Put the old pilots out on the ice floe

[Eclipse]

And the percentage of those older pilots who "lose it" and should be downed each year is LESS THAN the younger pilots flying in CAP without the proper training and experience and who should be downed each year, who are flying with CAP because they are not paying for it, and they are too cheap to go out and get good instruction and frequency of experience if they have to pay for it.

Injecting unrelated issues won't help this.

The fact remains that older people have health and physical ability issues that sometimes negatively compensate for the increased experience and better judgement.  A Form 5 lasts a year. A lot can happen in a year when you are over 70, especially when you engage in a hobby that encourages you to avoid a diagnoses which would pooch your medical.

If I manage to crawl to 80 and anyone tells me that I can't ride my bike, I'll be just as mad as a pilot being told to sit in the backseat.  The aging of the population in general is also a factor in terms of the number of pilots this will affect in the next decade or two.

But we have to address this at the macro level, and accept that CAP flying is "different" from GA flying in that we are responsible for the
lives of others and / or a mission.

This decision needs to be made based on published risk data and real-world actuarial information. Perhaps a flight review every 6 months instead of annual - many states now have increased driver's tests for older drivers, which is a reasonable compromise.

I am not in favor of just cutting people off out of hand, but we can't just pretend its not a risk factor.

[DG]

And the percentage of those older pilots who "lose it" and should be downed each year is LESS THAN the younger pilots flying in CAP without the proper training and experience and who should be downed each year, who are flying with CAP because they are not paying for it, and they are too cheap to go out and get good instruction and frequency of experience if they have to pay for it.

Injecting unrelated issues won't help this.

The fact remains that older people have health and physical ability issues that sometimes negatively compensate for the increased experience and better judgement.  A Form 5 lasts a year. A lot can happen in a year when you are over 70, especially when you engage in a hobby that encourages you to avoid a diagnoses which would pooch your medical.

If I manage to crawl to 80 and anyone tells me that I can't ride my bike, I'll be just as mad as a pilot being told to sit in the backseat.  The aging of the population in general is also a factor in terms of the number of pilots this will affect in the next decade or two.

But we have to address this at the macro level, and accept that CAP flying is "different" from GA flying in that we are responsible for the
lives of others and / or a mission.

This decision needs to be made based on published risk data and real-world actuarial information. Perhaps a flight review every 6 months instead of annual - many states now have increased driver's tests for older drivers, which is a reasonable compromise.

I am not in favor of just cutting people off out of hand, but we can't just pretend its not a risk factor.

Spoken like a true non-pilot.

QED

[Flying Pig]

As a Squadron Commander and Mission Pilot, this is why CAP Check Pilots are so important. I think it goes beyond more than flying.  As a pilot gets up there in age, or ANY pilot for that matter.  I think the entire package needs to be evaluated whether you are 21 or 80.   How are they out of the cockpit as well as in.  I have known older CAP pilots who could fly, but out of the cockpit they couldn't remember anything, you had to yell just to carry on a conversation with them (although they somehow managed to get a medical??) You had to literally hold their hand just to get them to log into e-services for the 100th time even after you have written it down step by step for them.  Just to say "Well, we cant discriminate based on age" is denial.  Pilot safety is an area where political correctness needs to stay home.  Just because you have a valid form 5 doesnt mean you cant be touched for a year.  As a commander, if I think an issue has come up a week after you took your form 5, I will contact the Group Commander up through the Wing Commander and ground you until get you scheduled for and pass another form 5 or Form 91 based on the issues I have.  I've done it, so don't anyone go into some rant that I cant.  What if your a 21yr old Mission Pilot/CFII whom everyone in your unit knows you are a complete idiot outside of CAP with a consistent history of making very poor decisions and have very poor judgement and common sense, but may not be illegal or 2b'able, but you can fly pretty darn good.  Should the fact that your an idiot the other 6 days per week not play into flying for CAP?  Nobody has the "right" to fly for CAP.  In my line of work I can assure you even legal "off-duty" behavior could most definitely play a part in me getting booted from Air Support if I blatantly acted stupidly.
I don't think there needs to be a max age.  I just think we need to maintain the standards.  If your uneasy about a particular pilot, then like anything else, you need to articulate why and deal with it.  If you have a member you are concerned about and that member is going up for a Form 91 or Form 5, talk to your commander about your issues.  If you are the commander, or any other member for that matter who has articulable concerns, talk to the Check Pilot so he can be aware of things he might otherwise not notice.  I don't mean conspire against your pilot, but your check pilot needs to be made aware if the entire squadron offered up human sacrifices to the gods the night before to ensure the safety of the check pilot.
I fly with an LE pilot who is 68 yrs old.  Hes still a sworn Deputy and flys 5-6 hrs per day in all climates and from sea level up to 14,000 ft. in the Sierras.  He isnt going anywhere.  But, just because you can maintain your Pilot Certificate or shoot an ILS to the same airport you've been flying into for 40 years doesn't mean you need to be flying search grids at 11,000ft on Oxygen as a Mission Pilot or flying CD at 1000ft on a 120 degree day for 8 hrs.

