While airline pilots have to retire at 65, there’s no mandatory retirement age for general aviation pilots. A new story in Air & Space magazine asks the question: Can you be too old to fly?
According to the FAA’s Active Civil Airmen Statistics, in 2016 there were about 41,600 pilots over 70 with an active pilot certificate in the United States. “Just how safe is their flying?” the story begins. Read it here, then comment below about your thoughts on a mandatory retirement age for GA pilots.
Some of these statements are extremely uninformed. My ex is 66. He has never drank, smoked, or used illegal drugs. He paid for his flight lessons with his paper route and soloed for the first time at sixteen. He spent 20 years in the MC where he flew 46 helicopters. He transitioned to jets when he retired from the military. He loves flying so much that when his blood pressure was going up slightly, he went on a vegan diet and was able to lower it without taking any medication. His mother is in her 90s and smart as a whip. He pilots for a private charter airline who when he first started working there 12 years ago had no mandatory retirement age. As long as you could pass the stringent medical and practical testing twice a year. The company is now considering lowering the age to 65 (it will save the company $12,000,000 a year) That is their motivation not because older pilots cause more accidents but because the owner wants to save money and the older pilots cost too much money!!
His boss has deep pockets and is well connected. I see him being able to influence people to get the bill passed. If they pass the bill that means no one over 65 will be able to fly passengers!! What’s next, no one over 65 can drive? It’s a little big brotherish to me.
I’m sorry I should have stated the issue clearer. My ex’s boss is trying to get a bill passed through Congress that would lower the age for anyone flying passengers to 65. AOPA did a study which resulted in a 46 page report and found that “One GA-specific study based on National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident data (Baker 1—see Selected Resources, p. 26) found that, among other things , “Older pilots made fewer errors.” How can people ignore this information?
Have him fly as an captured pilot for a wealthy family…I know lots of guys over 60 doing that.
OK: IDEA? If one (applicant) can “pass” a serious medial (say pass 70 years of age) or so; vision, heart/blood presser, etc, WHY not – physical CONDITION – NOT “age” perhaps?????
The Physical condition of a pilot 70 years old or above must be the prime consideration in granting a license. If the applicant can pass the stringent medical required for the license applied for, he or she should be given the license applied for.
Given the new medical rules it is a big mistake to keep loosening the safety net around aviation. No one is allowed to drive a car after a certain age, flying should be even more strict.
No, it is not .
What do you have against freedom?
Uhh, “safety,” “prudence,” and maybe “self-awareness”?
P.S. I’m all for competency checks, not for arbitrary age limits. But there comes a time when the mind and the body are out of sync and there’s no fixing it anymore.
Tell me gbigs, what states don’t let you drive after a certain age. My mom was licensed and drove until in her late 90’s. A friends father is now 108 years old and until two years ago drove with no problems. I’m in my 80’s and still flyand drive. Ben driving since age 15 and flying, safely I might add, since I was 17 and have now over 26,000 hours. I predict that one day you will be eating those words about old people driving & flying, that is if youi live long enough.
I am 73, an active CFI and FAA Safety Team Representative, and still work as well. I also teach AARP Smart Driver courses, and in every class have at least one active driver over 95. Most of the participants are between 75 and 90. I don’t know of any state that limits driving by age. I fly with pilots significantly older than I am who are excellent, and with pilots who much younger than I who need quite a bit of remedial help to pass a BFR. Age has nothing to do with it.
If you study the arguments about a mandatory retirement age in the air carrier world, it is always about making room for upward mobility for younger pilots v funding pensions. Safety is never raised as an issue, and there is no accident or incident data to support an age based restriction.
And exactly what is that age when “no one is allowed to drive a car”? ’cause this is the first I’ve heard about it.
There is not a state in this country that prohibits drivers from driving after a certain age.
So, Moses, please prove us wrong by responding with the name of the state and a DMV phone number in that state for verification of your statement.
