Age 60 rule catch 22

[Jim Macklin]

Reply from AOPA..

Based upon the new provision in the rule change a pilot has to be 60 or
younger when the new law went into effect (December 13) in order to take
advantage of the new 65th birthday limit. Sorry.

Jim Knight, AOPA

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Reply from AOPA..
>
> Based upon the new provision in the rule change a pilot has to be 60 or
> younger when the new law went into effect (December 13) in order to take
> advantage of the new 65th birthday limit. Sorry.
>
> Jim Knight, AOPA

How in the world did *that* slip through. Was someone asleep at the wheel,
or was there an "other side" which wanted to grandfather that 5 year window
of pilots "out" of the cockpit as ATP's?

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 17, 7:34 pm, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Reply from AOPA..
>
> > Based upon the new provision in the rule change a pilot has to be 60 or
> > younger when the new law went into effect (December 13) in order to take
> > advantage of the new 65th birthday limit. Sorry.
>
> > Jim Knight, AOPA
>
> How in the world did *that* slip through. Was someone asleep at the wheel,
> or was there an "other side" which wanted to grandfather that 5 year window
> of pilots "out" of the cockpit as ATP's?

I'm guessing the retirees didn't want to come back to work.

-robert

[Newps]

That's not correct. If you are 62 today you can get hired and fly until
you are 65.




Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Reply from AOPA..
>>
>> Based upon the new provision in the rule change a pilot has to be 60 or
>> younger when the new law went into effect (December 13) in order to take
>> advantage of the new 65th birthday limit. Sorry.
>>
>> Jim Knight, AOPA
>
>
> How in the world did *that* slip through. Was someone asleep at the
> wheel, or was there an "other side" which wanted to grandfather that 5
> year window of pilots "out" of the cockpit as ATP's?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> That's not correct. If you are 62 today you can get hired and fly until
> you are 65.

Cite? That was not what I read.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Newps > wrote in
:

> That's not correct. If you are 62 today you can get hired and fly
> until you are 65.
>


You can fly for a living til you drop!

Just not as an ATP



Bertie

[F. Baum]

On Dec 18, 4:17 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> Ok, that's just a bit non-responsive. I think that was assumed
> throughout this thread. Yes you can fly as a CFI or 135 pilot until
> you are 200 years old. But the age 60 rule only applies to operations
> that require class 1 medicals (even if you don't have to have an ATP
> rating) so I think we assumed this thread to apply to that.
>
Not true, this applies to acting as PIC for a 121 carrier.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 19, 6:51 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Dec 18, 4:17 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > Ok, that's just a bit non-responsive. I think that was assumed
> > throughout this thread. Yes you can fly as a CFI or 135 pilot until
> > you are 200 years old. But the age 60 rule only applies to operations
> > that require class 1 medicals (even if you don't have to have an ATP
> > rating) so I think we assumed this thread to apply to that.
>
> Not true, this applies to acting as PIC for a 121 carrier.

Which 121 reg says that the PIC holding a class 2 medical must be
under the age of 60 or 65? I don't see that reg. I'm not aware of any
121 operator that allows PICs not not be ATP but certainly many of
them allow first officers to not be ATPs. However, that I am aware of
require all flight crew to hold a class 1 medical (regardless of
rating). Those first officers would have to be under the age of 60/65
even if they only held a commercial simply because of their ops class
1 medical requirement.


-Robert

[F. Baum]

On Dec 19, 10:38 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > Not true, this applies to acting as PIC for a 121 carrier.
>
> Which 121 reg says that the PIC holding a class 2 medical must be
> under the age of 60 or 65? I don't see that reg. I'm not aware of any
> 121 operator that allows PICs not not be ATP but certainly many of
> them allow first officers to not be ATPs. However, that I am aware of
> require all flight crew to hold a class 1 medical (regardless of
> rating). Those first officers would have to be under the age of 60/65
> even if they only held a commercial simply because of their ops class
> 1 medical requirement.
>
> -Robert

You're kidding, arent you ?

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 19, 7:51 pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 10:38 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Not true, this applies to acting as PIC for a 121 carrier.
>
> > Which 121 reg says that the PIC holding a class 2 medical must be
> > under the age of 60 or 65? I don't see that reg. I'm not aware of any
> > 121 operator that allows PICs not not be ATP but certainly many of
> > them allow first officers to not be ATPs. However, that I am aware of
> > require all flight crew to hold a class 1 medical (regardless of
> > rating). Those first officers would have to be under the age of 60/65
> > even if they only held a commercial simply because of their ops class
> > 1 medical requirement.
>
> > -Robert
>
> You're kidding, arent you ?

No, what reg under part 121 say you can't be age 60/65??

