FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

[rudder]

FWIW - the ICAO working group has submitted a proposal to modify the 60/60 crew restriction (get rid of it) but make age 65 a hard limit.

Canada is not bound to adopt this change but the airlines will be able to use it to validate mandatory retirement at 65 under the BFOR provisions.


ICAO AN5/16.1-13/33



1. I have the honour to inform you that the Air Navigation Commission, at the sixth meeting of its 192nd Session on 29 January 2013, considered a proposal, developed by the Secretariat on the basis of a survey conducted in 2012, to amend Annex 1 ・ Personnel Licensing, paragraph 2.1.10 which, if adopted, would:


a) permit two pilots aged 60-64 years and engaged in international commercial air transport to be simultaneously at the controls; and

b) upgrade the upper age limit of 65 years for co-pilots engaged in international commercial air transport from a Recommendation to a Standard.

The Commission authorized the transmission of the proposal to Member States and appropriate international organizations for comments.

2. Background information on the proposal is included for your convenience in Attachment A. The proposed amendments are contained in Attachment B, and the rationale is contained in Attachment C. A response form has been provided in Attachment D.

3. In examining the proposed amendments, you should not feel obliged to comment on editorial aspects as such matters will be addressed by the Air Navigation Commission during its final review of the draft amendment.

4. For your information, the proposed amendment to Annex 1 is envisaged for applicability on 13 November 2014. Any comments you may have thereon would be appreciated.

5. May I request that any comments you wish to make on the amendment proposal be dispatched to reach me not later than 2 July 2013. The Air Navigation Commission has asked me to specially indicate that comments received after the due date may not be considered by the Commission and the Council. In this connection, should you anticipate a delay in the receipt of your reply, please let me know in advance of the due date.

6. The subsequent work of the Air Navigation Commission and the Council would be greatly facilitated by specific statements on the acceptability or otherwise of the proposals. Please note that for the review of your comments by the Air Navigation Commission and the Council, replies are normally classified as "agreement with or without comments", "disagreement with or without comments" or "no indication of position". If in your reply the expressions "no objections" or "no comments" are used, they will be taken to mean "agreement without comment" and "no indication of position", respectively. In order to facilitate proper classification of your response, a form has been included in Attachment D which may be completed and returned together with your comments, if any, on the proposals in Attachment B.

Accept, Sir/Madam, the assurances of my highest consideration. Raymond Benjamin
Secretary General

[Inverted2]

I think making 65 a hard number is fair for airline flying. I hope Canadian airlines follow this. Although everyone ages differently a line has to be drawn somewhere. Should we let responsible, intelligent 13 year olds drive? Wouldn't that be discriminatory as well? I don't know of the traveling public would be good with 70 year olds flying them around.

[Rockie]

I hope Canadian airlines follow this. Although everyone ages differently a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Air Canada, WestJet, Air Transat etc. will have no choice but to follow it. There is no possible way any of those operators can manage a schedule while keeping over 65 pilots wholly within Canada. BFOR under the proposed age 65 amendment is a slam dunk. But as time goes on the age 65 limit may eventually be pushed back itself by ICAO if medical evidence proves it to be acceptable.

It also means Air Canada will have to abandon their policy of limiting First Officer's bidding options when they turn 60, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time until the first FO files an age discrimination complaint against ACPA and Air Canada anyway since ICAO currently has no age limit on First Officer's. In my opinion that's a slam dunk too.

[Raymond Hall]

Air Canada, WestJet, Air Transat etc. will have no choice but to follow it. There is no possible way any of those operators can manage a schedule while keeping over 65 pilots wholly within Canada. BFOR under the proposed age 65 amendment is a slam dunk. But as time goes on the age 65 limit may eventually be pushed back itself by ICAO if medical evidence proves it to be acceptable.

The proposal was approved by ICAO and takes effect November 13, 2014. It applies to all international airspace unless the individual countries opt out. The USA has not opted out and is unlikely to do so, given the fact that its licensing restricts all of their own FAA Part 121 pilots to age 64.

The head of Transport Canada, in his testimony before the Tribunal, stated that Canada's position before ICAO was that there should be no maximum age restriction whatsoever, as maximum age restrictions violate the anti-discrimination provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada therefore will not follow the new ICAO limit, but as Rockie points out, for all of the major carriers operating in Canada, not being able to operate flights in U.S. airspace is problematic. Air Canada's testimony before the Tribunal was that over 80% of Air Canada's flights transit some portions of U.S. airspace. Others use U.S. alternates (SEA, GFK, IAG, BUF, BGR, IAD, BOS, EWR and JFK).