Assuming that you can’t or won’t provide this contact information will confirm that your comments are non factual and are based on personal, biased and emotional feelings thus rendering them invalid.
Moses,
My apologies. The response section was confusing to read and led me to believe that you made the claim that drivers are restricted from driving after a certain age.
You certainly feel the opposite to which most of us agree.
That being said, for anyone claiming age related driving restrictions, the comment I accidentally sent to Moses is actually for you.
No problem, Nate. I can see where my response could be mis-construed.
For the record… many states do impose added requirements – such as testing and/or shorter renewal times – for drivers over a certain age. But none, according to my research, outright prohibit driving solely due to age.
“Misconstrued”?
“No one is allowed to drive a car after a certain age, flying should be even more strict.”
Is what you said.
What could have been misunderstood there?
Nothing. That’s what.
Excuse me, Rich. But where exactly did I say that? I think you have me confused with ‘gbigs’. He/she is the one who said;
“No one is allowed to drive a car after a certain age, flying should be even more strict.”
To which I responded;
“And exactly what is that age when “no one is allowed to drive a car”? ’cause this is the first I’ve heard about it.”
So it looks like you got misconstrued, too.
My apologies. I was barking up the wrong tree, entirely.
Forgiven. I’ve barked up the wrong tree, myself, often enough.
Perfect example why allowing old and medically unfit pilots into the air is a bad idea. These two crashes just happened, both were due to older guys with expired 3rd class medicals flying as Sport Pilots.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NTSB-Cites-Medical-Issues-In-LSA-Crashes-228648-1.html
“the 77-year old pilot…had…severe coronary artery disease treated with multi-vessel bypass surgery”
There have been case where seemingly healthy, relatively young pilots have drop over dead from heart attacks with a week or two of passing their most recent FAA medical.
Truth is, there are no guarantees.
Applying “common cause” solutions based on “special cause” circumstances is always a bad idea. It often leads to unintended, and undesired, consequences.
So medical exams are useless?
There is no upside to allowing unfit pilots into the air…in fact it is irresponsible to allow it.
I didn’t say they were useless so why would insinuate that?
It is obvious to even the most casual observer that they do not prove how long a person will live.
An FAA medical only measures a person’s state of health AT THAT MOMENT.
Just like any medical exam does.
Perhaps you should not drive a car or use power tools using your own criteria.
It is just too dangerous for you to operate a vehicle and it puts others at risk.
Now in the case of a certificated pilot he is required to asses his state of health before EVERY flight.
You how ever are not before you drive down the freeway.
Some pilots break that rule. Just like some people drive that shouldn’t.
As soon as accept that fact the better you will sleep.
My other pilot friend that DID take more than his fair share of risks died when a tree limb fell on him and killed him.
Like I said. Stuff happens.
His medical certificate didn’t do him any good either.
The problem is these guys had health issues that they knew about.
The problem is not how many times they went around the sun.
They are already required by law to not fly when they know they aren’t fit.
They probably broke that rule.
Making another rule would not stop them any more than drug laws stop drug users, drunk drivers or people from robbing gas stations.
That is the part you are missing.
My good friend fell over dead with a First Class medical pocket at a young age with no sign of heart disease.
Stuff happens.
Why have any laws at all? Why have an FAA?
Removing or watering down medical checks will lead to more accidents and more deaths.
These two accidents prove the Sport Pilot fly on a drivers license rule has an unknown and likely unacceptable number of dangerous guys in the air.
The BasicMed reform will cause more accidents.
Having no age restriction will cause more accidents.
Yet tens of thousands of pilots fly LSA aircraft passing the medical requirements only needed to operate a Smart Car with out ANY APPRECIABLE increase in risk
And you managed to find two that crash PERHAPS because of a medical condition.
Those same two may have been able to pass a 3rd class medical and get a special issuance but chose not to because the aircraft they were flying didn’t require it.
So your point is moot.
Many more fall over dead shoveling snow.