-Robert

[F. Baum]

On Dec 19, 11:21 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 7:51 pm, "F. Baum" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 10:38 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > > > Not true, this applies to acting as PIC for a 121 carrier.
>
> > > Which 121 reg says that the PIC holding a class 2 medical must be
> > > under the age of 60 or 65? I don't see that reg. I'm not aware of any
> > > 121 operator that allows PICs not not be ATP but certainly many of
> > > them allow first officers to not be ATPs. However, that I am aware of
> > > require all flight crew to hold a class 1 medical (regardless of
> > > rating). Those first officers would have to be under the age of 60/65
> > > even if they only held a commercial simply because of their ops class
> > > 1 medical requirement.
>
> > > -Robert
>
> > You're kidding, arent you ?
>
> No, what reg under part 121 say you can't be age 60/65??
>
The reg says , no person who has reached his or her 60th birthday
(Soon to read 65th) can act as pilot in command of an aircraft
operated under part 121. There is no age limit to holding an ATP or a
first class medical.

[F. Baum]

On Dec 20, 6:41 am, Bob Moore > wrote:
>
> Here's the "real" regulation from 121.383
>
> (c) No certificate holder may use the services of any person as a pilot
> on an airplane engaged in operations under this part if that person has
> reached his 60th birthday. No person may serve as a pilot on an airplane
> engaged in operations under this part if that person has reached his
> 60th birthday.
>
> Note that there is no distinction between PIC and SIC and Robert, there
> are no part 121 PICs with only a Class 2 Medical Certificate, but there
> are SICs with only a Second Class. Both must cease Part 121 operations
> upon reaching their 60 (65) birthday.

Thanks Bob, we can always count on you to look this stuff up. I think
the reason that there is no distinction between PIC and SIC is because
of the old sole manipulator thing. The SIC is sole manipulator on
every other leg . As I understand it, the FO will have to be under 60
when the new rule comes out.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 20, 5:41 am, Bob Moore > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

> Note that there is no distinction between PIC and SIC and Robert, there
> are no part 121 PICs with only a Class 2 Medical Certificate, but there
> are SICs with only a Second Class.

That is what I said. I'm not aware of any specific 121 operation that
allow first officers to only hold a class 2 medical though. You may
know of some certificate holder who's ops manual allows for this but I
am not.

-Robert

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 20, 6:41 am, Bob Moore > wrote:
>>
>> Here's the "real" regulation from 121.383
>>
>> (c) No certificate holder may use the services of any person as a pilot
>> on an airplane engaged in operations under this part if that person has
>> reached his 60th birthday. No person may serve as a pilot on an airplane
>> engaged in operations under this part if that person has reached his
>> 60th birthday.
>>
>> Note that there is no distinction between PIC and SIC and Robert, there
>> are no part 121 PICs with only a Class 2 Medical Certificate, but there
>> are SICs with only a Second Class. Both must cease Part 121 operations
>> upon reaching their 60 (65) birthday.
>
> Thanks Bob, we can always count on you to look this stuff up. I think
> the reason that there is no distinction between PIC and SIC is because
> of the old sole manipulator thing. The SIC is sole manipulator on
> every other leg . As I understand it, the FO will have to be under 60
> when the new rule comes out.

Only on international ops, and only as long as ICAO keeps the over/under rule. And the
under-60 can be either pilot.

There is no over/under requirement for domestic flights.

[F. Baum]

On Dec 20, 8:35 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> That is what I said. I'm not aware of any specific 121 operation that
> allow first officers to only hold a class 2 medical though. You may
> know of some certificate holder who's ops manual allows for this but I
> am not.
>
> -Robert

I sorta do. My employer requires a first class for FOs but only once a
year. (Without looking it up), I think this makes it a second class
for the last six months.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

F. Baum wrote:
> I sorta do. My employer requires a first class for FOs but only once a
> year. (Without looking it up), I think this makes it a second class
> for the last six months.


It does. Their policy also gives them a good shot at having a promotable FO.
While there are always exceptions, it's most likely that if you passed the
medical once, you will be able to do it again in 6 months. That way they don't
end up with permanent FOs.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[F. Baum]

On Dec 20, 1:09 pm, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com>
wrote:

> > I sorta do. My employer requires a first class for FOs but only once a
> > year. (Without looking it up), I think this makes it a second class
> > for the last six months.
>
> It does. Their policy also gives them a good shot at having a promotable FO.
> While there are always exceptions, it's most likely that if you passed the
> medical once, you will be able to do it again in 6 months. That way they don't
> end up with permanent FOs.
Not sure how much of a policy it is as opposed to an Ops Spec. It is
interesting that out of all of the Majors, only AMR has an up or out
rule.
FB
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 20, 9:07 am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Dec 20, 8:35 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > That is what I said. I'm not aware of any specific 121 operation that
> > allow first officers to only hold a class 2 medical though. You may
> > know of some certificate holder who's ops manual allows for this but I
> > am not.
>
> > -Robert
>
> I sorta do. My employer requires a first class for FOs but only once a
> year. (Without looking it up), I think this makes it a second class
> for the last six months.

Sounds more like they are just being cheap. ;)

-Robert