It also means Air Canada will have to abandon their policy of limiting First Officer's bidding options when they turn 60, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time until the first FO files an age discrimination complaint against ACPA and Air Canada anyway since ICAO currently has no age limit on First Officer's. In my opinion that's a slam dunk too.

Complaints were filed in that regard some months ago against both Air Canada and ACPA. The complaints allege discrimination on the basis of age not only in relation to status (F/O versus Captain), but in relation to other factors as well, based on the provisions of the amended collective agreement that affect only pilots over age 60.

[Raymond Hall]

I think making 65 a hard number is fair for airline flying. I hope Canadian airlines follow this. Although everyone ages differently a line has to be drawn somewhere. Should we let responsible, intelligent 13 year olds drive? Wouldn't that be discriminatory as well? I don't know of the traveling public would be good with 70 year olds flying them around.

The Canadian Human Rights Act differentiates between "discrimination" and a "discriminatory practice." The former is not illegal; the latter is. Recent jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada Charter has also followed the same theory. Not all discrimination offends the Charter. Cases there include issues related to young widows' EI benefits (less than older widows'), and older widows' survivor pension benefits. In both cases the discrimination was not found to offend the Charter.

The BFOR defence is a necessary exemption to the prohibition against discrimination. You can discriminate against hiring an individual who doesn't hold a commercial pilot licence, because that is a bona fide occupational requirement. One has to be 18 to obtain that licence. The minimum age licensing restriction would likely be held to be a BFOR, if it were tested in the Courts. But maybe not. It is arbitrary, but there has to be some minimum age applicable. No? Same for the 13-year old driver. Some persons obviously could drive very safely at age 13--many farm children operate more sophisticated machinery than a car at much younger ages than 13.

In many cases, the issue comes down to one of public policy. Ontario lowered the age of majority (the drinking age) from 21 to 18, then a couple of years later moved it up to 19 as a result of problems with 18-year olds (especially high school students) drinking.

Why is the drinking age in some provinces 18, in others it is 19, and in the U.S. it is 21? Most U.S. states still restrict the sale of alcohol and the entry to bars to those over 21, but the U.S. will give a uniform and a gun to an individual at age 18 and send him or her off to war to defend the country. Logical? No. Legal? Yes.

Transport Canada does not base its policy of no maximum age restriction on the question of public confidence. It bases it upon the law and professional competency verified through recurrent testing.

A couple of years ago I was contacted by a retired Air Canada pilot who was working for Boeing, doing testing evaluations on the 787. He was certified on several of their aircraft, including the 767 and 747. He asked my opinion as to whether there was any possibility of him returning to work as a pilot for Air Canada. He was then in his early 80's. Yet he was certified competent to fly not one but several aircraft, including the most technologically sophisticated aircraft of all modern aircraft.

Sometimes it is not the law that must change, but rather people's attitudes toward the law. Without a change in attitude we would never progress.

But it was the general public's shift in attitude towards age discrimination that ultimately led every government in the country to repeal the mandatory retirement exemptions to the prohibition against age discrimination. The collective agreement currently in force between Air Canada and its pilots still maintains a number of forms of discrimination for pilots over age 60. But for how long?

[777longhaul]

Dukepoint and others: some history for you on the "CONTRACT" and forced retirement at age 60: Would like to respectfully, request, that you and others of your mindset, use the search feature up on the top right corner, and search out the history of how age 60 got shoved into the contract, long after most of the pilots who are now 60 or older, were already hired. It has not been around forever, and it was fought against, in the 1960-1970-1980-1990's, and it was only through the organized efforts, of the FP60 coalition, that pilots could afford, to fight this discrimination in court, as far as it has gone. The legal battle, is ultra expensive, and no one, can afford to fight it on their own.

The courts will have the final decision. Consider just one thing, if you will, ALL the other unions, at AC have accepted and taken back their members that they forced out, AND AC has accepted that issue, 100%. Does the ongoing fight, that a select group, in acpa, keep alive, seem logical, considering how all the other unions, and their mountains of legal advice, have told them that they could not win the discrimination cases? How is it, that acpa, knows so much more, than all the other unions, and their legal teams?

