Flying Corporate after age 65

[Gilles Hudicourt]

I recently began to inquire about flying jobs that could be found once one hits age 65. I wrongly thought that when flying corporate for a Canadian company it was possible to fly to the United States. I had looked at the US regulations and found that under Part 135, there was no age limit.
I was naive into thinking that a 65+ pilot flying in Canada under 703 could fly to the US.
I have since learned that the Ops Spec that the FAA provides to Canadian 703 operator wanting to operate into the US under part 129, references ICAO Annex 1, which limits flying to age 65. So Canadian 703 operators cannot send 65+ pilots to the US, which is why Canadian corporate companies under that part wont hire pilots who have reached 65. Only those flying private aircraft under Part 604 will look at older pilots.

However it seems that US Part 135 pilots who are 65+ can fly into Canada.

Did I get that right ?

[DanWEC]

For hiring in 700's there's nothing specifically precluding hiring beyond 65, it's just up to the company and what they're willing to coordinate with you. I worked for a 705 that had several 65+'s that were constrained to domestic only. I'd assume you'd have to have a good relationship and history with the operator but it certainly does happen.
As far as I know as well, in general the 65 limitation comes from ICAO and not FAA or TC.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Yes I know a few pilots 65+ flying 705 in Canada. They are just restricted to flying inside Canada.

My point was that I learned that American 65+ pilot flying Part 135 in the US are allowed to fly into Canada by Transport Canada, while Canadian pilots 65+ flying for Canadian 703 operators are not allowed to fly into the US by the FAA.

[DanWEC]

True, it's strange. I don't know the specifics first-hand, but that's how I understand it as well.

[VFS]

Your biggest issue is going to be convincing an owner to take a chance on you and without a recommendation from other pilots already working for that owner or management company it would most likely be impossible.
For an owner of an aircraft it’s big bucks to hire and train someone, if that person is 65 would you really be willing to fly for them to make their return on investment worth while. Also, owners want someone long term. Even if you agree to fulfill a 2 year training bond but will likely hang up your headset in 2 years or slightly more. That’s a hassle for them, they want a pilot they can build a relationship with, they can rely on. A pilot that can learn their likes/dislikes, they also are largely private people, who put high value on privacy and therefor don’t want a revolving door of pilots. It’s not like the airlines where you’re separated by a door. You will hear and see a lot of things, so for those owners having pilots long term that they can trust is huge.
I know a lot of pilots who have 20,000 hours in the left seat of a wide body think that any corporate operator would be drooling at the thought of hiring them, unfortunately that’s not the case. Not that either job is harder than the other, they both come with their own challenges, but for a lot of the reasons I mentioned and more, most of the resumes of people in your shoes get auto filed into the trash.

[Pratt X 3]

My point was that I learned that American 65+ pilot flying Part 135 in the US are allowed to fly into Canada by Transport Canada, while Canadian pilots 65+ flying for Canadian 703 operators are not allowed to fly into the US by the FAA.

Have a look at the Transport Canada Foreign Licence Validation Certificate scheme. With just a form and a $45 fee, a US contract pilot can work in Canada and fly a Canadian-registered aircraft. It's not very easy to do the reciprocal, that's for sure!

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Not very easy ? It’s not allowed period.
The FAA will only give validations for private flying or for flying a US registered aircraft flown commercially for a FOREIGN (non US) carrier outside of the US.

They NEVER allow foreign licenced pilots pilots to fly commercially for US carriers, be it part 135 or 121, like Transport Canada does.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Your biggest issue is going to be convincing an owner to take a chance on you and without a recommendation from other pilots already working for that owner or management company it would most likely be impossible.
For an owner of an aircraft it’s big bucks to hire and train someone, if that person is 65 would you really be willing to fly for them to make their return on investment worth while. Also, owners want someone long term. Even if you agree to fulfill a 2 year training bond but will likely hang up your headset in 2 years or slightly more. That’s a hassle for them, they want a pilot they can build a relationship with, they can rely on. A pilot that can learn their likes/dislikes, they also are largely private people, who put high value on privacy and therefor don’t want a revolving door of pilots. It’s not like the airlines where you’re separated by a door. You will hear and see a lot of things, so for those owners having pilots long term that they can trust is huge.
I know a lot of pilots who have 20,000 hours in the left seat of a wide body think that any corporate operator would be drooling at the thought of hiring them, unfortunately that’s not the case. Not that either job is harder than the other, they both come with their own challenges, but for a lot of the reasons I mentioned and more, most of the resumes of people in your shoes get auto filed into the trash.

