Yeah. No way am I working to 67.
What I’ve learned is that the comments spewed on AvWeb are of even lower quality than those found on YouTube, and that’s really bad. AvWeb is a cesspool of ignorant, racist, misogynist claptrap. It’s really quite horrible.
Wally the simple answer is yes the US and Europe enforce the ICAO limit. As a result +65 pilots fly only within the airspace of countries that have filed ICAO differences on the age requirement. For example I couldn’t fly to Japan because one of the en route alternates was PGUM (Guam). All my +65 operations were New Zealand to Australia and some Pacific Islands. I believe there are approx 14 countries who have age limits beyond 65.
There’s a pilot shortage until there isn’t. All it will take is a prolonged recession, maybe economic depression; and 5 or 10 years of inflation putting everyone in the poor house, and then we’re back to the same old cycle of furloughs and airline bankruptcies. By the way, the inflationary cycle which I remember very well, started under Nixon around 1971 with wage and price controls; continued under Gerald Ford, ‘WIN’ - Whip Inflation Now! And it continued with ‘stagflation’ under Jimmy Carter, when mortgage rates rose to between 13 and 15% in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Finally under Reagan FED chairman Paul Volcker raised the the federal funds rate to 20% and the prime rate rose to 21.5%. That killed inflation and the economy (airline furloughs) and we entered a recession. If we have another cycle like that, that will take care of the pilot shortage. By the way, I was supposed to go to work for United in the late Summer of 1979. I was waiting for a training date when they furloughed 500 pilots before I got a class…so on to plan B for me. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Brother, can you spare a dime? Rough sailing ahead, I’m afraid.
That’s what a first class medical and check rides every 6 months are for. If you can pass these who cares how old you are. Be careful what you wish for changing medical requirements, it may get you no matter how old you are.
Makes me glad that I am close to retirement. After 4 furloughs in my working lifetime now I find myself in a position to just say @#$& it if another layoff happens and start collecting social security and my 401k accounts.
The one thing that amazes me is the lack of respect shown to older experienced pilots by a lot of younger posters not only here but on other forums as well. I’m glad I don’t have to deal with that nonsense where I am at now. I would not want to be a crew member dealing with that attitude. In addition to lack of work ethic shown by a lot of younger people, I guess those persons were never taught by their parents the meaning of respecting their elders.
“ Reach into the flight schools and support them with resources to keep CFI’s from departing for the airlines with the airlines extra bonus money.”
I hear tell, that when the CFI’s hit the magic number of hours, the school “encourages” the CFI to leave so that the next class of CFI’s can get the hours. It’s all about throughput.
Has anyone asked working pilots if they want to fly until they are 67? How many pilots took an early out package during Covid allowing them to retire years before they would turn 65? Whether you are riding in the back or sitting upfront, airline flying is not what it used to be. I’m not so sure very many pilots are going to jump at the chance to work another two years.
Many are the takeoffs, approaches and landings along with an aborted takeoff in a snow storm and one hair raising go around I have witnessed at Aspen with my heart in my mouth, all while waiting for take off minimums to go up to our company standards. I applaud any effort to corral accidents at ASE, but in my humble opinion the accident rate will remain what it is till folks start being disciplined in their operations. In plain english, it boils down to basic operational potty training.
I agree. All pilots have to do is follow the limitations listed in the performance charts. The accidents that I am familiar with were the result of the crew doing something the airplane was not designed to do, exceeding limitations.
“All pilots have to do is follow the limitations listed in the performance charts.”
All well and good, and 100% accurate, but a lot of pilots don’t fully appreciate how much their aircraft performance changes in conditions outside of what they usually fly in.
Perhaps what might help pilots recognize that something is different is to also calculate what their margins are after doing the performance calculations. For example, if the performance data says they’ll use 800 feet to take off, on a 5000 foot runway you have a margin of 4200 feet. But on a 2500 foot runway, you now only have a margin of 1700 feet. Both are still doable, but it illustrates the difference between them.
If the ACFT. is calculated to be at MGTW. and the RWY is reported to be contaminated with 1/4 inch slush, are you sure the figures are correct? Most likely ballpark numbers. One fart from one engine may bring a very bad day. You just can’t teach common sense.
I wonder how many accidents are the result of crews, when asked to fly in bad weather, being unwilling or unable to tell the client “no”? Especially if that client is the one who signs their paycheck? Some, many, or none? The NTSB reports don’t always record external pressures.
I’m reminded of helicopter ambulances with a poor track record in bad weather. As I recall, one result is that the helicopter crews are now not given any information about the patient’s condition, just the location and time for the pickup. That way they can be somewhat more dispassionate about making the go/no-go decision.
The trick would be coming up with a way to remove the external pressure from the crews’ decision-making process. It shouldn’t matter how important the VIP is, or how tight their schedule, or how critical the meeting… but it sometimes does.
And, more importantly, removing any negatives for choosing to not go. For if one crew does abort for safety while another crew ‘safely’ gets in, who do you think the client will choose the next time?
Flying transport category planes have much more performance info in the POH/AFM than normal category planes do. Any transport/jets certified after 1995 have performance information numbers than you refer to. Planes certified prior, at least Cessna Citations have that data but it is labeled as advisory. Not advisable to ignore that info. Since trying to figure out numbers using the POH/AFM charts and graphs is a pain in the behind, using laptop/IPad based programs/apps makes getting these performance numbers so much easier.
This scenario is exactly what preceded the worst pt135 accident when a Gulfstream crashed into the mountainside at Aspen, attempting a circle maneuver after dark. Used to see the memorial wreath that someone put on that mountainside as I was doing the visual approach inbound. As someone who has been there several times in different planes, I have no problem telling the airplane owners or pax that we can’t go there due to weather, or lack of daylight. Fortunately the companies I flew for had strict limits for operating there that were much higher than the approach or departure procedures allow.
And that is where the training received to fly those transport/jets comes into play. At one company the chief pilot would spend an entire day in recurrent going over all the performance charts for the various items required to be taken into account that are not covered with normal category planes. How many pt91 jet pilots fully understand how to calculate climb gradients and how the FAA certifies jets to meet those limits. There are a lot more to performance numbers with transport planes then just takeoff distance!
Uh, Matt, let’s not start comparing pt91 vs pt 135 pilot levels of understanding. We’ve seen some pretty horrible pt 135 crashes in the past few year.
One serious accident a year at a mountain airport is not too bad.