Just how much technological improvements in the world are you will to destroy so as it make the world 100% safe?
I am also sure that you read within the last week or two that an airline pilot fell over dead at the controls with a couple hundred passengers and the stewardess surveyed the passengers looking to see if there were any pilots on board.
You need to wrap yourself up in bubble wrap and stay in bed.
The world is simply too dangerous for you to operate in it.
You’re an AME, aren’t you gbigs?
Perhpaps an AME?
If he is I bet he is the kind that any reasonable pilot would avoid like the plague.
He also purposely left out the little fact that these weren’t even LSAs at least according to the all knowing NTSB.???
“UPDATE: A previous version of this article incorrectly to these aircraft as Light Sport Aircraft (LSA). Although they may be operated by pilots who do not possess a current medical certificate under light sport medical rules, neither aircraft was certificated as an LSA.”
Everyone that has flown for a major air carrier knows why there is a mandatory retirement age, it’s unions making space for the newbies. I flew for DAL for 31 years and I saw many of our pilot’s mandatory retired go on to do amazing things for years. As an example, one Captain mandatory retired at age 60, continued to swim from the west coast to Catalina Island (some 23 miles) well into his 80’s.
Most private pilots fly with one to four persons aboard, why is this more dangerous than an older person driving a motorhome down a crowded freeway?
41,600 older pilots are seven percent of the 590,000 licensed pilots in the U.S. and if 7 percent of those were involved in accidents caused by drugs they should not be taking while flying, some 2932 or .005% of the total pilots are the problem. Just address the problem, and don’t make an issue out of age. We really don’t need the government controlling our lives more than they already do.
You younger pilots just remember, you will be old someday, and I’m sure you will have the common sense to move to either the right seat or back seat when it’s time. I hate to say this, but if we based flying on age, there are some 40-year-old pilots that probably shouldn’t be flying.
With everything that’s occurring in aviation these days, I would think that Ms. Rebecca Maksel a senior associate editor at Air & Space could find a better, more factual subject to write about.
I’ve been flying for 60 years, and some 36,000 hours and am still boring holes in the sky, because I’m an old, but not so bold pilot.
As “Dirty Harry” once said, “We should know our limitations”.
Keep the blue side up.
Pappy
Not according to the “United Flying Octogenarians”…
Everyone that has flown for a major air carrier knows why there is a mandatory retirement age, it’s unions making space for the newbies. I flew for DAL for 31 years and I saw many of our pilot’s mandatory retired go on to do amazing things for years. As an example, one Captain mandatory retired at age 60, continued to swim from the west coast to Catalina Island (some 23 miles) well into his 80’s.
Most private pilots fly with one to four persons aboard, why is this more dangerous than an older person driving a motorhome down a crowded freeway?
41,600 older pilots are seven percent of the 590,000 licensed pilots in the U.S. and if 7 percent of those were involved in accidents caused by drugs they should not be taking while flying, some 2932 or .005% of the total pilots are the problem. Just address the problem, and don’t make an issue out of age. We really don’t need the government controlling our lives more than they already do.
You younger pilots just remember, you will be old someday, and I’m sure you will have the common sense to move to either the right seat or back seat when it’s time. I hate to say this, but if we based flying on age, there are some 40-year-old pilots that probably shouldn’t be flying.
With everything that’s occurring in aviation these days, I would think that Ms. Rebecca Maksel a senior associate editor at Air & Space could find a better, more factual subject to write about.
I’ve been flying for 60 years, and some 36,000 hours and am still boring holes in the sky, because I’m an old, but not so bold pilot.
As “Dirty Harry” once said, “We should know our limitations”.
Keep the blue side up.
Pappy
I am over 90 and still fly. I take no medications and just recently acciured glasses. Why stop?
Most states limit how old people can be and still get a drivers license. GA should have stricter conditions.
No. They don’t.
At a certain age some of them require an applicant to demonstrate proficiency.
They do NOT tell you that you cannot hold a DL.
