CHRT Remedy Ruling?

[Localizer]

This question came up in a conversation .. it may have already been asked. (I'm not sifting through 18 plus pages to find out)

If there is so much confidence in the health of pilots over the age of 60 .. Why do regulators require the second pilot to be under the age of 60? I have to interpret that as a lack of confidence from there end. Also I would consider this to be dangerous work and in violation of the labour code. Its one thing to have a pilot incapacitation event, which obviously can happen at any given time, but its another to require a younger pilot in the flight-deck because the chances are knowingly greater.

Theoretically .. Any crew member in the flight-deck with a 60+ pilot could refuse this work, and have grounds to stand on.

[Rockie]

Good thinking. You go try that theory out and let us know how it goes.

Come to think of it, why do regulators require a second pilot at all regardless of age? Maybe you should refuse to work based on the theory that any airplane that requires two pilots is too dangerous.

[vic777]

This question came up in a conversation .. Why do regulators require the second pilot to be under the age of 60?

Somebody should ask them, maybe there is no valid reason ...

Theoretically .. Any crew member in the flight-deck with a 60+ pilot could refuse this work, and have grounds to stand on.

It might be, to ensure an on time departure, and an uneventful flight, that all Pilots on say, YYZ HKG be over Sixty. AC is sure to have an abundance of over Sixty's on the B777 soon. ICAO will probably remove the meaningless over Sixty suggestions at Government and Airline request. Sixty is your Granddad's Forty.

[Understated]

Why do regulators require the second pilot to be under the age of 60? I have to interpret that as a lack of confidence from there end.

The crew-matching requirements are ICAO-based, and apply only to international flights, not domestic ones, even domestic ones that traverse international airspace, such as Toronto-Halifax. Canada removed all age-based restrictions decades ago. It is up to the foreign jurisdiction to determine whether to apply the age-based restrictions, such as maximum age for pilot-in-command, as well as the crew matching requirements. Canada waives them all. You should therefore address your concerns regarding age-based safety to ICAO, or to foreign governments, not to Air Canada or to Transport Canada.

Also I would consider this to be dangerous work and in violation of the labour code... Theoretically .. Any crew member in the flight-deck with a 60+ pilot could refuse this work, and have grounds to stand on.

Nice try on the Occupational Health and Safety trick. I would love to see you off the line without pay for asserting any rights there. Perhaps you should consult your ACPA OHSA rep before risking your pay on that one. You will get nowhere. In short, if the government certifies the over age-60 pilot to be competent and safe to work with, who are you to declare that they are not? On what basis? Prejudice? Ageism? The “grounds” that you have available to stand on is called “thin ice.” Down you go. Good-bye.

[55+]

"You should therefore address your concerns regarding age-based safety to ICAO, or to foreign governments, not to Air Canada or to Transport Canada."

Don't think the above statement is correct. Canada is a signator to all the ICAO conventions and various ANNEX and can/has filed "differences" to conventions/Annex. The delegated authority to act on behalf of the state(Canada) is Transport Canada Aviation

[Understated]

"You should therefore address your concerns regarding age-based safety to ICAO, or to foreign governments, not to Air Canada or to Transport Canada."
Don't think the above statement is correct. Canada is a signator to all the ICAO conventions and various ANNEX and can/has filed "differences" to conventions/Annex. The delegated authority to act on behalf of the state(Canada) is Transport Canada Aviation

Maybe we got our wires crossed. My point was specifically that there is no point in talking with Transport Canada about the ICAO restrictions on crew matching because Canada has filed a difference and has opted out of any pilot maximum age restrictions and age-based crew matching restrictions whatsoever. They wrote to ICAO advising the body that those restrictions violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and therefore will not be applied by the Canadian regulator.

Of course it has the jurisdiction to look at general issues of aviation safety, including issues based on age, but that is a totally separate issue from the one posed above, and is applied generally by recurrent medical and professional testing, not blanket restrictions.