[lordmonar]

I got to say....that for the most part when you turn 80...it may be time to stop flying.

Yes....there are many pilots able to fly beyond 80.....but there are many more who are not....and CAP leaders often are not agressive enough to say "hey....you just can't do it anymore" when they need to.

The FAA does not see this as a need to be regulated.

No...but the USAF and the Airlines have similar rules.....and now CAP is looking into it.  Just because there is no law regulating something does not mean CAP can't regulate it.

[lordmonar]

I got to say....that for the most part when you turn 80...it may be time to stop flying.

Yes....there are many pilots able to fly beyond 80.....but there are many more who are not....and CAP leaders often are not agressive enough to say "hey....you just can't do it anymore" when they need to.

The FAA does not see this as a need to be regulated.

I'm not sure how that's relevant.  Most states allow people to drive until they die at the wheel as well, but that doesn't mean
I want to have 80 year old bus or taxi drivers.

Just because the FAA, which would be bombarded by AOPA and the AARP if they capped pilot age, isn't concerned doesn't mean we shouldn't be.

Are you a pilot Eclipse? I am not trying to sound arrogant or anything, but I wonder how many pilots are actually on CAPTalk. Its interesting all these non pilots have a lot to say about pilot qualifications and what age a pilot should stop flying.

Well we do have say in it....we are the poor bastages sitting in the right seat or stuck in back...with some pilot who should have been grounded on his last check ride, by his commander and by his own sense of responsiblity.

I have been warned by many pilots in my area about who I should not fly with.  No one wants to be the bad guy.   The gate keepers are not doing their job.

By putting in hard lines we take that burnden off their shoulders.  I would entertain a waiver process that would allow those over the line to keep flying, but it would require a very good check out.

[Eclipse]

I am not in favor of just cutting people off out of hand, but we can't just pretend its not a risk factor.

Spoken like a true non-pilot.

Care to elaborate?

[Bluelakes 13]

Care to elaborate?

Darn, you took the bait.  You should have let that ignorant speek go...

[Flying Pig]

I would say that whether a seasoned Mission Observer, 5000hr Mission Check Pilot or 2 sortie Scanner, anyone who flies in CAP has the right to chime in on this topic.

[Eclipse]

Care to elaborate?

Darn, you took the bait.  You should have let that ignorant speek go...

Meh, I'm a little bored today trying to tie up SUI's, encampment finances, and related paperwork.  I thought a little "you just can't understand unless you've touched the face of angels" rhetoric might be fun.

[davidsinn]

Care to elaborate?

Darn, you took the bait.  You should have let that ignorant speek go...

Meh, I'm a little bored today trying to tie up SUI's, encampment finances, and related paperwork.  I thought a little "you just can't understand unless you've touched the face of angels" rhetoric might be fun.

Major you have a very twisted sense of fun

[lordmonar]

I would say that as a seasoned Mission Observer, 5000hr Mission Check Pilot or 2 sortie Scanner, anyone who flies in CAP has the right to chime in on this topic.

That would be me.

You have to admit that the system is NOT catching all of those who should not be flying.  If adding guidelines that take age into consideration make us safer I'm all for it.  Like I said before.....I have no problem with a waiver system to allow those who can still safely fly beyond the cut off age.

[Eclipse]

Care to elaborate?

Darn, you took the bait.  You should have let that ignorant speek go...

Meh, I'm a little bored today trying to tie up SUI's, encampment finances, and related paperwork.  I thought a little "you just can't understand unless you've touched the face of angels" rhetoric might be fun.

Major you have a very twisted sense of fun

Sometimes you see a button you push it.  The issue of the age of our members in general has been ignored for far too long
to our detriment, especially in the area of ES and aviation operators, its about time it was put on the table for discussion.

Everyone has a stake in this, including Joe taxpayer who pays for the airplanes in the first place.

[davidsinn]

Care to elaborate?

Darn, you took the bait.  You should have let that ignorant speek go...

Meh, I'm a little bored today trying to tie up SUI's, encampment finances, and related paperwork.  I thought a little "you just can't understand unless you've touched the face of angels" rhetoric might be fun.

Major you have a very twisted sense of fun

Sometimes you see a button you push it.  The issue of the age of our members in general has been ignored for far too long
to our detriment, especially in the area of ES and aviation operators, its about time it was put on the table for discussion.

