Bahamasflyer

There are many capable pilots younger than 23 who can fly better than many ATP's too, so why not lower it to perhaps 18?? There are some 13 yr olds who are absolutely ready to solo as well. So why not lower the age to solo from 16 to 13 then?

There are exceptions to every rule. Why are so many people crying to raise the mandatory retirement age claiming many older than 65 are safe, yet no cry to lower the minimum age?

The government doesn't have the resources to means test every single pilot to see if they'd be an exception, so the feds pick an age that is the line of best fit. Just like some 18 year olds can drink responsibly, yet some 21 year olds are very irresponsible.

Get my drift??

SonicFlyer

Both are excellent ideas.

Of course they do. Every pilot is tested multiple times a year. Individually.

highfarfast

One needed 1500 hrs to get an ATP long before Obama & Co were born.

OOfff

Lmfao sure they are

AntiPeter

Reason is a libertarian website.

There are plenty of pilots over 65 that are perfectly capable of flying a plane. There are also plenty of pilots over 65 that are dangerous and no longer capable, yet they fly aircraft and hold medical certificates.

Educate yourself with the problems the FAR 91K and 135 industry has had with elderly pilots.

Elizabeth Warren can go cram it.

Moonbeam

Senator James Inhofe(age 87) is a prime example of the elderly boasting they are still sharp as a 30 year old. His long list of aircraft accidents and incidents suggest otherwise.

JJDriver

Not too long ago a pilot not only needed 1,500 hours but several hundred hours of multi as well just to get on with a regional. And previous generations it was much higher. Around 2007-2008ish it had dropped to to pilots getting on with just over commercial mins and a “get your multi over the weekend and we’ll put you in class on Monday”. When the crash in ‘08 happened many young furloughed pilots couldn’t even fall back to instructing as they never got a CFI. From a new pilot perspective low time sounds good, but the money didn’t start getting better until after the 1,500 hour rule. No offense to the low time pilots, I was there as well, but how comfortable does one feel commuting with a 300 hour pilot at the controls? There was a lot a single pilot during those times. I instructed for several thousand hours so I truly get the frustration of waiting and time building, but all a pilot has to do is show up and do the work and the money and jobs are there for the taking. There’s no guessing as to will I have an airline job, it’s which airline do I want to go to.

PilotBases

Funny, the forum was full of guys talking about how delays and cancellations were unacceptable for our customers and how better staffing is needed, but now Warren says it and it’s bad…

bpizm

I don’t get your post - that quote for removing the age requirement or lowering 1,500 isn’t from Warren—it’s from the Reason article author. The supporters/authors of raising age 65 are the GOP.

bpizm

So Warren helped make sure the bipartisan bailout preserved pilot jobs and didn’t go to stock buyback, and that’s bad? Nor is she proposing removing age 65 or removing 1,500. Kind of a misleading title considering the (assumed) point of posting this article….