Too Old?

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:36:28 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Some of the "older" pilots are in phenomenally good health. I deal with
a lot of them on a daily basis. They're amazing!

And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
rules?

The one's that aren't should fail the medical. THAT is the point. The
"system" is supposed to discover and weed out those not medically fit to
fly.
As long as you can pass the medical, you fly. It's THAT simple!
Nobody says the system is perfect. There will always be those pilots who
slip through a medical check and then have a heart attack while flying.
Personally, I would be an advocate of more frequent medical checks for
pilots of a specific age determined by accident stats and medical
histories.

You and I are on opposites sides when considering the quality of the
medical check and its real abilities to flag relevant health problems
for pilots. That would be my point, that the quality level of the check
is a gaping hole in the qualification process and one that can be
successfully exploited by those who would argue in favor of a mandatory
age cutoff for a PPL

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:58:12 -0700, Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:

Hell, I'm 72 and fly an experimental helicopter which, because of my
modifications involve a bit of "Test Flying". More than that, I recently
soloed an ultralight helicopter where the only check out possible was to get
the numbers for rpm and egt.
If they are going to put age limits on flying, they better start with age
limits for people driving and especially driving those huge motor homes just
a few feet from my car at closing velocities around 150mph and better.

Apples and oranges imo Stu-Kath.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:44:51 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I would have no
problem with medicals requiring a shorter active period based on a
proactive projection of accident stats vs health issues within a
specific age bracket graduated after say a beginning point of 40.
In other words, the older you get and/or when you enter into an age
bracket where stats put you at a higher risk factor, the period of your
medical shortens accordingly.

This makes sense especially if the quality of the medical is increased
accordingly.

The rub in all this, even in my own projection, is that it assumes that
sooner or later a pilot will reach a "no further medicals allowed" point
where a mandatory retirement is indicated.

Disagree. If you can pass a sophisticated and comprehensive medical,
there should be no approach points. Pass = fly regardless of age.

Considering present regulations, the engine to implement such a plan
would be extremely difficult to design and push through the required
legislation.

Can't argue with this, don't have the expertise.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:55:06 GMT, wrote:

And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
rules?

Because local airports can't make special rules just for them that are
contrary to FAA rules.

--
Jim Pennino

Good point. I wonder, are there any potential local, non FAA regs that
could workaround this ?

On Sep 2, 2:32*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote:
On Sep 1, 7:52*pm, Ricky wrote:

On Aug 31, 9:53*pm, "Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote:

Perhaps its my 2 year old son?

?????? Adopted?

Ricky

Nope. I guess 40 years of crop dusting didn't affect me adversly
either! gg

Have a look at a mate of mine :-)

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411415/894297

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 04:23:01 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

There have been people in their 90s with commercial certificates. I
know someone who taught after he retired well into his 80s and
continued to fly into his 90s.
Then there's Bob Hoover and Duane Cole...


I know somebody who was Chief Pilot for Eastern and still flies at 92
-- then we had another old Eastern guy who died at 102 -- he was
flying his Bonanza until shortly before his death. Car rental
companies wouldn't rent to him because he was too old!

I know quite a few pilots flying well into their 70s -- some in
high-performance planes.

Yeah, and why not. I think Pappy chalk operated commercially into his
80's, for instanc

Don't shoot this messenger, I am not *for* age cutoffs but I am
approaching my 60s and have only been a pilot for a short time. I'd like
to think that there never will be age cutoffs but I want to explore the
realities of it before I commit to a plane purchase, for instance.

Another poster mentioned auto cos that won't rent to the elderly. If it
becomes an issue, I can see rentals to elderly pilots being cut off.
That leaves plane ownership and that means only the wealthy, well-heeled
in retirement types, that's a small # of elderly pilots.

In rec.aviation.owning Gezellig wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:55:06 GMT, wrote:

And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
rules?

Because local airports can't make special rules just for them that are
contrary to FAA rules.

--
Jim Pennino

Good point. I wonder, are there any potential local, non FAA regs that
could workaround this ?

Are you familiar with the terms "Supremacy Clause" and "Federal Preemption"?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:58:12 -0700, Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:

Hell, I'm 72 and fly an experimental helicopter which, because of my
modifications involve a bit of "Test Flying". More than that, I recently
soloed an ultralight helicopter where the only check out possible was to
get
the numbers for rpm and egt.
If they are going to put age limits on flying, they better start with
age
limits for people driving and especially driving those huge motor homes
just
a few feet from my car at closing velocities around 150mph and better.

Apples and oranges imo Stu-Kath.

It wouldn't be IMO. I have a much greater fear of getting creamed head on,
than dodging falling private aircraft.

Gezellig wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:44:51 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I would have no
problem with medicals requiring a shorter active period based on a
proactive projection of accident stats vs health issues within a
specific age bracket graduated after say a beginning point of 40.
In other words, the older you get and/or when you enter into an age
bracket where stats put you at a higher risk factor, the period of your
medical shortens accordingly.

This makes sense especially if the quality of the medical is increased
accordingly.

The rub in all this, even in my own projection, is that it assumes that
sooner or later a pilot will reach a "no further medicals allowed" point
where a mandatory retirement is indicated.

Disagree. If you can pass a sophisticated and comprehensive medical,
there should be no approach points. Pass = fly regardless of age.

Make sure we're on the same page with the above. I might not have stated
this as accurately as I should have,
What I'm saying doesn't conflict with the Pass= fly regardless of age.
It simply RECOGNIZES that at a certain point while following the "plan",
a pilot WILL reach a specific point in time where the medical can no
longer be passed. In other words, Fail= no longer fly.
What I'm saying is simply that even my "plan" so to speak, ends up with
basically what we have now :-)) You fly until you can't pass the
physical then no more. The same issue remains. The "rub" is that no
matter what is done, the end of the road seems unchanged. There can very
well be a point where the pilot passes the physical at some ripe old
age, then has that heart attack in the air during the periods between
physicals.
This is the basis for what I have envisioned as a "plan" to shorten the
period between physicals as a pilot ages.

Considering present regulations, the engine to implement such a plan
would be extremely difficult to design and push through the required
legislation.

Can't argue with this, don't have the expertise.

You're doing well :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

Gezellig wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:36:28 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Some of the "older" pilots are in phenomenally good health. I deal with
a lot of them on a daily basis. They're amazing!
And some aren't Dudley neither of which is the point. The point is that
Fed/FAA gets aggressive, age could come into question regardless. For
that matter, why not a local port like Vegas throwing up their own
rules?
The one's that aren't should fail the medical. THAT is the point. The
"system" is supposed to discover and weed out those not medically fit to
fly.
As long as you can pass the medical, you fly. It's THAT simple!
Nobody says the system is perfect. There will always be those pilots who
slip through a medical check and then have a heart attack while flying.
Personally, I would be an advocate of more frequent medical checks for
pilots of a specific age determined by accident stats and medical
histories.

You and I are on opposites sides when considering the quality of the
medical check and its real abilities to flag relevant health problems
for pilots. That would be my point, that the quality level of the check
is a gaping hole in the qualification process and one that can be
successfully exploited by those who would argue in favor of a mandatory
age cutoff for a PPL

We're not that far into disagreement really. I totally agree that in
many cases that I've witnessed over time, including my own physicals,
the "quality" of that physical was less than I would have expected from
a dedicated medical program in use by specialized medical examiners.

--
Dudley Henriques