The federal government, changed the law, because.....it was discriminatory, that is the only reason. acpa, however, thinks it is not. AC has played acpa, and they (AC) have accepted all the other unions reinstatement/grievance requests, how is it, that all the other unions, were discriminatory, but acpa is not? How can AC accept all the other employee's back, with all their rights intact, yet.....acpa says that they will not accept the pilots back, and they are spending your union dues, to fight it? Does that seem to make sense to any of you?

acpa is not the pilots employer, AC is. AC has accepted the other employees back, but they are refusing to accept the pilots back, does that not seem discriminatory to you? We are all employees at AC, and yet, just one group, is being forced to retire at age 60, for no other reason, than age. IT IS JUST THE PILOTS.

Do a Google search on mandatory retirement for the airlines in the USA and Canada, you will get a great insight on how this rule came to be both in the USA and in Canada. Start with the 1960's.

Interesting, that more than 50% of the pilots, (aprx 200) who are part of the FP60 Coalition, are now past 65. If this was done in one month way back when, like it was at West Jet, then those pilots would already be retired, and acpa would not have wasted their time, money, and future negotiations, on fighting this issue. As a direct result, the courts will decide what, should be done about the discriminatory contract and the resulting forced terminations, and refusal to accept the pilots back to employment with AC. acpa, has REFUSED, to file any grievances on behalf of their members while they were still employed, paying acpa dues, and were members in good standing.

This is a brief....post from this site, there are many. It is not mine.

Quote:
Actually ("Original Tony") there were quite a few pilots who opposed mandatory retirement for years before their retirement. In fact, CALPA opposed any fixed retirement age till the mid eighties. There was no mention of 60 anywhere in "The Contract" when many of those currently retiring were hired; and their union officially opposed it. When TCA started, age 45 was the legislated maximum age for commercial pilots, and no women allowed. Age 60 came in 1958; put there by TCA sometime after legislated 45 went away. As mentioned, CALPA opposed a fixed retirement age. The history of this issue used to be on the ACPA website till it was removed when ACPA decided to fight this.

Also recall that those pilots paid for their flying training; no subsidised College programs. They also experienced 20 plus percent mortgages and much higher taxes than presently. They also voted for short hours (paycut) to avoid layoffs (of junior pilots) on at least three occasions. AC respected that a couple of times, then moved to layoffs for appearance sake; impress the investors even though it did not make financial sense. Those who worked for CP experienced repeated layoffs.

Every generation faces change; take it as a problem or an opportunity; the choice is yours. Retire when you want; just don't try to force your desires on others to advance yourself.
End quote.

I really, hope that this sheds some light on the subject.

[Old fella]

"A couple of years ago I was contacted by a retired Air Canada pilot who was working for Boeing, doing testing evaluations on the 787. He was certified on several of their aircraft, including the 767 and 747. He asked my opinion as to whether there was any possibility of him returning to work as a pilot for Air Canada. He was then in his early 80's. Yet he was certified competent to fly not one but several aircraft, including the most technologically sophisticated aircraft of all modern aircraft...."


Call me ignorant/uninformed/discriminatory/biased/stupid or whatever – take your pick but there is no “effing” way I will be on a commercial airliner from any airline with an 80 yr old + pilot. I don’t care how many endorsements he/she has, how much test pilot experience nor how many lunar landings as PIC. I am off that thing, post haste……………

[dukepoint]

You guys continue to justify your cash-grab any way that sits well with you. Just remember where that cash is coming from. Justifying the supposed injustice done by quoting 18% interest rates from late December 1981 (33 years ago, btw) seems a little like grasping at straws. What was your mortgage back then, like $75,000? Think how much further your after tax dollar went back then. Wasn't gas 47 cents a litre, and milk $1.25 a gallon? A chocolate bar cost 49 cents, and a Coke only a penny more. Do what you gotta do though. I will continue to play the worlds smallest violin as most of you guys golf to your 6 figure pension, and plot your next move against your former colleagues.

Unless you're a sim instructor, I hope I see none of you back (the very rare exception maybe), even if it didn't affect us financially. It's tough enough dealing with the "geriatric shopping club". No interest in being a flying babysitter as we'll. I couldn't imagine sitting right seat to a rusty "returning" 64 year old doing a V1 cut on a hot day in Hong Kong.

DP.

[dukepoint]

And one more thing far beyond "human rights" ..........457 passengers behind the door in a 777 have the "right"....the "RIGHT" if you don't get it....... to have a sound minded, sharp individual as pilot in command, or second in command for that matter.

I hope that pilots do the right thing and "pull the plug" when they know it's their time to hang up the goggles. I'd hazard to guess, but I'd have to say one pilot in three I've sat right seat to, should not have been in the left seat of a heavy jet in their last month before retiring at 60. We have a "best before date" figure out what yours is before you jeopardize lives of others by relying too heavily on your FO or RP to notice things you used to notice.