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a senior citizen is more likely than a younger driver to be at fault in an accident in which they are involved. Due to their physical frailty they are more likely to be injured in an accident and more likely to die of that injury. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_age_and_driving
Here are the rules state by state: http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2012/09/19/213818.htm
I went to the claimsjournal.com and read various articles they had. The only thing that showed a correlation to older drivers having more accidents was their fall history. All the other articles, even in their titles, were showing that age was not causative.
Please stop repeating this FALSE information.
What state? What state has age restrictions on a driver license? I am in Ohio, and Ohio sure as heck doesn’t. Are you demented or just a troll? Do you fly, or know anything about GA?
Keep it up Paul, I’m not far behind….
Not only NO but HELL NO. There should not be a arbitrary retirement age nor should there ever have been such a statutory age limit for pilots. The only criteria should be health and ability to perform satisfactorily according to the standards required to pass a flight check. If both are met then they can continue to fly, end of discussion.
Grounding a pilot at any age is just discrimination. Pilots should be grounded if the skills are deteriorated to the extent that could cause serious problems while flying. The loss of those skills could also cause problems while driving a car or operating any equipment.
I am over 80 and still fly commercially. I take my checkrides with the FAA each time they are due. The only change my insurance company required is that I get a new 2nd class every six months, small price to pay.
I thought commercial pilots must retire at age 65?!
A statement: “I am over 80 and still fly commercially” creates some doubts about mental fitness to fly.
Over 70 still flying and instructing and knowing my limits having my aeromedical checks every 6 months.
Abacus, flying under Part 121 has an age restriction of 65. Flying Part 135 or Part 91 has no age restriction.
However, an 82 year old who I know received a letter last year instructing him to take a check ride with a FSDO inspector – it seemed to come out of the blue. Coincidentally, his eye vitreous had dried and he needed eye injections, so perhaps the FAA learned about him through his medical. I’ve seen stranger things. He just sold his plane and stopped flying.
I have heard about a 83 year old that can’t get his class 3. He said the hell with it and still flies his 182. AOPA still needs to work on the PBOR2 that was ruined by the ALPA. The class 3 was to be eliminated, and still does. I am not a fan of the compromise.
I agree. Most of us would have been happy with a 172SP equivalent and no look back compromise. I wish they would revisit this also.
I think he means he has a commercial rating, which just means he can fly for profit, like towing banners, ect. The commercial you are thinking of is Commercial Airliners, United, American, SouthWest jets, which is a mandatory 65 year old limit.
Ask pilots like Chuck Yeager.
This shouldn’t even be an issue, especially at a time when self-regulation (aka Medical Reform) is a reality.
I think pilots (unlike drivers) have enough common sense, are responsible people and are realistic to determine when it is time to hang up their wings.
I’ve known of 2 pilots that were under 30 that suffered heart attacks and died shortly after renewing their 3rd class medicals—so what does age have do with anything?
Evidently, the FAA agrees as again it has demonstrated no age limit concerns with the approval of medical reform.
I’d like to ask the geniuses who came up with this pilot age limit concept if they are ready to put their money where their mouths are and give up driving at age 65.
In a nutshell: No double standards please.
That’s true. Anyone can die at anytime. Just proving the C3M is about useless.
No. No regulatory action is needed.
I read the original article that stirred this hornet’s nest. The authors arrived at this conclusion: “…there are critical medical factors that MAY (my emphasis) contribute to fatal accidents among elderly pilots.” They did not suggest a mandatory retirement age. But Air and Space magazine and General Aviation News clearly offered this conclusion in their reports. And to my dismay, several otherwise rational pilots have jumped to this conclusion or suggested that more medical screening be mandatory for all pilots over 70.
But what does the original research say? The authors found that there were 114 fatal airplane crashes involving pilots over age 70 during a recent 10 year period. There are 41600 active pilots in the FAA database. So the risk of a fatal crash in this group in any year is 0.00003. The authors discovered that 13% of the pilots had toxicological evidence of medications in their systems. That’s it.
