Real reason for age 60 change for ICAO
12-18-2006, 05:24 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: A320 capt
Posts: 161
yippee
Actually, you are all wrong. The reason for the ICAO change is that the European Union rules against age discrimination have to be followed. The age 60 rule is contrary to the European Union rules against age discrimination. Simple as that, no conspiracy theory needed.
Typhoonpilot
Typhoonpilot
12-19-2006, 06:23 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Z F/O
Posts: 213
ABSOLUTLY- what is amazing to me being a "newbie yankee" --is this not the nation that went through a bloody civil war so that discrimination would be stamped out??? and if the govt has a "retirement" age of 65/68 WHY are airline pilots forced to retire at 60??--the solution is really quite simple let each airline/aviation co. set its own retirement age, then we all could stop *****ing at each other. we would also see where the economics lie, small minded pilots who claim a "safety issue" should bear in mind the following statistic 80% of ALL aviation accidents happen to pilots under 45. lets face it all those who don`t want a age increase only feel that way for strictly financial/selfish reasons, the good news is you`ll be there one day, and then the whinning will do an about face lol.
12-19-2006, 07:24 PM
#13
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: she flies thats all it matters
Posts: 68
I just read a thread on another board saying ICAO is lowering their standards down to ONLY 70 hours of flight time to fly in the right seat of a 737 or A320 "to accomidate foreign airlines, especially those in Asia and the Middle East that face shortages of pilots, to more quickly train and hire flight crews."
It seems ICAO has no regard for safety (come on, 70 hours and poof your in the right seat of a 737/A320!). Does anyone think this would be the SAME REASON ICAO changed the retirement age from 60 to 65. To accomidate the shortage of pilots??
Obviously a 65 year old pilot is safer than a 70 hour pilot, but I feel there is a reason why we have age 60 in place. Sure raising it to 65 would be better for economics, but I don't feel it is good for safety.
Here is the thread if you are interested. I have lost my respect for ICAO.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/sh...ad.php?p=91627
It seems ICAO has no regard for safety (come on, 70 hours and poof your in the right seat of a 737/A320!). Does anyone think this would be the SAME REASON ICAO changed the retirement age from 60 to 65. To accomidate the shortage of pilots??
Obviously a 65 year old pilot is safer than a 70 hour pilot, but I feel there is a reason why we have age 60 in place. Sure raising it to 65 would be better for economics, but I don't feel it is good for safety.
Here is the thread if you are interested. I have lost my respect for ICAO.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/sh...ad.php?p=91627
this license will be equivalent to the CPL ME with CRM and it will consists of 70 flying hrs in a fixed wing plus 150 hrs of full motion simulator (so a sort of TR license).
this license will be sponsored only by the airlines and for eventually some kind of cadet program.
the reason of this new kind of license is to have crew trained from the beginning in a multi crew environment and with new technology.
this license will not override the actual path to be a pilot, actually the beholder of MPL can fly only the plane he started in the sim (so for example if you started with B737 you will fly only B737) they can fly boeing but cant fly cassna 152.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
