Multiple 30 minutes segments above 12,500' prohibited?


Some subjects of aeronautical knowledge are fairly complex, but are made worse by people applying them when not appropriate or necessary. One of my favorites has to do with fuel planning. Some people believe that for a Day VFR flight, they must have 30 minutes of fuel remaining when they land at their first point of intended landing...

Another one has to do with IFR lost comm when VFR conditions are encountered, people want to continue with the route, altitude and time to leave the fix...

Perhaps an angry crowd with pitchforks and torches will have to descend on Washington to get the regulations rewritten for average humans (or weak brains) to comprehend.[/user]
 
I'm the kind that also sees a flaw in the VFR cloud clearances regulation (also argued here too much). If you are lower than the bottom altitude of a cloud but not directly under the cloud then technically you are also not beside it. I'll call this area the corner. So one interpretation is that the spaces in the "corners" are not specified by the FARs. If they are not covered then it would be zero. I know their intent is a surrounding volume 500ft under x 2000ft a side x 1000ft over (day, below 18k, etc). I stay out of that entire volume. Just because there is a possible technicality to allow you in that "corner" doesn't mean I feel I should fly there.

I'm having trouble understanding the issue you're describing. Can you clarify or draw a diagram?
 
Not to start another nightmare thread but I'm the kind that also sees a flaw in the VFR cloud clearances regulation (also argued here too much). If you are lower than the bottom altitude of a cloud but not directly under the cloud then technically you are also not beside it. I'll call this area the corner. So one interpretation is that the spaces in the "corners" are not specified by the FARs. If they are not covered then it would be zero. I know their intent is a surrounding volume 500ft under x 2000ft a side x 1000ft over (day, below 18k, etc). I stay out of that entire volume. Just because there is a possible technicality to allow you in that "corner" doesn't mean I feel I should fly there.

For crying out loud. The purpose is just to make sure people don't fly into each other. Stay far enough away that you can avoid other aircraft. I'd bet the average pilot can't judge 500 from another object in the sky while in flight within 100% error factor.
 
Always wondered how the feds came up with the O2 regs, old mandatory retirement for 121 drivers at 60, and 1,000 & 3 for VFR? How much is scientific and how much was just because?
 
Always wondered how the feds came up with ... old mandatory retirement for 121 drivers at 60,
You really don't know? Does the name Elwood Quesada ring a bell?
https://www.faa.gov/about/history/people/media/Elwood_Quesada.pdf

On the one hand I wish leaders were knowledgeable enough to actually know what needs to be done and then quickly order it so. On the other, I cringe when I think of the havoc they can wreak like Quesada did with this decree of his.
 
Interesting article. It says about the age 60 rule “Implemented, in part, at the urging of the American Airlines president”. Was this because AA could pay the younger pilots less?
 
4 Pages and no one has asked if those folks that fly above 12,500 MSL are taking their o2 pills at least 30 minutes before takeoff....
Pills?

I just drink this above 12,500.

71Ia3eVGksL._SL1500_.jpg
 
Interesting article. It says about the age 60 rule “Implemented, in part, at the urging of the American Airlines president”. Was this because AA could pay the younger pilots less?

AA used to have a ridiculous physical as part of the interview...guys called in the astronaut physical. If you, or those in your blood line (parents/grandparents) had certain "defects," they wouldn't hire you. I'm guessing they had data that showed that the risk of incapacitating event increase after 60, which might be why he wanted age 60. But it's also equally as logical that he used that as an excuse to push for age 60. There are guys now that want it bumped up further to age 67 or no limit. I doubt we'll see that until ICAO increases their age limit. It's doubtful they will anytime soon as they recently shot down an age increase based on medical data.
 
Interesting point neither NASA or the military grounds people at 60. If AA had data and performed any analysis it is highly suspect until; it has been reviewed by others. Remember the tobacco companies findings which have been thoroughly disproven.
 
Interesting point neither NASA or the military grounds people at 60. If AA had data and performed any analysis it is highly suspect until; it has been reviewed by others. Remember the tobacco companies findings which have been thoroughly disproven.

Lol right! You give me the data and I'll build you a chart to either make it look worse, better or not as bad as it may seem. That said, flying is not necessarily a healthy profession, I'd rather see us go back to age 60 before ever increasing the age limit.
 
That said, flying is not necessarily a healthy profession
Due to the EMR exposure, being on the go or what? I’d wager the folks who sit at a desk from 9 to 5 throughout the week aren’t any healthier and they probably hate their job too - go figure!
 