In my opinion, no rational (or even irrational) government agency would attempt to reduce the risk to the general public or the aviation community based on these data. Particularly given the current FARs and proposed rules requiring medical examination of all pilots.
I suggest to my fellow pilots who may disagree that there are non regulatory steps we can take to improve safe operations when age-specific conditions are evident among their 70+ colleagues. Talk it over with them. You know who they are. And yes I know there may be hostility or resentment but why not try if you feel strongly about your safety and and the safety of the offending pilot? If the situation is critical and the person is irrational, then call the local FSDO.
And FWIW- Vintage aircraft without certified without electric systems can legally operate without a radio in the pattern without a comm radio at non-towered airports. And after 2020 they will be ASDB in and out exempt. Get over it if this makes you anxious. We were here long before you were.
The article is misleading at best. Age is not an indicator of ability to fly safely. Drugs can and do alter one’s capability it doesn’t matter if they are 5 or 105. The statics shown do not contrast with the under 70 group of pilots and consiquently make only the point drugs are a factor in some accidents. Find something useful to write about.
The article is mistitled and written by someone with no knowledge of the subject. She writes all about drugs, not age. Like politicians, this article does not merit any serious consideration.
I read the article, and the person writing it needs to have anything they write looked at critically before publishing. And here is why I say this:
Statistics can be done to prove anything. After all, the common joke about Stats is, 87.9% are made up on the spot.
So, we have some number of “elderly” pilots taking antihistamines. Ok, how many of the regular population do the same? I do it, but then I can’t fly for 3 days — I have to carry Benedryl with me in the case someone puts something in my food that I’m allergic to. Now, should I have some incident/accident, with my CDL, I’m going to be tested. BTW — I have to ground for 3 days after taking Benedryl. Even after that, it will show up in a quantity that would be below that which is therapeutic (I believe that is the term).
Now, add to this that these pilots are taking 3 different medications — this statement is used to lend credence to what the author is saying — doesn’t mean the author knows what they are talking about.
Can this now be looked at as being causative in an aircraft crash? This is the implicit assertion by the author, but wasn’t said so that the author could specifically say it was. It might have been a contributing factor.
After all, Benedryl, or the chemical that is Benedryl is used as an anti-motion sickness drug, in night time sleep assisting drugs (e.g, Nyquil and similar). So these older pilots must be using this to help them get sleep at night.
The study quoted did not identify the anti-histamine(s) used. There was not enough information to state what anti-histamine was being used, how much was actually found in the person, etc. And I don’t recall any other medication being identified, so we do not know the proximate cause of the crashes from what this author covered.
So, keep me honest. If I missed the hard facts and stats, point ’em out.
And I agree with others who have posted here — As long as I can do a BFR to PTS for the highest certification I have and an IPC at PTS, then I should be able to keep flying. BTW — I am over 60.
Oh Pilot, Be true to thy own self and having a good Doctor doesn’t hurt either.
Despite the glaring inaccuracies in the article, among them the implication that all commercial pilots must retire at 65 (that is true only for pilots of certain politicized operations), we should acknowledge that medical sufficiency for serving as a pilot does decine for all of us as we age. For some our physical and cognitive abilities decline rapidly, for others our decline remains imperceptible for many years… but decline we do. It’s ‘tough to grow old, but the alternative is unappealing’.
The same question could be asked of the elderly who hold drivers licences. Should we have a manditory age to give up driving priviliges? Unfortunately, a lot of research shows most of us fail to recognize and act when we are no longer able to safely operate a car or our pickup.
With BasicMed, as with any class of the FAA medical, pilots are subjected to at least periodic screening for serious medcal problems. Pilots, unlike drivers, must complete a flight review (consisting of both a knowledge review and a skills/decision making review) at least every two years. I think the uninformed author of this article poses a good question. Fortunately, the answer is already in place.