What you write here may be true for 604 operators, but I have not contacted any of those yet.

With 703 operators, my roadblock so far was not being able to fly into the US once I hit 65. At least that is what a couple operators told me, and one even took the time to explain to me why. The Part 129 OPS SPECS they were issued by the FAA mentions ICAO Annex 1, which has that restriction.

But US pilots who are 65 and over and who fly under Part 135 are allowed to fly into Canada.

[cjp]

If you're 65+, please enjoy your retirement and hopefully you made good choices during your career that allow you to be financially independent and not rely on working into your golden years. Skills degrade rapidly, and in a new and unfamiliar environment like you would be experiencing, where you are expected to handle much, if not all of the business end of flying, it's best to leave it to flight crews more familiar and committed to this branch of the industry. You would be amazed at the loss of SA on the line, when you are arranging the pull of your bird from the hangar, fueling, customs, prep the flight deck (easy part), arrange catering, bar stock, aircraft grooming, de-icing in winter, watching the clock - oops the boss arrived early - mingle while the other pilot organizes everything. Fyi, bosses don't understand slots, so telling them they have to wait for a certain moment to go usually doesn't fly well. Then, fire up and get the runway and go (again easy part). There is no cockpit door and interruptions happen frequently at ALL phases of flight. Add charter into the mix and now you have a little bit of chaos. Oh I forgot to mention loading enough baggage for 2 of your size of birds. If you're flying a Citation - the baggage would fill a Challenger - if you are flying a Challenger - the baggage would fill a Global - and if you fly a Global - you get where I'm going. Oh and the owner wants it ALL to go.

The vast majority of people leaving the airlines early to retire in business aviation tend to devalue the profession because they rely on their pension, but take only enough to top up their earnings so as not to upset their accountants. This removes a seat from someone who could use it, AND ruins the negotiation process with the owners and operators because an 'experienced' pilot can fill the seat for X dollars which is significantly less than Y of type rated crewmember.

My suggestion would be to communicate with a training facility close to you, be it CAE or FSI and assist in training the next generation. It may not be as glorious or exciting as heading to Barbados for a paid, all inclusive weekend, but it puts your knowledge and experience where it belongs, in the training environment. If your medical expires, no worries, you can continue to train. This also removes any 65+ transborder or international issues.

My 2 cents and I'm not far from where you are and will be living on my own advice when I get there.

[digits_]

My suggestion would be to communicate with a training facility close to you, be it CAE or FSI and assist in training the next generation. It may not be as glorious or exciting as heading to Barbados for a paid, all inclusive weekend, but it puts your knowledge and experience where it belongs, in the training environment. If your medical expires, no worries, you can continue to train. This also removes any 65+ transborder or international issues.

With the caveat that you have to realize nobody cares that you were a 787 captain for 10 years if they're there to get a citation or king air rating

[Tbayer2021]

My suggestion would be to communicate with a training facility close to you, be it CAE or FSI and assist in training the next generation. It may not be as glorious or exciting as heading to Barbados for a paid, all inclusive weekend, but it puts your knowledge and experience where it belongs, in the training environment. If your medical expires, no worries, you can continue to train. This also removes any 65+ transborder or international issues.

With the caveat that you have to realize nobody cares that you were a 787 captain for 10 years if they're there to get a citation or king air rating

At least half my initial airbus sim briefings were spent hearing "On the triple we did it this way", "We did that differently at Korean". From a retired instructor that was apparently a 777 cpt at Korean. Sir! I'm not training for the triple, at Korean or let alone a Boeing!