Everyone has a stake in this, including Joe taxpayer who pays for the airplanes in the first place.

I agree. I would be very uncomfortable if I had a very old pilot show up to fly my cadets. I do not want to have to explain to a mother that her cadet died because the pilot augured in due to {insert medical issue}. I would feel uncomfortable riding in a car with a driver that old even though I have a very good chance of surviving a crash in a modern car.

To you that are arguing that the FAA doesn't have rules about it, so what?? Most GA pilots don't fly low and slow and maneuvering like our pilots do. Most GA pilots are not entrusted with other people's minor child.

You can not argue against the fact that as you age your reactions slow both mentally and physically. I'm only 25 and I can tell I can't do things as well as I could just 10 years ago.

The PC crap needs to go away and this issue needs to be addressed.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I would feel uncomfortable riding in a car with a driver that old even though I have a very good chance of surviving a crash in a modern car.

You can not argue against the fact that as you age your reactions slow both mentally and physically. I'm only 25 and I can tell I can't do things as well as I could just 10 years ago.

The PC crap needs to go away and this issue needs to be addressed.

I'm just a few days short of being 20, and I have a bad left wrist, and vision that isn't bad according to the doc, but I get blurry vision after about 5ft...

Just 3 years ago I had perfect vision at MEPS, and no wrist problems.

I've also experienced some CAP Pilots who would ask me my name and if I'm new to the squadron - for all 5 years that I was active as a cadet. Those same people would then go up in a plane with two other people on a mission. Not saying ALL old folks need to go, but lets face it, so need to go earlier than others.

[Al Sayre]

If your O-pilots are doing low and slow (aerobatics are strictly prohibited) or Mission Profiles with the cadets then they aren't performing the profiles properly.  The min altitude for performing/demonstrating the in-flight manuvers is 2500 ft AGL.  They should also be putting the cadets on the controls after they demonstrate the manuvers and letting them get the feel for it ...

[davidsinn]

If your O-pilots are doing low and slow (aerobatics are strictly prohibited) or Mission Profiles with the cadets then they aren't performing the profiles properly.  The min altitude for performing/demonstrating the in-flight manuvers is 2500 ft AGL.  They should also be putting the cadets on the controls after they demonstrate the manuvers and letting them get the feel for it ...

I understand that. I was speaking to both of our primary flying missions. I wasn't clear enough. Each sentence was a separate point.

[ZigZag911]

Is this perhaps also an issue involving legal liability and insurance?

My uncle is in his late 80s, and is having trouble driving...a couple of minor mishaps, an accident just before Christmas...hit a parked car, street sign, major damage to his small compact vehicle...no injuries to him or anyone else, thank goodness..

Speaking to him about the growing risk he is presenting to himself and others met a brick wall.  I can understand this, it threatens a loss of independence...against that, one must weigh the potential harm that may incur.

Fortunately my state requires re-testing of drivers exhibiting control difficulties (regardless of age), including a medical exam. He passed the medical, but we're hoping -- almost expecting -- he won't pass the road test...family and friends will take him where he needs to go, with less hazard to him or others!

My point is this -- check rides, while useful (and, from what I, a non-pilot, have observed, quite thorough & stringent -- I can't say enough in praise of the DOVs & check pilots I know) only happen periodically...and a pilot experiencing difficulty with motor skills, memory, or other risk factors, may not be as noticeable as a motorist with similar problems.

Commanders, safety officers, ops officers, ICs, among others, all have an obligation to closely monitor pilot performance.

An age limit no doubt seems unfair to those whom it will affect, but I think it may have sound reasoning behind it -- for much the same reason we don't let twelve year olds drive: some could no doubt handle it, but most can not.

[flyguy06]

The Air Force seems to agree.  In fact the CAP-USAF side seems to be making some very interesting comments on this and many other subjects.

Well, what is the basis for their comments? No offense to you or the Air Force, but to say it's a good idea because the Air Force agrees with it is irrational as an argument from authority. However if the Air Force is aware of some data that can put this issue in perspective, then the appropriate thing is to bare that out before rendering an opinion.

Let's be clear here. We're talking about pilots who, despite their old age, still meet FAA medical and competency requirements for pilot in command. The assumption therefore is that they are just as capable of safely piloting CAP aircraft as well as a younger pilot. We're not talking about drivers licenses where there are no medical or continued competency requirements.

If the problem truly is with our check ride process, then this doesn't solve the problem. If unsafe pilots are being passed, then that is where the attention should be focused.

Why does there have to be data? People are so statitics driven. thats the problem withth efederal givt. They wait until something happens then they make a rule. There is an old saying "The FAR's are written in blood" Lets be proactive and not wait til there is a major travesty to make a rule.