It's insane how this point seems to get lost and buried in this whole "fly till you die" initiative. Guess we need a couple of serious accidents to get it through some certain lawyers head that we are in fact not immortal, and 60 might just not have been lacking much justice for the majority of souls, save one, on board a jetliner all along. Aren't the needs of the many suppose to outweigh the needs of the few? We'll soon see.

DP.

[Rockie]

And one more thing far beyond "human rights" ..........457 passengers behind the door in a 777 have the "right"....the "RIGHT" if you don't get it....... to have a sound minded, sharp individual as pilot in command, or second in command for that matter.

What do you think flight and medical checks are for, and if you have no confidence in them have you considered that maybe they shouldn't be passing you even in your enviable youth?

[dukepoint]

Are you referring to 75 year old Dr. Poknprod who has vested interest of his own in working till you die? The same one who's been doing medicals on the same pilots for the last 40 years. We all know how those medicals go.......how's the wife and kids? Any grandchildren yet? How's the golf swing? Been out on the boat lately....blood pressures a little high, but it's probably just nerves being here.....where's that damn licence, where's my stamp?

Or the old buddy who's also 64 doing the sim/linecheck, who just lets a few little things slide for old time sake?

Ya, I'm calling out that process. Exactly.

After 60 medicals and sim evals are going to have to get really really serious.

DP.

[Morry Bund]

Just remember where that cash is coming from.

It's coming from two sources, as I understand it. 50% will come from the employer. The other 50% will come from the union members who could have used logic and foresight to see the futility of fighting the inevitable, but instead, by a majority, consciously chose to allow their emotions to displace their reasoning. That's where its coming from. It's time to accept responsibility for one's own decisions.

[Rockie]

Ya, I'm calling out that process. Exactly.

After 60 medicals and sim evals are going to have to get really really serious.

DP.

You're absolutely correct, and they should always be really, really serious regardless of the age of the pilot don't you think? That point has been raised by the FP60 group themselves many times and none of them would support keeping an incompetent or medically unfit pilot at the controls - also regardless of age.

It sounds to me like you don't have a problem with old pilots, just pilots unfit to be in the seat. Turning 60 years old doesn't make one unfit...it makes them 60 years old with one more year of experience.

[Old fella]

Are you referring to 75 year old Dr. Poknprod who has vested interest of his own in working till you die? The same one who's been doing medicals on the same pilots for the last 40 years. We all know how those medicals go.......how's the wife and kids? Any grandchildren yet? How's the golf swing? Been out on the boat lately....blood pressures a little high, but it's probably just nerves being here.....where's that damn licence, where's my stamp?

Or the old buddy who's also 64 doing the sim/linecheck, who just lets a few little things slide for old time sake?

Ya, I'm calling out that process. Exactly.

After 60 medicals and sim evals are going to have to get really really serious.

DP.

Jeez.......... you don't paint a pretty picture of those soon to be"senior citizens" and those who are, at your airline in all aspects of operations(flying/medical and sim positions). One in three left seaters toward their best before dates are"questionable".

Full disclosure: I never worked at any airline in any capacity.

[Morry Bund]

Ya, I'm calling out that process. Exactly. After 60 medicals and sim evals are going to have to get really really serious.

Please re-post the news clip of you carrying your protest sign in front of the Transport Canada offices in Ottawa, flagging this treacherous safety issue and your noble cause for everyone to see. I must have missed it.

In case you didn't notice, the one shining characteristic about the flypast60 litigation that differentiates it from all of the other mandatory retirement litigation in the country, including that of university professors and firefighters (the leading supreme court of Canada precedents) is that job competency was never before the tribunal or the courts. It was a given, because pilots are not licenced by the airline, they are licenced by the government. The only issue in this litigation is the legality of the contract in the context of the laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age.

So go fight your fight at the proper place.

It has always puzzled me why ACPA pilots seem to think the law should revolve around their contract with its highly skewed wage scale. Nobody at any of the other airlines in this country appears to have taken such an egocentric, narrow view of the laws of the land. They accepted the change and moved on, to their own credit and benefit.

[Stu Pidasso]

Consider just one thing, if you will, ALL the other unions, at AC have accepted and taken back their members that they forced out, AND AC has accepted that issue, 100%. Does the ongoing fight, that a select group, in acpa, keep alive, seem logical, considering how all the other unions, and their mountains of legal advice, have told them that they could not win the discrimination cases? How is it, that acpa, knows so much more, than all the other unions, and their legal teams?