[cjp]

My suggestion would be to communicate with a training facility close to you, be it CAE or FSI and assist in training the next generation. It may not be as glorious or exciting as heading to Barbados for a paid, all inclusive weekend, but it puts your knowledge and experience where it belongs, in the training environment. If your medical expires, no worries, you can continue to train. This also removes any 65+ transborder or international issues.

With the caveat that you have to realize nobody cares that you were a 787 captain for 10 years if they're there to get a citation or king air rating

At least half my initial airbus sim briefings were spent hearing "On the triple we did it this way", "We did that differently at Korean". From a retired instructor that was apparently a 777 cpt at Korean. Sir! I'm not training for the triple, at Korean or let alone a Boeing!

Common problem, experienced everywhere. It's horrible because it introduces grey areas from not only a different type but a completely different operation and builds foundational misunderstandings. When it comes to type training, it's important the trainer dump all previous type knowledge and appreciation for their previous company, and adopt the new company policies to make life easier for new candidates.

[digits_]

My suggestion would be to communicate with a training facility close to you, be it CAE or FSI and assist in training the next generation. It may not be as glorious or exciting as heading to Barbados for a paid, all inclusive weekend, but it puts your knowledge and experience where it belongs, in the training environment. If your medical expires, no worries, you can continue to train. This also removes any 65+ transborder or international issues.

With the caveat that you have to realize nobody cares that you were a 787 captain for 10 years if they're there to get a citation or king air rating

At least half my initial airbus sim briefings were spent hearing "On the triple we did it this way", "We did that differently at Korean". From a retired instructor that was apparently a 777 cpt at Korean. Sir! I'm not training for the triple, at Korean or let alone a Boeing!

Yup....

"How would you do XXX?"
- "On the YYYY it would have been very easy you'd just push ABC onr system XYZ"
"We don't have system XYZ"
- "Oh I know, but it would have been soo easy"
"...."

Whereas the correct response would have been "I don't know, I'll look it up and get back to you tomorrow". But somehow the "I don't know" seems to be a response many find hard to give

[Jet Jockey]

If you're 65+, please enjoy your retirement and hopefully you made good choices during your career that allow you to be financially independent and not rely on working into your golden years. Skills degrade rapidly, and in a new and unfamiliar environment like you would be experiencing, where you are expected to handle much, if not all of the business end of flying, it's best to leave it to flight crews more familiar and committed to this branch of the industry. You would be amazed at the loss of SA on the line, when you are arranging the pull of your bird from the hangar, fueling, customs, prep the flight deck (easy part), arrange catering, bar stock, aircraft grooming, de-icing in winter, watching the clock - oops the boss arrived early - mingle while the other pilot organizes everything. Fyi, bosses don't understand slots, so telling them they have to wait for a certain moment to go usually doesn't fly well. Then, fire up and get the runway and go (again easy part). There is no cockpit door and interruptions happen frequently at ALL phases of flight. Add charter into the mix and now you have a little bit of chaos. Oh I forgot to mention loading enough baggage for 2 of your size of birds. If you're flying a Citation - the baggage would fill a Challenger - if you are flying a Challenger - the baggage would fill a Global - and if you fly a Global - you get where I'm going. Oh and the owner wants it ALL to go.

The vast majority of people leaving the airlines early to retire in business aviation tend to devalue the profession because they rely on their pension, but take only enough to top up their earnings so as not to upset their accountants. This removes a seat from someone who could use it, AND ruins the negotiation process with the owners and operators because an 'experienced' pilot can fill the seat for X dollars which is significantly less than Y of type rated crewmember.

My suggestion would be to communicate with a training facility close to you, be it CAE or FSI and assist in training the next generation. It may not be as glorious or exciting as heading to Barbados for a paid, all inclusive weekend, but it puts your knowledge and experience where it belongs, in the training environment. If your medical expires, no worries, you can continue to train. This also removes any 65+ transborder or international issues.