[flyguy06]

As a Squadron Commander and Mission Pilot, this is why CAP Check Pilots are so important. I think it goes beyond more than flying.  As a pilot gets up there in age, or ANY pilot for that matter.  I think the entire package needs to be evaluated whether you are 21 or 80.   How are they out of the cockpit as well as in.  I have known older CAP pilots who could fly, but out of the cockpit they couldn't remember anything, you had to yell just to carry on a conversation with them (although they somehow managed to get a medical??) You had to literally hold their hand just to get them to log into e-services for the 100th time even after you have written it down step by step for them.  Just to say "Well, we cant discriminate based on age" is denial.  Pilot safety is an area where political correctness needs to stay home.  Just because you have a valid form 5 doesnt mean you cant be touched for a year.  As a commander, if I think an issue has come up a week after you took your form 5, I will contact the Group Commander up through the Wing Commander and ground you until get you scheduled for and pass another form 5 or Form 91 based on the issues I have.  I've done it, so don't anyone go into some rant that I cant.  What if your a 21yr old Mission Pilot/CFII whom everyone in your unit knows you are a complete idiot outside of CAP with a consistent history of making very poor decisions and have very poor judgement and common sense, but may not be illegal or 2b'able, but you can fly pretty darn good.  Should the fact that your an idiot the other 6 days per week not play into flying for CAP?  Nobody has the "right" to fly for CAP.  In my line of work I can assure you even legal "off-duty" behavior could most definitely play a part in me getting booted from Air Support if I blatantly acted stupidly.
I don't think there needs to be a max age.  I just think we need to maintain the standards.  If your uneasy about a particular pilot, then like anything else, you need to articulate why and deal with it.  If you have a member you are concerned about and that member is going up for a Form 91 or Form 5, talk to your commander about your issues.  If you are the commander, or any other member for that matter who has articulable concerns, talk to the Check Pilot so he can be aware of things he might otherwise not notice.  I don't mean conspire against your pilot, but your check pilot needs to be made aware if the entire squadron offered up human sacrifices to the gods the night before to ensure the safety of the check pilot.
I fly with an LE pilot who is 68 yrs old.  Hes still a sworn Deputy and flys 5-6 hrs per day in all climates and from sea level up to 14,000 ft. in the Sierras.  He isnt going anywhere.  But, just because you can maintain your Pilot Certificate or shoot an ILS to the same airport you've been flying into for 40 years doesn't mean you need to be flying search grids at 11,000ft on Oxygen as a Mission Pilot or flying CD at 1000ft on a 120 degree day for 8 hrs.

heck, I'm 40 and I need help with eservices 

But I agree with most of what you said.

[N Harmon]

Why does there have to be data?

Because emotion and knee jerk reaction are crummy things to base flight safety policy on?

Or perhaps because we owe it to the group of pilots who will no longer be welcome to fly for us that this decision be based on facts and not because some bureaucrats want to give the impression of taking safety seriously?

I can think of all sorts of reasons why there needs to be data. Why don't you tell me why our decisions should NOT be based on hard facts?

People are so statitics driven. thats the problem withth efederal givt. They wait until something happens then they make a rule. There is an old saying "The FAR's are written in blood" Lets be proactive and not wait til there is a major travesty to make a rule.

So why don't we require instrument endorsements for all of our pilots? Or heck, commercial licenses!? Why don't we up the required hours for mission pilot to 750 hours PIC? Why don't we require basic flight training for mission observers? Or nomex for all aircrew? Why don't we require aircrew to wear helmets?

After all, "The FARs are written in blood", "Lets be proactive and not wait until there is a major travesty to make a rule."

The answer is because the costs of certain decisions has to balanced against its benefits. That type of rationality is the only way you achieve the greatest success rate in policy making. Shoot from the hip decision making is not only unprofessional, but most often counterproductive.

The background for this proposal is as follows:

Several incidents during CAP Flight Operations including CAP Cadet, ROTC and JROTC Orientation Rides have caused some concern to CAP-USAF and CAP.  The incidents have raised interest in reducing the risk associated with these flight operations.  The areas of concern include questions about training, check ride certification, commander responsibility/accountability and issues related to the retention of skill/ability by Orientation Ride pilots.

Devil is in the details, but naturally we should question what role age played in these incidents. According to the Senior Advisor for Operations, age wasn't a major role (emphasis mine):

I do not concur that we should change that standards that older pilots must meet when there is ample evidence that these pilot deficiencies are not based solely on pilot age, but instead are a result of a lack of standard compliance by check pilots in the administration of proficiency checks and allowing pilots whose skill levels and judgment have deteriorated to a level that does not meet the established standards regardless of pilot age.