ICAO Age 65 from 23 November 2006

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:51 am

ICAO Age 65 from 23 November 2006

It would appear that the ICAO proposal for an increase of the maximum age for pilots from age 60 to age 65 was formally approved on 10th March and takes effect from 23rd November 2006.
See text from the ICAO website below:

Age limit for flight crew - Amendment 167 to Annex 1

The ICAO Council adopted on 10 March 2006 an amendment to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing that increases by five years the upper age limit for commercial pilots operating two-pilot aircraft. The new provisions become applicable on 23 November 2006 and read as follows:

2.1.10.1 A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, shall not permit the holders thereof to act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot where the other pilot is younger than 60 years of age, their 65th birthday.

2.1.10.2 Recommendation.— A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, should not permit the holders thereof to act as co-pilot of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 65th birthday.

Practical effects
Article 33 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (signed in Chicago, it is often quoted as the ‘Chicago Convention’) limits the international recognition of flight crew licences to those who are in full compliance with the Standards of Annex 1 (note that paragraph 2.1.10.1 is a Standard). As a result, until 23 November 2006, even if an individual State authorizes a pilot-in-command (PIC) to fly in commercial air transport operations when over the age of 60 (65 from 23 November) that authorization can only be given for flights within that State’s national airspace. This is because no State can force another State to accept its own deviation from an ICAO Standard. Article 33 does not apply to the co-pilot as paragraph 2.1.10.2 is a Recommendation, not a Standard.

Articles 39 and 40 of the Convention are also relevant to the age limit of pilots-in-command engaged in commercial air transport operations as they authorize international flights by flight crew who do not meet all international licensing Standards, provided that an authorization is given by each State into which the aircraft is operated.

In practice, this means that if a pilot in command is under the age specified in paragraph 2.1.10.1 (60 years at present and 65 from November 2006) he cannot be prevented by reason of age from operating into any ICAO Contracting State. Further, once he has reached the specified age, he may still operate as PIC, subject to certain conditions:

1. his/her national Licensing Authority permits it; and,
2. operations are undertaken only in national airspace; unless,
3. another State has given specific authorization that such flights are permitted in its airspace.

A State may wish to impose a lower maximum age limit than that specified by ICAO in 2.1.10.1. It may do this for the licenses it issues, but, as stated above, it cannot prevent an aircraft operated by a PIC holding a licence from another State, who is below the ICAO upper limit, from operating in its airspace.

For co-pilots, since paragraph 2.1.10.2 is a Recommendation, not a Standard, the upper age limit is set by the national Licensing Authority which can choose to impose any national age limit on the licenses it issues, as there are no international restrictions based on age for co-pilots.

When over 60, a six-monthly medical examination will be necessary (ICAO specifies an annual medical for those under 60 years who are engaged in two-pilot operations). For single-pilot commercial air transport operations, the upper age limit remains at 60 years.

Most of the States that have authorized their pilots to fly as pilot-in-command in commercial air transport operations after they reach the age specified in 2.1.10.1 also authorize pilots holding a license issued or validated by another States to fly in their own airspace under the same condition. However, ICAO does not collect information on States authorizing pilots to fly in their airspace after reaching the age of 60 and cannot provide information on the subject.

Pilots seeking such information are advised to contact individual Civil Aviation Authorities.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:28 am

Well this will certainly help the guys who are taking this fight to the human rights commission. Personally, these guys knew when they joined AC that the retirement age was 60. I'll be really pissed off if I have to fly to 65 as a result of this fight.

Jeremy Kent · Post by **Jeremy Kent** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:16 am

That's one thing that's always puzzled me about this push... how many guys and gals actually want to work that long??

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:27 am

Me thinks it is propogated by a few guys who have been married a few too many times and still have 120 payments to make on the second hand KIA while the ex-wives drive the Audis' to the day spa.

Either way, the case that is before Air Canada at the moment could be a real headache. I believe in freedoms and Human Rights, but these guys knew the deal going in and now want it all changed to suit their individual needs.

Mig29 · Post by **Mig29** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:45 am

I say give the new kids a chance....let the older folks enjoy their retirement!

abc xyz · Post by **abc xyz** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:09 am

Flying widebodies for AC is the best part-time job in this country. If your healthy and still enjoying it why would these guys leave at 60 now that they have may have a choice.

I believe AC drivers had a clause 57 and out with no penalty for a while - gave that away for a Snickers bar. That would have been a beautiful way to offset the increase in age to 65

rudder · Post by **rudder** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:14 am

Mig29 wrote:I say give the new kids a chance....let the older folks enjoy their retirement!

The days of retiring at age 60 at 70% of pre-retirement earnings derived from a company pension are over. AC may be the exception (for now). For the rest, try retiring on 30% of pre-retirement income and maintaining any reasonable semblence of lifestyle.