My 2 cents and I'm not far from where you are and will be living on my own advice when I get there.

Very well said because I would not have been so politically correct.

[Adjfrancis]

I recently began to inquire about flying jobs that could be found once one hits age 65. I wrongly thought that when flying corporate for a Canadian company it was possible to fly to the United States. I had looked at the US regulations and found that under Part 135, there was no age limit.
I was naive into thinking that a 65+ pilot flying in Canada under 703 could fly to the US.
I have since learned that the Ops Spec that the FAA provides to Canadian 703 operator wanting to operate into the US under part 129, references ICAO Annex 1, which limits flying to age 65. So Canadian 703 operators cannot send 65+ pilots to the US, which is why Canadian corporate companies under that part wont hire pilots who have reached 65. Only those flying private aircraft under Part 604 will look at older pilots.

However it seems that US Part 135 pilots who are 65+ can fly into Canada.

Did I get that right ?

Most Private flight departments or Corporate aircraft would be under CARS 604. Not sure where the CAR 703 reference came from?! I have flown with many folks that were over 65 and there is no issue - no age limit.

[big_sky]

If you're 65+, please enjoy your retirement and hopefully you made good choices during your career that allow you to be financially independent and not rely on working into your golden years. Skills degrade rapidly, and in a new and unfamiliar environment like you would be experiencing, where you are expected to handle much, if not all of the business end of flying, it's best to leave it to flight crews more familiar and committed to this branch of the industry. You would be amazed at the loss of SA on the line, when you are arranging the pull of your bird from the hangar, fueling, customs, prep the flight deck (easy part), arrange catering, bar stock, aircraft grooming, de-icing in winter, watching the clock - oops the boss arrived early - mingle while the other pilot organizes everything. Fyi, bosses don't understand slots, so telling them they have to wait for a certain moment to go usually doesn't fly well. Then, fire up and get the runway and go (again easy part). There is no cockpit door and interruptions happen frequently at ALL phases of flight. Add charter into the mix and now you have a little bit of chaos. Oh I forgot to mention loading enough baggage for 2 of your size of birds. If you're flying a Citation - the baggage would fill a Challenger - if you are flying a Challenger - the baggage would fill a Global - and if you fly a Global - you get where I'm going. Oh and the owner wants it ALL to go.

The vast majority of people leaving the airlines early to retire in business aviation tend to devalue the profession because they rely on their pension, but take only enough to top up their earnings so as not to upset their accountants. This removes a seat from someone who could use it, AND ruins the negotiation process with the owners and operators because an 'experienced' pilot can fill the seat for X dollars which is significantly less than Y of type rated crewmember.

My suggestion would be to communicate with a training facility close to you, be it CAE or FSI and assist in training the next generation. It may not be as glorious or exciting as heading to Barbados for a paid, all inclusive weekend, but it puts your knowledge and experience where it belongs, in the training environment. If your medical expires, no worries, you can continue to train. This also removes any 65+ transborder or international issues.

My 2 cents and I'm not far from where you are and will be living on my own advice when I get there.

Very well said because I would not have been so politically correct.

+1

[cjp]

I recently began to inquire about flying jobs that could be found once one hits age 65. I wrongly thought that when flying corporate for a Canadian company it was possible to fly to the United States. I had looked at the US regulations and found that under Part 135, there was no age limit.
I was naive into thinking that a 65+ pilot flying in Canada under 703 could fly to the US.
I have since learned that the Ops Spec that the FAA provides to Canadian 703 operator wanting to operate into the US under part 129, references ICAO Annex 1, which limits flying to age 65. So Canadian 703 operators cannot send 65+ pilots to the US, which is why Canadian corporate companies under that part wont hire pilots who have reached 65. Only those flying private aircraft under Part 604 will look at older pilots.

However it seems that US Part 135 pilots who are 65+ can fly into Canada.

Did I get that right ?