[Localizer]

I appreciate the typical "dance around the question routine" by our fly till you die crowd. Eventually these questions are going to need answers, regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter. As 55+ stated Canada is a member of ICAO, and subject to the Air Safety regulations in place. (The FAA also enforces this language) All airframes at AC cross borders .. so unless AC is going to build domestic only pairings the age 60 regulation stands for all flights outside Canada, regardless if it violates your rights and freedoms.

How can a regulator say "Commercial flying past the age of 60 is completely safe .. ahhh .. but we'll throw a younger pilot in with the old guy just to make sure." To me that's an open OHS door that just requires someone to walk through.

Will this regulation be changed? Maybe down the road .. but that would be a long road to travel due to the number of nations required to change anything at ICAO.

[Understated]

Will this regulation be changed? Maybe down the road .. but that would be a long road to travel due to the number of nations required to change anything at ICAO.

It has been "clarified" by ICAO, as seen on their recently updated FAQ page:

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#30

You will note that in the case of augmented crews, there is no requirement (it is only a recommendation) that the under age-60 crew member occupy one of the operating seats for take-off and landing. If ICAO had critical concern for the age-related issues, surely it would have taken a more restrictive stance. You should note also that the crew-matching requirements were implemented for a five year term, with a review to be conducted at the end of that term regarding its requirement. That five years is up in November of this year. So far, to my knowledge, there is no indication whatsoever that there is any great movement to have the five year term extended.

[Rockie]

How can a regulator say "Commercial flying past the age of 60 is completely safe .. ahhh .. but we'll throw a younger pilot in with the old guy just to make sure." To me that's an open OHS door that just requires someone to walk through.

PLEASE walk through that door and make the argument. You feel this strongly about it you should have no hesitation.

[Localizer]

Understated,

The point remains the same .. ICAO requires someone under 60 in the flight-deck, and on augmented flights to be on-board (flight-deck for TO/landing). To me it still says the risks are greater, and as for it changing .. only time will tell, but for now it is what it is.

[Understated]

ICAO requires someone under 60 in the flight-deck, and on augmented flights to be on-board (flight-deck for TO/landing.

Partly correct. On board, yes. In the flight deck for take-off and landing? No. There is nothing in the ICAO requirements for that. Some airlines use two separate crews, with one operating the first half of the flight and the second operating the second half. They have to be available, but they do not have to be in the flight deck.

The requirement for augment pilots to be in the flight deck for take-off or landing in Canadian airspace is an Air Canada requirement, not a Transport Canada requirement, to my knowledge. When we started using augment pilots, back in the late 1980's, they weren't required to be in the flight deck. Many came up only for their augment portion, then retired after that portion ended.

For Air Canada flights taking off or landing in domestic airspace, the age requirement is not even there for them to be onboard for the domestic portion of the international flight, because Canada doesn't apply the ICAO age requirement within its own borders.

If you trace the history of the ICAO change, you will see that the crew-matching requirement was a political trade-off employed to get a number of member states to agree to raise the maximum age for pilot-in-command from age 60 to 65. It was not in the original proposal.

[MackTheKnife]

Take your pick....the Aerospace Medical Association's study or Localizer's musings ?

The point remains the same .. ICAO requires someone under 60 in the flight-deck, and on augmented flights to be on-board (flight-deck for TO/landing). To me it still says the risks are greater, and as for it changing .. only time will tell, but for now it is what it is.

http://www.asma.org/journal/abstracts/v ... 3p194.html


The Federal Aviation Administration's Age 60 Rule, promulgated in 1959, prohibits airline pilots from working in Part 121 operations once they have reached the age of 60. The Age 60 Rule remains a most contentious and politically sensitive topic, with challenges to the Rule currently mounted in both legislative and legal arenas.

Methods: An extensive review of the medical literature was accomplished using MEDLINE. Pertinent Federal Regulations were examined. Legal proceedings and public domain documents were noted. Letters and personal communication were solicited where necessary information could not be ascertained by other means.