Taking back a returning Biscuit Shooter and taking back a 777 Captain have (slightly) different consequences. Two days of ART and back to serving coffee for the F/A.

Full course plus the repercussions of displacing through the entire list, making room for the 777 Captain's return.

No one is ever coming back.

[Rockie]

Taking back a returning Biscuit Shooter and taking back a 777 Captain have (slightly) different consequences. Two days of ART and back to serving coffee for the F/A.

You entirely miss the point of how ACPA took a such an illogical and futilely different direction than all the other unions within Air Canada, to say nothing of the rest of the country. But it's nice to see that you hold the cabin crew in such high regard. I'd check my coffee carefully if I were you....

[Raymond Hall]

No one is ever coming back.

This is yet another example of speculation that appears to be based upon emotion, not fact or law. In fact, the legal premise is just the opposite, according to precedent. The law fully contemplates that wrongful termination on the basis of discrimination would result in reinstatement of employment. The underlying premise of a considerable body of that law is that persons wrongly subjected to discirmination must be put back in the position that they would have been, absent the discrimination.

This is not just academic. Neil Kelly and George Vilven were both ordered reinstated by the Tribunal. There is no reason to assume that a finding of contravention of the human rights statute in the case of any of the remaining complainants would result in a different outcome, subject to the pending change in the ICAO provisions.

Had the Charter decision not been overturned at the Federal Court of Appeal (as a result of a separate legal issue from the one currently before the courts), Neil Kelly would likely still be flying as an F/O, at age 69. Had we sought judicial review of the "normal age of retirement" portion of his complaint, his case would have preceded the Thwaites (Adamson) case in which the Federal Court recently overturned the Tribunal's findings that age 60 is not the normal age of retirement (that decision is part of the issue that will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal, likely this fall, depending on when the Court grants a hearing date).

The assertion that "most" will not be coming back (to work) may be correct for an entirely different reason--the effluxion of time. Simply stated, all of the Thwaites (Adamson) complainants are now over age 65, which puts them beyond the maximum age restriction imposed by ICAO for F/Os flying in international airspace that will take effect this November.

But there is a large number of pilots whose complaints were filed in the one to two years immediately preceding the coming into force of the repeal of mandatory retirement, in December, 2012. They are likely to be offered reinstatement, subject to the ongoing appeals.

The main concern for existing ACPA members should not be the impact of returning pilots on the subsequent equipment list. The main concern should be financial. There are almost 200 pilots with complaints pending before the Commission, the Tribunal and the Courts at the present time. Put that together with the fact that both previously reinstated pilots were awarded six-figure damage awards, divide that total by 50% (joint liability of the employer and the union), and you are left with a very real potential (and I emphasize, potential) adverse financial consequence to the union.

I am not suggesting that there is any certainty to any prediction regarding the outcome of the appeals or of the potential damage awards, should the Coalition appeal of the BFOR decision be successful and should the union and employer appeals of the "normal age of retirement" decision of the Court not be successful. I am suggesting, however, that there is still a very real possibility, in fact and in law, that a large number of pilots could be reinstated, and that the potential adverse financial consequences to the union could be very significant.

This suggestion is based on fact and law, not emotion.

[dukepoint]

Do individuals served by those of "advancing age" have rights to be considered? According to Mr. Hall, no.

Could a 65 year old fireman drag my 225 pound carcass from a burning aircraft as easily as someone 20 years junior? Do I have the right to have someone capable of that feat serving at the local fire department? Would the public at large be better served by having individuals in positions where physical and mental prowess were important, like being in command of a large airliner? What about my "right" to have a physically and mentally capable flight attendant operate the L1 door safely and keep the 20 or so panicking passengers at bay while they're accomplishing that task. I doubt not a few of our returning FA's lacked the upper body strength to lift a medium weight roller-bag into an overheard bin, let alone hold a single individual intent on exiting away from a door before the slide deployed. Think about it.


Ever hear the old saying, " you can't teach an old dog new tricks?" WHY? Ask any doctor. For most individuals, at 60, the body and mind enter an accelerated downhill slide that began 30 years prior. There is no way that any individual could honestly say that at 60, they are as mentally, and physically capable as they were at 30. Not one. Where does this slide become a burden for the other pilot, and in turn, a danger to every individual onboard that aircraft? Are we going to leave it up to the cash paranoid senior to decide?