Most Private flight departments or Corporate aircraft would be under CARS 604. Not sure where the CAR 703 reference came from?! I have flown with many folks that were over 65 and there is no issue - no age limit.

604 is similar to part 91. Limited only to good medical standing. Charter is under 703/704 = Part 135. Age limited internationally.

Canada is hard to find 604 only. Lots of companies push 704, and most business is flying to US.

How's BBD treating ya?

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Let me restate my OP with less context so you guys can stay focused on what I really meant to discuss:

I recently learned that the FAA will not allow Canadian pilots aged 65 and over to fly under Part 703 and 704 to the USA. It was a surprise to me, I did not know this.

However, US pilots 65 and over who fly Commercially for Part 135 Operators in the US (the equivalent of Part 703 and 704 in Canada) are allowed to fly into Canada.

So US charter pilots over 64 are OK for transborder flying but Canadian charter pilots over 64 are not.

That is all I meant to state.

Some years ago I learned that Transport Canada regularly issued FLVCs to US licensed pilots to fly for 700 operators in Canada although the US did not reciprocate. To fly for a US 135 or 121 carrier, one needs a real FAA licence.

[cjp]

Let me restate my OP with less context so you guys can stay focused on what I really meant to discuss:

I recently learned that the FAA will not allow Canadian pilots aged 65 and over to fly under Part 703 and 704 to the USA. It was a surprise to me, I did not know this.

However, US pilots 65 and over who fly Commercially for Part 135 Operators in the US (the equivalent of Part 703 and 704 in Canada) are allowed to fly into Canada.

So US charter pilots over 64 are OK for transborder flying but Canadian charter pilots over 64 are not.

That is all I meant to state.

Some years ago I learned that Transport Canada regularly issued FLVCs to US licensed pilots to fly for 700 operators in Canada although the US did not reciprocate. To fly for a US 135 or 121 carrier, one needs a real FAA licence.

I'm pretty sure it's just Part 91 that you can fly beyond 64 (65+). Not 135, as 135 is similar to 121, limited to under 65 for both pilots, domestic or international. So, Gilles, to answer your question, no, charter operations cannot enter Canada with pilots (either) over 64 from US, due to US restrictions only, not Canadian.

Screenshot_20241111_124810_Chrome.jpg (245.54 KiB) Viewed 3773 times

[Adjfrancis]

Let me restate my OP with less context so you guys can stay focused on what I really meant to discuss:

I recently learned that the FAA will not allow Canadian pilots aged 65 and over to fly under Part 703 and 704 to the USA. It was a surprise to me, I did not know this.

However, US pilots 65 and over who fly Commercially for Part 135 Operators in the US (the equivalent of Part 703 and 704 in Canada) are allowed to fly into Canada.

So US charter pilots over 64 are OK for transborder flying but Canadian charter pilots over 64 are not.

That is all I meant to state.

Some years ago I learned that Transport Canada regularly issued FLVCs to US licensed pilots to fly for 700 operators in Canada although the US did not reciprocate. To fly for a US 135 or 121 carrier, one needs a real FAA licence.

Hi again Gilles,

The title of your original thread was "Corporate flying after 65". If the operation you are considering is corporate flight department they are most likely 604 on a PORD or 704. 604 or Part 91 has no age restrictions. So there would be no restrictions on you or the operation. If you are looking at an air taxi 703 or 704 charter that is a slightly different story.

Regardless of your opinion on the differences between FAA CFRs vs TC CARs, the majority of corporate flying for Canadian operators take place to, from and within the USA. Therefore, the FAA can afford to have "protectionist" regulations.

As for the FLVCs, Transport does not issue them without expressed and verified need from an operator. They are also issued with an expiry date. Therefore the need for the FLVC has to be re-evaluated and verified by TC. So there actually is indeed a small amount of oversight on the FLVC process.

Good luck!

ADJF

[CJ3PILOT]

l was a corporate jet captain 604 at 70 and l made it my last year.The company sold the airplane and
l didn't really want to find another job and a move.