Results:

The Age 60 Rule was not based on any scientific data showing that airline pilots aged 60 and older were any less safe than younger pilots, and there is evidence to indicate that the choice of age 60 was actually based on economic rather than safety considerations.


Airline pilots consistently exceed general population norms for longevity, physical health, and mental abilities. Fear of an adverse pilot health event causing a crash in standard multi-crew operations is not justified.

For decades, airline pilots under age 60 have been granted the means to demonstrate their fitness for flying by taking medical, cognitive, and performance evaluations that are denied to airline pilots when they reach age 60.



Actual flight experience demonstrates that older pilots are as safe as younger pilots.


International aviation experience indicates that abolishing the Age 60 Rule will not compromise aviation safety.


Conclusion: There appears to be no medical, scientific, or safety justification for the Age 60 Rule.


As such, perpetuation of the Age 60 Rule, where age alone is used as the single criterion of older pilot fitness, represents age discrimination in commercial aviation.

[Lost in Saigon]

You must understand that the ICAO over/under rule was a workaround to allow over 60 pilots to fly to countries that still forbid over 60 age pilots to fly over, or into their countries' airspace.

For example: This rule allowed foreign airlines to operate into the USA with over 60 pilots. Today it is not needed and you can fly into the USA with BOTH pilots over 60.

Very few countries still have these age restrictions so the ICAO rule is becoming a dinosaur who's time is not long for this earth.

[Localizer]

Sorry you feel so sour about it .. but it appears all regulators are on the same page when it comes to over/under. They all subscribe to the same idea .. and my interpretation is that if they require someone under 60 to fly with someone over 60 then they must feel that the odds of an incident are greater.

Take your pick....the Aerospace Medical Association's study or Localizer's musings ?

I'm sure I can dig around on the internet and find research from other prominent doctor's saying a pilot shouldn't be in the flight-deck past 60, so I don't find your article to hold water Mack. The difference is that my argument come's from the regulatory body, not a magazine article.

[Lost in Saigon]

The ICAO over/under rule is not law. Don't try and read much too into it. It is an exception to a law in a backward country. If the backward country wanted to remain in ICAO, they have to allow foreign airlines to operate into their airspace with over 60 pilots. Plain and simple. The ICAO over/under rule has no medical relevance. It is simply a political move to placate backwards countries who don't understand reality. Thank God Canada is not one of those backwards countries.

It would be perfectly legal could have two Canadian 90 year airline pilots flying all over the world if they just avoid overflying those backward countries. (maybe you could add an 80 year old cruiser for naps along the way)

[Thirteentennorth]

No doubt you were at the meeting and witnessed for yourself the attitude of the room.

Such as the parade of individuals to the microphone to express their avowed emotional distress allegedly caused by anyone daring to either stay beyond age 60, or returning after age 60, and openly stating that they could never work on the same crew as one of these individuals. One even suggested that ACPA publish a list of employee numbers of those over age 60, so that all the pilots under age 60 could bid around the older pilot, leaving Air Canada with a problem crewing their flights!

I was also astonished at the continuing lack of awareness of the average pilot of the current state of judicial and legislative developments. This lack of awareness is ultimately the responsibility of the individuals themselves, but ACPA also must share a portion of it. For example, ACPA reps made no attempt to discuss the impending CIRB decision to the DFR complaint, and its probable consequences.

Very few there seemed to acknowledge any awareness that the mandatory retirement saga is no longer a "we-they" issue, if it ever was, although the Chair did suggest that given the change in the social and legal landscape over the last several years it might be a good idea for the union to go back to the membership and seek further direction on the decision taken as a result of the 2006 vote to fight this to the Supreme Court of Canada, if necessary. He said that that vote was a little "stale". Better to wait until the CIRB renders its DFR complaint decision. ACPA won't need to conduct another vote about anything to do with this subject.

Nobody there made any reference whatsoever to Bill C-481, even though it is now probably only a couple of weeks away from proceeding through the last step in Parliament and being passed into law, repealing the mandatory retirement exemption, totally ending anyone's hope of continuing to stave off the inevitable.