There are many CDN based carriers that use age 65 (or later!) for normal retirement. The rest of the world are waking up to this economic reality with the Americans pulling up the rear and facing backwards.

balls · Post by **balls** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:43 am

rudder wrote:
Mig29 wrote:I say give the new kids a chance....let the older folks enjoy their retirement!
The days of retiring at age 60 at 70% of pre-retirement earnings derived from a company pension are over. AC may be the exception (for now). For the rest, try retiring on 30% of pre-retirement income and maintaining any reasonable semblence of lifestyle.

There are many CDN based carriers that use age 65 (or later!) for normal retirement. The rest of the world are waking up to this economic reality with the Americans pulling up the rear and facing backwards.

ICAO can change all they want. They aren't the governing agency.

The FAA still says that you shall not land in the USA nor plan a US alternate on a commercial type airliner over 60. You can overfly.

Human rights or legal challenges may change the contractual limit at AC.
The logistics of implementing the change for AC type operations, particularly if the FAA does not change the limit, the cost, contractual issues, would be a canine intercourse. That is not to say that it will not change, or can not, just that it ain't happening anytime soon despite ICAO or rights challenges.

Kosiw · Post by **Kosiw** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:58 pm

What timing....is this not "catering" to the baby boomers of whom the first are turning 60 this year.....retire already and let the next generation take over

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:38 pm

The days of retiring at age 60 at 70% of pre-retirement earnings derived from a company pension are over. AC may be the exception (for now). For the rest, try retiring on 30% of pre-retirement income and maintaining any reasonable semblence of lifestyle.

There are many CDN based carriers that use age 65 (or later!) for normal retirement. The rest of the world are waking up to this economic reality with the Americans pulling up the rear and facing backwards.

By the age of 60, retiring from a Major airline, you should be living in a house that is free and clear, have no debt and have access to your nest egg as well as pension. There really is no need to carry on, unless of course you have a huge mortgage, your visa is maxed and oh yeah, you pissed away your nest egg. Now this can all happen with one or more divorces as well but in todays world, the baby boomer once again, just isn't satisfied.

I love the "Gordon Pape Reverse Mortgage" T.V commercial for baby boomers who want to unlock the equity they have in their homes, tax free. What he should really be saying is hey.....here is a clever way to screw your kids of any inheritance and take your money with you!

When will it ever be enough?

Mig29 · Post by **Mig29** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:37 pm

Guys,

when I put this topic about over 60 on General Discussion forum, I was being shot down by a majority of repliers.

I don't get it at all. You work hard and enough in your life, and quite frankly put up with a lot of s**t most of your career, make enough dough to get rid of loans and debt, and when you got a chance to enjoy some of your hard earned work, you rebel, cause you haven't put enough in your RRSP!

I mean, no where do I say you can have fun flying after 60, but let the new kids come aboard and start building their bricks in their career.

Instead of opposting for working longer hours/days/years, some people push for otherwise. Or is someone higher then them pushing the rules?? Is this just N.American mentality or am I missing something???

Kosiw Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:58 am Post subject:

What timing....is this not "catering" to the baby boomers of whom the first are turning 60 this year

it sure looks like it...

RB-211 · Post by **RB-211** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:15 am

Folks this new stance from ICAO has been expected for some time. The fact is that we are living longer and governments around the world are pushing to increase the official retirement age for state pensions as well. BA pilots have long since retired at 55 and will now be optioned to stay until 60 (to get max pension). Going to 65 in my mind is possible but the chances of failing medicals post 60 increases exponetially. The ability to pass sim checks must get tougher as well.

The FAA are not the only governing body forcing pilots to retire at 60. The French and Italians are others to name a few so this the arguement will rage for a while. I for one will be going in my mid fifites as 30 years of flying jets is more than enough wear and tear on the body. Those guys that stay on past 60 must need the $$$ in my mind.

Santi · Post by **Santi** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:54 am

...a few guys who have been married a few too many times and still have 120 payments to make on the second hand KIA while the ex-wives drive the Audis' to the day spa.

JS, I like to think that I'll be able to retire at age 60. Hopefully I'll be looking at a full and rewarding career in the rearview and a bunch of golf courses and ski hills in the windshield of my used KIA....

I hope you never find yourself in a situation such as the one you described above. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. It ain't pretty when you're there, and sometimes we're just playin' the hand we're dealt.

Have a great day,

Cheers

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:01 am

Santi

No offense mate. That is just my sarcastic humour. A dig towards the circumstance, not the victim. I have flown with too many guys who have lost it all and it totally burns my ass that it happens.

I was married once before but we were both civil during the divorce and didn't try to screw each other one last time. ( we had to sit on the lawyers at times. ) I was one of the lucky ones I guess.

Anyway, I think it is totally unjust that some guys get absolutely cleaned out. One Captain put it best when he said he wanted to marry the ex-wife of a 340 Captain, so he could get his pension back!

Santi · Post by **Santi** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:20 am

...he wanted to marry the ex-wife of a 340 Captain, so he could get his pension back!

Now that's a good way to straighten out someone's karma!

I can't remember who said (and I paraphrase) "Exes....can't live with 'em - can't live with 'em."

Have a good one,

S