Driving cars or motorcycles, reaction times are what matters. Easy test, for drivers’ license renewal, the examiner should throw a nerf ball at the applicant from a few feet away without warning.
If they don’t catch it, block it, or react to it they don’t get to drive. LSA or other pilot has to carry a current driver’s license with a photo.
More important than pilots being retired is retiring politicians, senile Congressmen and Senators, male or female are far more dangerous than a pilot.
Whatever age standards are applied to restricting a pilot from flying should also be applied to everyone for driving a motor vehicle. And, these should only be based on the individuals cognitive abilities and motor skills as assessed by a doctor, with possible inputs from that persons family and a BFR or driving test.
Anyone with impaired facilities is far more likely to kill or harm others while driving a motor vehicle, especially on a busy freeway, than while flying a small plane.
Additionally, any restrictions should be tiered. It is far more challenging flying a light twin or turbine aircraft full of passengers, IFR in busy terminal airspace, than flying solo in a small single engine aircraft, in day VFR, from most GA airports. In a similar way that student pilots are restricted from flying solo, after dark, or away from the airport, it seems more sensible to restrict a person’s flying based on their abilities. Examine a person’s abilities, then apply appropriate restrictions such as to VFR only, or day VFR only, away from busy airspace & airports, only with another pilot, from carrying passengers, etc.
I retired at 60, and at that point examined why I fly. I’d been flying IFR for over 30 years, in singles, twins & turbines, and had about 2,000 hrs total time, with no accidents or incidents. Even though I was in great health, I decided to only fly VFR and to minimize my night flying. I realized what I love about flying are those beautiful blue-sky, long cross country trips. Not beating through hard IFR in busy airspace. I don’t need to get anyplace, so why make it like work? If the weather doesn’t cooperate, I just leave a day to two early, or delay the departure. It’s no big deal. That personal decision or restrictions based on a persons abilities, makes a lot more sense than leaving up to some bureaucrats establishing some fictional number.
???
As a 15K + hour CFI/ATP it seemed like I was qualified to make the decision. On a nice day at 68 yrs of age I made an textbook approach and landing at my home field. Rolling out I thought that is as good as I could possibly do! I ought to quit and I did.
Miss it? Sure but Clint Eastwood said “A man’s got to know his limitations!”. I’ll just browse the Freeman Abandoned Airports site and think about those good times we had!
Heck, I am 60, and want to begin flying! No turbines, just a 172.
At 60 you can fly for at least 15 years. Get your instrument and if you can afford it get into a turbine or jet at some point and have fun.
The BFR should be the factor which stops the pilot. If CFIs are signing off on older pilots with deteriorated skills, then that needs to be addressed. Setting a hard age is simply age discrimination.
There is no passing or not passing for a BFR only that it was done.
14CFR 61.56 — You need to read it. As a CFI, one can’t certify if one knows the pilot in question can’t fly to the level of the certificate(s) held. Read it and notice, the exceptions, for glider, etc. Also note the change, that a CFI has to do the flight portion, even after completing a renewal program.
Russel, when the biennial flight review first came out, there was no requirement for any ground training to my knowledge, there was no one hour minimum flight requirement, and they said there would be no pass or fail, however, “Big Brother”, in its all knowing wisdom, of course lied about that and added the ground training and now the instructor must certify that the subject pilot has satisfactorally………etc. Just wait untill they figure a way to change the new medical provisions to make it harder to do than going to get a 3rd class physical. Having just read of two fatal Light Sport Accidents caused when both pilots were flying with very serious cardiac problems, the FAA may react to this by putting some kind of restrictions on lsa pilots as well. I hope they won’t, but it seems these government bureaus tend to over-react to things under their jurisdictions.
Not a chance! Whatever dumb action our bureaucrats could come up with, must be applied across the board. If there is proven justification for an arbitrary age limitation, I would suggest that it be universally applied and take away the keys to cars, boats, atvs, motorcycles, etc.of seniors beyond the limit. Let’s see how that flies (pun intended).