Where is the line drawn between a patrons "right to be safe" trumped by "the right to fly till you die"? Transport Medical has their work cut out for them determining that line. When they do, how long before that line is challenged in court? What a friggin mess.

I intend to deal with this mess by staying put in the left seat till I retire at 60, like I probably should.

DP.

[Rockie]

Where is the line drawn between a patrons "right to be safe" trumped by "the right to fly till you die"?

At the flight and medical exam. But you know that already so why the question?

I intend to deal with this mess by staying put in the left seat till I retire at 60

Your intentions can change. If you actually do retire at 60 it will be at your choice, and part of that choice will be driven by your ability to retire. If life unfolds such that you are unable or unwilling to retire at 60 you will no doubt be thankful that you're not being forced to.

[TheStig]

Edit: nevermind

[turbo-beaver]

Ever hear the old saying, " you can't teach an old dog new tricks?" WHY? Ask any doctor. For most individuals, at 60, the body and mind enter an accelerated downhill slide that began 30 years prior. There is no way that any individual could honestly say that at 60, they are as mentally, and physically capable as they were at 30. Not one. Where does this slide become a burden for the other pilot, and in turn, a danger to every individual onboard that aircraft? Are we going to leave it up to the cash paranoid senior to decide?

Hey Duke.....
I managed to pass my last IFR on the 330 sim last sumer and only had 1 hour practice session after two years......not bad for an old man of 68.......and as far as the physical bs goes, I managed to beat most of the young F/O's arm wrestling at the last retirement party in Vancouver and as a matter of fact, your LEC chair went upside down in a leg wrassling match as well- so I guess that blows your arguments straight to hell......any time you want to give the old boy a try, just let me know......

[dukepoint]

Ever hear the old saying, " you can't teach an old dog new tricks?" WHY? Ask any doctor. For most individuals, at 60, the body and mind enter an accelerated downhill slide that began 30 years prior. There is no way that any individual could honestly say that at 60, they are as mentally, and physically capable as they were at 30. Not one. Where does this slide become a burden for the other pilot, and in turn, a danger to every individual onboard that aircraft? Are we going to leave it up to the cash paranoid senior to decide?

Hey Duke.....
I managed to pass my last IFR on the 330 sim last sumer and only had 1 hour practice session after two years......not bad for an old man of 68.......and as far as the physical bs goes, I managed to beat most of the young F/O's arm wrestling at the last retirement party in Vancouver and as a matter of fact, your LEC chair went upside down in a leg wrassling match as well- so I guess that blows your arguments straight to hell......any time you want to give the old boy a try, just let me know......

I know who you are. I mentioned before that the one exception to those returning would be current sim instructors. I'd be honoured to fly with most of you guys, as you're an exception to the rule. I'm not interested in those wishing to return that haven't kept themselves current, and are only drawn by $$$. Most of the individuals still involved in Airline training past 60 do it because they're very interested and love the industry......the money is only a bonus. I've no doubt you'd pass the medical either, so with my regrets, I'd probably be smart on passing on the leg wrassel.

Sir, you are not the target of my debate.

Respectfully, DP.

[turbo-beaver]

Duke:
all is good.....

cheers

[Raymond Hall]

I know who you are. ... Sir, you are not the target of my debate.

It would appear that you don't know who he is. Turbo-beaver is not a sim instructor. He is simply one of the 200 who, after being forced out of his career job at age 60, is one of the Coalition. He hasn't been back in the same seat since, except to renew his licence in the simulator at his own expense, years later.

One of the other aspects of your flawed argument is the assumption that assumed cognitive decline should somehow disqualify the majority of pilots at age 60. But there is no evidence to support that assumption. In fact, there was never any scientific basis for the choice of the arbitrary age. If anything, with increased reliance on technology, factors such as wisdom, good decision-making and the human resource management skills that come with age and experience are tending to supersede manual dexterity as the preferred pilot assets.

In one of the few areas where mandatory retirement still applies in this country, the judiciary, the maximum age for those at the top of the system, the Supreme Court of Canada, is age 75. Those who handle the most complex mental challenges of the law are not occupation restricted until age 75. Most professions no longer have any arbitrary age restrictions. Where does that leave your argument?

Without any scientific or logical basis to support or justify the arbitrariness of the age 60 restriction, your argument is without foundation.

Arbitrariness and lack of scientific foundation undoubtedly played a big part in the reason why all of the jurisdictions in the country abolished mandatory retirement over the course of the last ten years. Some of us saw this coming. Others did but refused to accept it. And still others never believed that it would happen, until after it actually happened.