Understated, you do the "average pilot" a great injustice when you bemoan their supposed "lack of awareness...of the current state of judicial and legislative developments." It is well within the realm of possibility that many of those pilots, whose "awareness" you discount, are fully aware of what is going on but are trying to contain their dismay at the developments.

Having read every post on this string, one thing that strikes me like a hammer is the astonishing lack of empathy for the more junior pilots among your fp60 confreres. You hide behind judicial inevitability, ACPA culpability, "rights" - and all of those things may indeed be reality - but for the more junior pilots, "reality" is that they are seeing a clear and present danger to what one of you has blithely and cavalierly dismissed as the "holy grail of career progression."

It is this same lack of empathy which is engendering what can only be described as a visceral and palpable hostility on the part of some ACPA members. Were I in the same position, you can be certain that, judicial inevitability and human rights notwithstanding, I would be feeling the same emotions. I have been retired for over 3 1/2 years and I have to confess to having a hard time containing the dismay I feel for my contemporaries who are among the litigants. I have heard, and this is hearsay and not based on my own observation, that some scenes in the training building when Messrs. V&K were present, were not the "sweetness and light" that some have made their return out to be. You can expect this to continue, depending on the outcome of the judicial processes. People are people, and they react when they perceive that their vital interests are threatened.

Of course, change is always uncomfortable, and Raymond is quite correct when he asserts that change has to be positively managed. But for the fp60 litigants to expect that each and every pilot, whose seniority will be affected, will welcome V&K and the rest of the litigants back with open arms and group hugs is naive in the extreme, and completely unrealistic. And it matters not one iota how often the "sixty is your grandfather's forty" mantra is repeated, this hostility is going to continue. And throwaway phrases such as the above are only going to make it worse.

Regards,

Iain Edghill.

[Thirteentennorth]

The ICAO over/under rule is not law. Don't try and read much too into it. It is an exception to a law in a backward country. If the backward country wanted to remain in ICAO, they have to allow foreign airlines to operate into their airspace with over 60 pilots. Plain and simple. The ICAO over/under rule has no medical relevance. It is simply a political move to placate backwards countries who don't understand reality. Thank God Canada is not one of those backwards countries.

It would be perfectly legal could have two Canadian 90 year airline pilots flying all over the world if they just avoid overflying those backward countries. (maybe you could add an 80 year old cruiser for naps along the way)

LIS, I sincerely hope that the smiley in your post indicates that your reference to "Backward countries" is your version of irony, with your tongue-in-cheek.

[Lost in Saigon]

If you want to talk about empathy for junior pilots, ask them how many years of service they will have when they retire. None of them will have the years of service you did.

Empathy for these guys is trying to tell them the reality how little pension their years of service will provide them. Unfortunately ACPA has made sure they will never hear about reality.

[Lost in Saigon]

LIS, I sincerely hope that the smiley in your post indicates that your reference to "Backward countries" is your version of irony, with your tongue-in-cheek.

What is ironic about a cruiser? Would you prefer the term "Augment Pilot"?

[vic777]

Of course, change is always uncomfortable, and Raymond is quite correct when he asserts that change has to be positively managed. But for the fp60 litigants to expect that each and every pilot, whose seniority will be affected, will welcome V&K and the rest of the litigants back with open arms and group hugs is naive in the extreme, and completely unrealistic. And it matters not one iota how often the "sixty is your grandfather's forty" mantra is repeated, this hostility is going to continue. And throwaway phrases such as the above are only going to make it worse.

I disagree. Actually, "Sixty is your Grandfathers Forty", that is precisely why we are in this situation. It would help if everyone just accepts this simple fact. Over time the hostilities will die down. Those who maintain hostilities over unavoidable natural changes in our environment, are immature, crazy people.