Also take away the right to be a judge, politician or bureaucrat. What’s good for the goose is goode for the gander.
I wish the same standards for driving a motor vehicle on the highway applied as to flying an airplane. There are folks who are driving 12000 lb motor homes at 60 mph with less than 5 from the vehicles going the opposite direction. That close an encounter in an airplane would cause all hell to break loose. Yet try to put an age limit on driver’s licenses and stand by for AARP to lynch you.
I agree and guys like Johnathon need their car keys and keyboards taken away TODAY.
Look people. It is not the same for everyone. It varies from person to person.
There are 20 year olds that shouldn’t have car keys let alone a pilot certificate.
Obviously journalists should retire at 60 and shouldn’t be allowed to work until they are 40 cause everyone knows anyone under 40 is a liberal idiot.
There, Maybe now you see how foolish it is for other people, me included, to tell you whether you are competent or not.
Now, MYOB.
Picking some arbitrary number is utterly stupid. I’m 70, but look 50. I’ve had doctors tell me “I hate you, you’re going to live forever.” My blood pressure is 120 over 80, I’m not diabetic or even pre-diabetic, everything works exactly the way it should (so far). My mother lived to just short of 101 years old. I’m active in the community, politically active, built a house (hands-on) recently, eat properly and even exercise. Last year, I did the RCAF 5BX physical fitness program and could do 100 (yes, one hundred) full length pushups, nonstop. I’ve been accused of being able to hear grass grow and paint drying.
Anyone who decides for me that I am too old to fly and should hand in my certificate is going to have the fight of their life on their hands – and they will lose. They’ll also have a well funded class action age discrimination lawsuit slapped on them so fast their head will spin. I’ll have 41,600 other pilots joining me in this suit immediately, and more joining it every year.
What’s next, if you are 85, you are too old to live, so we’ll execute you?
Hi Mike
I’am 77 and do what I want to, from repairing cars, boat and air planes. Plus watch my weight at 132 Ls.
So who can judge,when a person should stop flying?
Howie Fischer
A doctor…something we are not.. Plain truth.
Folks, I go thru Falcon recurrent training every year at FlightSafety and pass a comprehensive written and oral exam plus a 2.0 hour checkride to ATP standards. I take those same skills to my 182RG. AT 72 I think I am still in the game. For anyone over 70 I think ANNUAL RECURRENT TRAINING (not just a Flight Review) by a competent CFI along with a proficiency check and a SECOND CLASS MEDICAL as required by my insurance policy is a fairly adequate safeguard. Now if we can get the seniors to do this voluntarily rather than by regulation that would be a step in the right direction. I have flown with pilots in their 40’s who are downright awful so establishing some arbitrary retirement age limit is not necessarily a valid indicator of any deficiencies.
ANNUAL RECURRENT TRAINING AND A SECOND CLASS!!! For WHAT? To fly my C172? THIS is why GA is dying … we’re killing ourselves off. If YOU believe what you just wrote, Al, then do it. Don’t push this crap on the rest of the 41,599 of us.
I quit entirely voluntarily when I was about 65–I’m almost 81 now–and sold my Falco. My mantra was “Do it right or don’t do it at all,” and it still is. I was flying occasional IFR–too occasional–and found myself making mistakes. No mas.
I’m still a capable driver, after a lifetime of driving fast cars and racing, but whenever my 65-year-old wife is in the car, she drives…including our Porsche.
You are a true professional safe aviator…blue skies. (Btw..so did I after honest general skill capability self-eval.)??