Interesting article. It says about the age 60 rule “Implemented, in part, at the urging of the American Airlines president”. Was this because AA could pay the younger pilots less?
Your answer here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._R._Smith

"Smith was instrumental in lobbying for the FAA to implement a mandatory retirement age of 60 for commercial airline pilots in large part because he was eager to remove older, expensive pilots from his cockpits and replace them with young men who would work for lower salaries and, he was convinced, would be easier to retrain for the new jet engine-based airliners, as there was some anecdotal evidence suggesting that older pilots on average took longer to adjust to the new jet airliners which had very different control characteristics than piston-engined planes. In addition, this measure would save on training costs since most younger pilots at that time had experience piloting aircraft in World War II and the Korean War. The age 60 retirement rule was publicly justified on the grounds that pilots might experience health issues past the age of 60 and that contemporary medical science was not advanced enough to test for them. This rule remained in effect from 1960 until 2007 when Congress voted to raise it to 65 on the grounds that the age 60 rule was outdated and it was now much easier to screen pilots for potential health risks. In addition, Congress asked the FAA to present clear, definitive scientific evidence that a pilot of 64 was more unsafe than a pilot of 59, which they could not do. As a small compromise, it was agreed that at least one person in the cockpit must be under 60."​
 
Your answer here:

"Smith was instrumental in lobbying for the FAA to implement a mandatory retirement age of 60 for commercial airline pilots in large part because he was eager to remove older, expensive pilots from his cockpits and replace them with young men who would work for lower salaries

So get the government to do the dirty work for you. Classic regulatory capture.
 
...I'd rather see us go back to age 60 before ever increasing the age limit.
Speak for yourself. I would rather see the FAA keep up with the medical times, without waiting for Congress to force it upon them. I'm 72 and had a treadmill stress test this past week, lasting into stage 5 of the Bruce Protocol. I eat a diet that has me balanced in omega fatty acids and I'm greater than 99% (yes!) of the 27,000 individuals tested in omega 3s and only 2% have less omega 6s than I do. I take my health seriously and hate that I'm lumped in with those who don't, based only upon my age and known treated conditions in comparison with others who have unknown, untreated conditions far worse than my controlled ones.
 
Due to the EMR exposure, being on the go or what? I’d wager the folks who sit at a desk from 9 to 5 throughout the week aren’t any healthier and they probably hate their job too - go figure!

Myriad of reasons but my big ones are Sleep pattern disruption/time zone shifts, Radiation exposure, diet/fintess and exposure to unknown toxins (google Spirit pilot fumes).

Sleep pattern disruption and loss of sleep is the biggest one for me. On the domestic side I often had trips that fly a few legs to the west coast day one, redeye the following night (0100 departure on my body clock), land on the east coast at 0600. Day layover (try to sleep during day time on my body clock) then get up and fly a leg that night sometime after 8-9pm. Now that I'm international, it's depart the east coast around 8-10pm, fly 7-9 hours (with a 2 or 3 hour nap) and land in Europe around 0400 body clock, get in a bed around 0600 body time sleep for 2-4 hours then force yourself out of bed. Try to get a workout, wander around, get dinner then force yourself to stay up until about 1800 body time, sleep for a few hours, wake up at 0200 local time (everyone experiences this...), get back to sleep in an hour or so (if you're lucky), then wake up around mindnight to 0500 body time. Fly 7-9 hours home, land around 1500-1800 body time and then try to stay awake long enough to sleep as if it's normal body time. Get up and do it all over again. On a normal six day trip I estimate I lose a full night (if not more) of sleep...when I get home I'm wrecked for the next day. If I can keep it to just one leg over to Europe and back (3-day trip), I'm generally ok. Asia is killer and wrecks me for the day after the trip. I can't even imagine my buddies at the Cargo carriers that fly around the world, 10-day trips...or long haul corporate guys. Read Why we Sleep by Dr Walker (or if you like Joe Rogan look up epsiode 1109), keeping a normal sleep pattern is vital for our health.

WRT radiation exposure. It's a relatively linear increase up to 350, then it increase exponentially. I often spend 6-11 hours between FL350 and FL410. LOTS of the Captains (mostly 60+ crowd) I fly with have had various forms of skin cancer cut out of them.

Obviously diet/exercise is a big one. Eating healthy is not unattainable, but just that much harder while on the road. Exercise is hit or miss given the long days and sleep pattern shifts. Given the choice of sleep or exercise, I'll sleep every time.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love my job and wouldn't want to do anything else. But it does take a toll on your body. I actually stopped bidding a line and bid reserve now to limit my exposure to that type of stuff (WB reserve pilots spend lots of time at home).
 
