colors their perspective. Perhaps, as they gain more experience, their views will change.... 22471@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:23:05 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#22392 I agree with Mr Fox wholeheartedly, it is about safety, period. This is a very bad idea and it relates to pure greed. KEEP THE AGE 60 RULE. By the way, I am a pilot also.... 22392@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:09:51 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#21962 I'm an airline pilot and I've flown with guys who were still quite competent as they approached age 60 and those that should have retired when they were 55. I am AGAINST changing the retirement age because it is a safety issue. The guys who want to change the age all knew what the retirement age was when they hired on. Each of these pilots who wants the age changed should be asked how many ex-wives do they have? How many extra houses, boats, trucks and cars do they have? Do they have a trophy wife with young kids again? The push for this legislation is for self-serving reasons in many cases based on greed and poor life decisions! If there is no concern about the health and competency of pilots over 60, then why does the new legislation not allow these captains to be paired with first-officers over 60? Sounds like a safety concern to me. Don't throw the retirement age out the window because it works!... 21962@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:57:40 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#21273 The age 60 rule change has only one group in favor of it and that is a bunch of Baby Boomers who don't want to give up feeding at the trough. Yes, it is greed pure and simple. They do not want to hand over the reins to the next generation like the generation before did. But lets face it, the baby boomers have gotten everything they've always wanted. Just look at gay rights, civil rights, taxes, social security, etc. This country is going down the tubes because all these unethical, self serving baby boomers have taken over the government. It's all about what I can get out of it. It has been proven that a pilot's skills decline after age 60. Isn't that saftey enough for you. And the argument that pilots get FAA mandated physicals every 6 months doesn't add up to a hill of beans. All pilots in the industry know that there are a myriad of ways to get around that. We all know who the Doc's that will look the other way are. It's a conspiracy. What a joke.... 21273@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:27:28 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#21203 It appears that james ross has something to gain. most copilots think their steve canyon.... 21203@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:18:24 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#21091 I am an airline pilot - the age 60 rule should not be changed. It is unsafe to let pilots over the age of 60 to continue to fly. Many studies have shown a loss of skills as a person ages regardless of experience. It is just part of getting old. I have also personally flown with pilots over the age of 60 before the rule changed for the commuters. They were all unsafe. One over 60 pilot almost killed me by abruptly going into a flare and then a stall at night while landing at the Key West airport (he thought he was about to touch down but was really 100 feet above the runway). I took over the controls, added power and we still hit extremely hard. Another one of our over 60 pilots was on a flight from Orlando to Miami and landed at the wrong airport by mistake (Fort Lauderdale). He did not even notice till he was taxing in. Even the FAA in there proposed change says two over 60 guys can not fly together. Why not? The answer is the reason the rule should not be changed!... 21091@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:55:18 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#20984 Ok, let's look at the safety implications. Foreign carriers have been flying to age 65 for a while now. No age related accidents or incidents have occurred. No medical study has ever linked aging of the pilot force to an increase in accidents or incidents. Prior to 1958, pilots could fly past age 60. No accident or incident was recorded. In fact, in the history of aviation, no accident or incident has been attributed to the age of the pilot. Sixty-five is the ICAO standard. Shouldn't the US either adopt it or show some valid safety statistics to show it to be unsafe? The question should not be why, but why not? There is no valid reason why not...... 20984@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:31:24 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#20867 It seems many of the comments written in favor of the bill are from pilots with something to gain, monetarily. The arguments would be more compelling if they did not appear self-serving. Should not the issue be safety first and then demand/supply second?... 20867@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:11:47 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#18474 Lets get on with it. If this involved the requrired retirement of any person in congress by age 60, you can bet it would get some attention. So, lets get this fair bill passed. Thanks.... 18474@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 07 Aug 2007 18:53:55 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#17741 THE AGE 60 RULE WAS AN ARBITRARY RULE DECIDED IN 1959. THE AVERAGE AGE AND HEALTH OF A US CITIZEN IS A LOT HIGHER NOW. CAPTAINS HAVE TO GO THRU MEDICAL EXAMS EVERY 6 MONTHS AND ARE EVALUATED SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR FROM BOTH THE COMPANY AND THE FAA. WE ARE LOOSING MANY HIGHLY QUALIFIED PILOTS EVERY DAY THAT THE BILL DOES NOT PASS.... 17741@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:06:25 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#16510 This bill should be supported and passed now. We don't have these restrictions on doctors that literally have lives in the palms of their hands. Judgement should be honed by experience. This may be debated by the House and Senate of which the majority are far past age 60. Do something and try to get your approval rating above the president's.... 16510@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:57:58 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#16201 To Tim above: The average pilot would not mind having to take a physical health exam as you suggest every two years. Would that be in addition to the one's we already have to take every six months? We also get annual proficiency evaluations in the simulator each year, covering precision and non-precision approaches, windshear reoveries, enging failures on takeoff, engine out landings, and a host of other events. In most airline contracts, your pay peaks at the 12 year point, so no pay raises would occur by flying the additional five years. And for the record, there has never been an accident or incident in the history of commercial aviation in which the age of the pilot was in any way a contributory factor. Please support changing the age to 65 now.... 16201@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 04 Jun 2007 09:56:02 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#16065 This bill seems long overdue to pass. There is no logical reason to have pilots retire at 60 at the peak of their career. Most pilots approaching 60 right now have more experience then the new generation of incoming pilots due to the older pilots experience in Vietnam and the period of time during the draft. CHANGE THE RULE... 16065@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 29 May 2007 14:17:01 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#15485 I have no idea what it takes to fly a plane. With that said, I don't mind the feelings behind the act here. People are living healthier lives at older ages so the average age of a retiring pilot could be raised and there is probably a lot of data that supports it. Raising the age by 5 years will also increase the pool of available pilots which could mean cheaper flights (or it could just mean more expensive ones since the most expensive pilots just got more expensive and the airlines can't fire them because of their long service and unions). The only thing I would like to see added to this is some sort of physical health exam taken every other year after a pilot hits 60 to assure passengers that he is in good health.... 15485@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 09 May 2007 11:57:31 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_65.html#15475 If you're 60 years old you shouldn't be flying a plane. or driving a car, unless you don't mind putting your life in the hands of someone well past their prime. Someone who has dulled reflexes, sketchy memory, and medical issues (arthritis, IBS, etc...) that will interfere with flying a plane. Yes, there are exceptions, everyone knows someone who was in their "prime" well into their 70s, 80s, or even 90s, but we've got to base this on the majority.... 15475@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 09 May 2007 10:49:59 EDT