I am getting there myself, but the current situation scares me. I have Been cut off in the pattern by older pilots that either couldn’t hear the radio, or didn’t use it growing up, and figure ‘why bother with it now’, and had several near misses. I have been towed aloft in a glider by an older pilot that apparently forgot he was towing, leveled off at 800′ and accelerated to the glider’s redline, leaving me in a position several miles from the airport at pattern altitude with nowhere to land, and accepting risk against thnglider’s structure at those speeds. I have flown with an older pilot who probably has forgotten more about flying than I will ever know, but he never learned the “positive exchange of controls” in the 1950s and never incorporated that technique later into his teaching methods. We spun the airplane because after snatching the controls out of my hands unannounced he also let go of them without uttering a word and assumed I was flying. I recovered from the spin and went straight back to the airport and landed. The very same pilot will ask you every 20 minutes or so, “Have you ever….done any spin training” because his short term memory is shot. This situation is dangerous.
We need some sort of cognitive abilities test for all pilots over 60. We need to test for losses in field of vision. We need to test for Alzheimer’s too. We also need to get serious about flight instruction and not give anyone a “bye” because they ‘flew fighters 40 years ago’ and are greatly esteemed. Measures like “positive exchange of controls” and radio usage are not optional for flight instructors. And yes, I know that back in the day people flew Champs and Cubs and 120s all over the place with no radios. They were much more vigilant in the pattern , did a much better job of “see and avoid”, and accepted a higher rate of fatal accidents then too. I am profoundly concerned about “self certification”, and hope that when Imget there I have the common sense to take someone with me if I am not sharp enough to fly alone anymore.
Yes
GA pilots should have their license expired as soon as they turn 65. The older they get, the higher the risk!
“Great” response Jonathan.
In consideration of it , I am assuming that if you are currently 65 + you have given up driving or that when you become 65, you will voluntarily do so.
Only a responsible and cautious person as yourself would have to agree with this concept and comply.
Airmen are certified not licensed.
Semantics. Private Pilots License (PPL) is obtainted after certification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_pilot_licence
Wikipedia is wrong. They used to be called licenses years ago. Seems some lawyer convinced a jury that the person being sued was a licensee of the FAA and therefore they were responsible. Now, nowhere on the FAA site will you find the word license where it pertains to pilots, mechanics, repair stations, etc. Now we all have certificates and when we do wrong and sometimes when we don’t, the FAA starts a CERTIFICATE action against us.
I just checked mine. The word “License” doesn’t appear anywhere on it. But “certificate” clearly does.
I’ve known pilots who flew well into their 90’s. Who cares how old you are if you can keep your BFR current?
The age 60 rule was written in the early half of the 20th Century when a 60 year old male was likely to die of a heart attack in the next ten years. While science and technology have advanced, the rule is still stuck in the1950’s.
Actually, the age 60 rule came after the FAA was created in 1958. Flying for the airlines at that time as a youngster in my early 20’s, we had pilots in their 70’s still flying. Rumor was that Quesada(First FAA Administrator) hated airline pilots and put in the age 60 rule. By the stroke of his pen, these guys were all of a sudden unemployed without a retirement plan.
Air traffic controllers must retire from ATC at the end of the month they turn 56. We can continue to work in some other capacity but cannot control airplanes. This is a result of contract negotiations between the FAA and PATCO, the controllers’ union in the mid 1970’s. There is no medical justification for it. It was a political deal struck between two parties.
My understanding is that the CEO of a major airline was having problems with senior pilots that carried a lot of weight and made a lot of money. Quesada was asked to implement a mandatory retirement age and bingo, the age 60 rule was born.
I believe Quesada was the head knocker at Pan Am before becoming FAA Head. You may be right and I think the airline was Pan Am. i know it wasn’t Delta, because our most senior pilots flying International were making about $21,000 a year at that time and we only had about 650 pilots. Our only International at he time was in the Caribbean countries, Cuba, Jamaica, Venezuela, Haiti, Dominican Republic, etc.
Air traffic controllers must retire from controlling airplanes at the end of the month they turn 56.
This too was a negotiated deal between the FAA and PATCO the controllers’ union at the time. There is no scientific or medical data to support this any more than the age 60 (now 65) rule for airline pilots.
But it is OK to have government officials in their 70’s and 80’s. Go figure.