Speak for yourself. I would rather see the FAA keep up with the medical times, without waiting for Congress to force it upon them. I'm 72 and had a treadmill stress test this past week, lasting into stage 5 of the Bruce Protocol. I eat a diet that has me balanced in omega fatty acids and I'm greater than 99% (yes!) of the 27,000 individuals tested in omega 3s and only 2% have less omega 6s than I do. I take my health seriously and hate that I'm lumped in with those who don't, based only upon my age and known treated conditions in comparison with others who have unknown, untreated conditions far worse than my controlled ones.

I get it and I applaud your efforts. For many of the reasons above, I don't think extending the age limit will do anyone of us any favors wrt our health. It's a moot point anyway because pretty much the only people who are talking about it are pilots hoping on the pipe dream. Our average pilot retires at 62.5 anyway and extending the age limit would only further increase the airlines requirement to pay guys out on long term medical.

Fellow Ohioan...Love that part of the state (except for the Lake-Effect)!
 
Not for nothing but going back to Some of the first posts...what is the big deal to using supplemental oxygen? Why not just bring it and use it?
 
@Johnbo

Pilots are cheap!

The nasal cannulas are annoying.

Full face masks are also annoying, and more expensive than cannulas.

IMHO. I've to the oxygen altitudes a few times but not long enough to require O2 per the regs...

-Skip
 
We're not cheap, just frugal!

Seriously Johnbo your attitude reminds me of the three people who have rear ended me leading to lots of pain and surgeries. I"ll bet at least one of them still will try to say it is ok to drive and text at the same time. All three were talking or texting.
 
We're not cheap, just frugal!

Seriously Johnbo your attitude reminds me of the three people who have rear ended me leading to lots of pain and surgeries. I"ll bet at least one of them still will try to say it is ok to drive and text at the same time. All three were talking or texting.

What in the EFF does that have to do with him saying to bring and use oxygen? Did those injuries cause brain damage or comprehension issues?

Someone posts to be safe, and you equate them to texting on the phone while driving. Are you retarded?
 
Good catch Ed! Comment should have been directed at Skip Miller.

Johnbo my apologies!
 
It warms my heart to know the word "retarded" has been used in a POA thread...
 
It warms my heart to know the word "retarded" has been used in a POA thread...

I couldn't think of another word that would convey the stupidity that was being displayed. I'm hesitant to use the term special needs, considering when you want a crack crew to go in you send in the Special Forces.

Do we also special needs the timing on a magneto when it's too advanced?
 
Interesting point neither NASA or the military grounds people at 60. If AA had data and performed any analysis it is highly suspect until; it has been reviewed by others. Remember the tobacco companies findings which have been thoroughly disproven.

It also calls into question the validity of the entire medical.

You have a logic FAIL

1. The medical system works and will show if a pilot is fit to fly.

2. A pilot over X age who passes a medical is NOT fit to fly.


You CAN NOT have both.
 
There are guys now that want it bumped up further to age 67 or no limit. I doubt we'll see that until ICAO increases their age limit. It's doubtful they will anytime soon as they recently shot down an age increase based on medical data.

Japan CAB has already increased the age to 67. Several other countries under ICAO are considering following.
 
James I'd say that passing a medical exam only shows that given the requisite skills, and ability to apply them, passing a medical only means you are fit for flight at that moment. Remember, the FAA says you must ground yourself if you have a condition that renders you unfit. Example pass your physical today then 14 days later you catch a cold, or break an arm, or have heart surgery. Or on your way home you are killed in a car accident. Would you not agree that having passed the exam any or all of those events render you incapable of flight as PIC?

Similarly, merely passing a physical does not give you the knowledge or skills to fly. You still need to learn and receive instruction and practice many things.

As to not passing a physical rendering someone unfit consider diabetics. For many years being diabetic meant grounding. Finally the FAA recognized this was medical and bureaucratic overkill and now have a path to certification for diabetics.

To further elaborate consider statics which are used to establish limits for many things including medical standards. Statistics help us characterise a sample or, when applicable, a population. But they tell us nothing about an individual. Consider statistics tell us something like 70+% of people are right handed. Do you know anyone who is left handed (my wife is and you could probably chop off her right arm with little impact)? Statistics are pretty much meaningless when you try to apply them to an individual.

As someone said, "don't fall out of the bottom of the atmosphere."
 
Japan CAB has already increased the age to 67. Several other countries under ICAO are considering following.

Ya they did that a bit ago and I think Australia did as well. Basically they're relegated to flying within their own country. From my understanding ICAO has very recently said no way to age 67. Not saying it won't happen, but I don't expect it will happen anytime soon.
 
Ya they did that a bit ago and I think Australia did as well. Basically they're relegated to flying within their own country. From my understanding ICAO has very recently said no way to age 67. Not saying it won't happen, but I don't expect it will happen anytime soon.