[Localizer]

I disagree. Actually, "Sixty is your Grandfathers Forty", that is precisely why we are in this situation. It would help if everyone just accepts this simple fact. Over time the hostilities will die down. Those who maintain hostilities over unavoidable natural changes in our environment, are immature, crazy people.

Trust me .. post like this make the cut deeper and with that the anger. Natural change? This isn't a natural change ..

[Doug Moore]

Hey Iain,

I very much agree with you; were any of the FP60ers 35 or 40 years old today then they too would very likely have similar misgivings such as those being expressed by the current junior folks, the operative word here being “expressed”. This “empathy” door swings both ways, with the “visceral and palpable hostility on the part of some ACPA members” having the effect of estranging not only themselves, but also those towards whom their displeasure is directed. We both know that it takes two to tango, with the “fly til you die” mantra no different than “sixty is your grandfather’s 40” for its ability to generate hostility. There’s lots of blame that can be spread around here, and as the saying goes: “In a pissing contest, everybody gets wet.”

Change is almost always uncomfortable and most times unwanted. None of us has to like change but we all have to learn to cope with it. Unfortunately, some never do. Sometimes, those who protest the loudest against the change happening around them do little more than present their resistance as proof of their convictions.

There will never be a group hug over this issue, but for mutual self-interest both sides should learn to live with one another; and perhaps over time even learn to respect one another. I believe that change in the area of mandatory retirement based on age is inevitable, so what is gained by fighting it? At the end of the day, and I have said this many times before, we pilots have much more in common than that which sets us apart. Why not accentuate the positives and mitigate the negatives? Make it work for the benefit of all – and there can be benefit found for all if one works hard enough at it. Fight the employer all you want (that’s the figurative you) … but fighting each other? How productive is that?

Cheers,

[Understated]

...for the fp60 litigants to expect that each and every pilot, whose seniority will be affected, will welcome V&K and the rest of the litigants back with open arms and group hugs is naive in the extreme, and completely unrealistic.

I don’t think that any one of us is labouring under any misconception that we can all kiss and make up. You may be correct about me having little empathy any more for those who are about to be adversely affected the impending changes. It's not that I don't care. It's just that I can't feel very compassionate now toward those who have been slandering our leaders, ostracizing our members, criticizing our purported motivation while taking our dues to pay for litigation supporting our termination of employment, and blaming us for attempting to address changes that are unavoidable.

You really have to be in flight planning or in a base council meeting where everyone around you is chanting in unison about the heretics in their midst to get a feeling for why I am less than empathetic than I could be about the plight of those potentially adversely impacted. It reminds me of The Crucible. If I speak up, will I be labelled a witch?

This whole situation could have been totally avoided years ago with proper leadership, with ACPA's willingness to have all pilots engage in a fair, open debate, with equal representation on the Age 60 Committee, and with a serious attempt at obtaining a valid strategic analysis of the fundamental legal issues that we all were facing.

That option has long since expired. Sinclair, MacTavish, MacPherson and Folco will now speak, and ACPA will have no choice this time but to listen.

God help the Association if they all speak from the same script.

[duranium]

The YYZ chair yesterday said they were looking at the legality of flying through foreign airspace with an older FO/RP occupying the seats when the Captain is in the bunk, as the FO was too old to be in command and the RP wasn't qualified. I was stunned that ACPA didn't know there was only one PIC per aircraft regardless of where he/she happens to be, and equally stunned at the absurd lengths they will go to throw obstacles in the path of eliminating mandatory retirement.

Don Quichotte stabbing at windmills comes readily to mind

[duranium]

Understated,

The point remains the same .. ICAO requires someone under 60 in the flight-deck, and on augmented flights to be on-board (flight-deck for TO/landing). To me it still says the risks are greater, and as for it changing .. only time will tell, but for now it is what it is.

To someone else, it could also mean that an over 60 pilot has much more '' smarts '' than a 40 year old pilot or that, to not offend all of the crowd leary of any change, decided to proceed in mesured steps so as to assuage all of said crowd or that, with less frequent medical exams, the under 40 individual could have undetected medical issues.