ICAO can say no way, but member states can regulate however they wish (such as what Japan did).

Australia and NZ don't have an age limit for airline pilots flying domestic, and their international crews comply with the laws of the country they fly into. This also applies to Canada.
 
Last edited:
ICAO can say no way, but member states can regulate however they wish (such as what Japan did).

Australia and NZ don't have an age limit for airline pilots flying domestic, and their international crews comply with the laws of the country they fly into. This also applies to Canada.

Right, I get that. But here at DAL (and I'm sure everywhere other Major), every single fleet flies internationally. So every country our narrow body categories flies to (and US), would have to have passed age 67, for it to be of any use. I'm just not expecting to see it here for a long time, if ever. If ICAO ever does pass it, then I'd expect to see it soon.
 
Does recovery mean they brought them back to sea level and then determined it took 30 minutes to recover.
During the next half hr (descent from 30 mins at 12,500) in sim, in landing phase these young pilot subjects made significantly more errors than the ones exposed to 10,000 for 30 mins.
 
Right, I get that. But here at DAL (and I'm sure everywhere other Major), every single fleet flies internationally. So every country our narrow body categories flies to (and US), would have to have passed age 67, for it to be of any use. I'm just not expecting to see it here for a long time, if ever. If ICAO ever does pass it, then I'd expect to see it soon.

First of all, ICAO doesn't have to pass anything. Each member state can determine by their own regulations what retirement age they wish to use. ICAO cannot come out and demand each member state comply with an age limitation. I'm not surprised as lots of people in this country have little understanding as to what ICAO actually does.

The countries listed (Australia, NZ and Canada) have no age limitation in the cockpit for domestic flights and international (but they comply with other country limitations) So a Aussie, NZ or Canadian pilot can fly international to Japan up to 67, and a Aussie or NZ pilot can fly to Canada without age limitation. For their carriers have the no age limit gives them more pilots to cover the domestic network while the younger pilots can fly routes to countries that have limitations.

I'm aware most US carrier pilots are bristling with the thought of age 67, but the reality is it's beginning. Japan has already approved and several other Asian countries are talking of following through on it. Currently it's not on the agenda here in the US, but like anything else it will depend upon several factors.
 
Arguing about this is pointless. The only way to get a definitive answer is to write in for an official interpretation.

Apparently, us Internet debaters have used this tactic to win an argument too many times:

FAA Chief Counsel web page said:
The Office of the Chief Counsel has reviewed its policy for responding to requests for interpretation submitted to the agency from members of the public. Effective immediately, only those requests that present a novel or legally significant issue, as determined by the Chief Counsel, will be considered as potentially warranting a legal interpretation. Each person submitting a request will be notified whether the FAA accepts the request for an interpretation.

Ah, Internet, we love you. :rofl:
 
First of all, ICAO doesn't have to pass anything. Each member state can determine by their own regulations what retirement age they wish to use. ICAO cannot come out and demand each member state comply with an age limitation. I'm not surprised as lots of people in this country have little understanding as to what ICAO actually does.

Of course they don't, I get that countries are free to do as they wish. But what happened after ICAO upped the age from 60 to 65? We followed suit and increased to age 65 shortly thereafter. If ICAO increases to age 67, only then do I expect the U.S. to do so. If they totally get rid of the an age limit, we may see that as well.

I'm aware most US carrier pilots are bristling with the thought of age 67, but the reality is it's beginning. Japan has already approved and several other Asian countries are talking of following through on it. Currently it's not on the agenda here in the US, but like anything else it will depend upon several factors.

I honestly couldn't care less either way, though I don't see it making much of an impact, our average pilots is already retiring at age 62.5. I guess raising the age limit would get guys more years on disability pay...
 
Of course they don't, I get that countries are free to do as they wish. But what happened after ICAO upped the age from 60 to 65? We followed suit and increased to age 65 shortly thereafter. If ICAO increases to age 67, only then do I expect the U.S. to do so. If they totally get rid of the an age limit, we may see that as well.

I suggest you go read ICAO Personnel Licensing FAQ with regards to age limitations, and specifically Amendment 172 to Annex 1. (3 March 2014)

Articles 39 and 40 of the convention specifically discuss pilots over 65 operations. You seem to believe that ICAO has the control over retirement age, which they don't. Again, please try to understand what ICAO does, and does not do. Retirement age is set by the various participating states, not ICAO. Several countries (including the US) could come out tomorrow and abolish all retirement ages if they so wished, and ICAO cannot, and does not, control that.

I would think an airline that flies international operations would at least teach in their GS about ICAO and what they are, and what the various conventions entail.
 
Back
Top