Put the old pilots out on the ice floe

[heliodoc]

CAP and useful MEASURABLE data??

CAP and honorable statistics.......I  would question that, too.

Hopefully, CAP can see beyond age..... but more likely its the risk averse lawyers that CAP is picking up and MAAAYBE 1AF.... But CAP had better bone up the proof that the AF is behind any of this.   Otherwise, it is CAP manufactured bunk that comes out of  meeting such as NB /NEC that can not zero around real issues like credentialing, following the G1000 FITS program THE SAME way in EVERY Wing, etc etc etc.  If it doesn't revolve around CAP uni and bling issues, then it can not exist.  Is that right??

But CAP and real data?  CAP and published data???   That's like some of the "current documents" CAP needs to update.

Let's see it CAP!  Because the other operational volunteer organizations do not get on older Americans...do NOT lecture us on our $475K aircraft and old age!  Unless CAP can PROVE beyond reasonable doubt, then CAP is slowly losing more of its aviation credibility with its "scientific studies."  Can not prove it??  Then stop wasting valuable time trying to create new  pet agendas!

If it's not written by verfiable, scientific, measurable documentation, CAP ought not be making rash decisions.

CAP  ...making USCG Aux looking like a better alternative everyday!  But I am CAP enough and man enough to admit when I do not know something for fact, like my above reference to USCG Aux

So let us CAPers see the real documentation about older pilots!

[lordmonar]

I still would like to see data that would support, and justify, such a draconian action!
I have yet to see any evidence that "old pilots" are causing a disproportional number of "incidents".

See Here

The results of this study are generally consistent with the conclusions reported by Golaszewski (1983, 1991, 1993) despite the use of different methods and samples. The results differ from the findings of the Hilton Systems, Incorporated. Kay et al. (1994) found that the accident rate decreased for younger pilots as they aged and then leveled off in the middle years. However, Kay et al. did not examine accident rates for Class 1 pilots
older than age 59. The trend analyses in this study detected a "U"-shaped relationship between accident rates and age when pilots age 60 to 63 were included in the sample.

[heliodoc]

Well, after glancing at a professional scientific document

Where is CAP picking up the age 70 and 80 stuff after the study stops with approx age 63-65 group..understandably airline / ATP and that type of flying...but where does that apply to CAP, huh?  I will still fly with CAP pilots who are 70 and 80 yrs old.  I may have to preface this way..

"Does CAP view the fight you and I are about to take as an unnecessary risk?  Do you and I need to do a 30 minute IMSAFE check with you?  Do you feel offended by the questions that I have asked you?"  I will incorporate this on every pre flight brief with every oldski in CAP just to have them understand that this is the slant of the beloved 68 going on 69 year old organization.  How'd that sound for all of those in CAP land?

I am up for flights with the CAP old timers any day of the week!  How do we know know when a 45 yr old O pilot is going to be a slumper in the the middle of a 20 degree bank demo ing something to a bunch of cadets??

So are CAP clairvoyants able to do research after age 65 to back up its claim? 

I still want to see REAL CAP data on age 70 and 80 folks.

[lordmonar]

Now that it a really nice argument.

"I see that the FAA has seen a trend....but we are CAP not the airlines!"

"I won't beleive it until CAP does their own study"

Okay.....let's do a study...I propose we take this year's flying budget to contract out a study.

I know this is kicking a lot of CAP members in the teeth.   And I think we need to proceed carefully.  BUT to just ignore the data, and to ignore our customer is a sure way to have our mission simply taken away.

CAP got the AFROTC O-ride funding because we can do it cheaper then contracting it out to local flying services.  If the USAF has a trust issue with us....they can certainly take their money and go else where.

[don736]

How about producing some CAP-specific numbers?

I still would like to see data that would support, and justify, such a draconian action!
I have yet to see any evidence that "old pilots" are causing a disproportional number of "incidents".

See Here

The results of this study are generally consistent with the conclusions reported by Golaszewski (1983, 1991, 1993) despite the use of different methods and samples. The results differ from the findings of the Hilton Systems, Incorporated. Kay et al. (1994) found that the accident rate decreased for younger pilots as they aged and then leveled off in the middle years. However, Kay et al. did not examine accident rates for Class 1 pilots
older than age 59. The trend analyses in this study detected a "U"-shaped relationship between accident rates and age when pilots age 60 to 63 were included in the sample.

[heliodoc]

Then CAP HAD BETTER proceed carefully, because all of a sudden its an issue because it comes out some sort of yearly NB /NEC Board Meeting

If it has to be then SPEND some of that money and again when we refer to the customer USAF and future DHS, HLS, and other missions CAP wants so dearly, then it becomes incumbent on CAP doing it RIGHT the first time.

CAP has been using the we can do it cheaper mantra for along time now.....The AF COULD go elsewhere.....done everyday in government contracting...CAP ought to realize this by now.  Still where is the documentation from the AF on this very age issue? 

Sorry CAP, I for one have not ignored the age issue..  being a Forester, wildland firefighter, former USARNG helo mech, etc you think I missed this little fact of life?  Apparently CAP doesn't think so,  having  68 year old attitudes and not changing with the times.  Where  did CAP miss the boat on aging ATC types, airline types, military types,,etc?  MAYBE CAP has IGNORED these facts for at least the last 30 yrs, huh?

Sometime the paid folks are their BEFORE CAP.  So the argument is getting slimmer.  This is off track ...but how's that HR 1178 study going for us to get more missions?  Seems like its dead on the hill for the time being.

SOOO this will get the ante up....I diddn't ignore the FAA document.   But CAP  is doing a fire drill based on airline and ATP studies.

Hey I know .....  everyone in CAP who has a commercial or ATP does O rides....ohh wait a minute we already do that...

Aren't we flying CAP cadet o rides with folks with PVT certs?

It will be up to that customer.  If they vote with their feet based on the FAA data, well then, CAP ought to get ready to find other missions.

Maybe CAP's longevity all things flight are numbered...like things in this current economy. 

Some can criticize views here, such as mine....  CAP needs to be creative in it sales pitch....we just can not do everything we SEEM to advertise.

So how come the beloved CAP "Agency" hasn't done its own study and how come it continues to use FAA data  and PTS standards?  Can it not do things by itself.  I am a realist..... CAP is just NOT on every ones, every States, every agencies, and may not always be on the USAF's  page 1 on their ROLODEX.

CAP proceeding carefully....you bet!!

[bosshawk]

FYI: there has been a definitive study done on the effects of aging on pilot performance: I took part in it for a number of years(six, I think).  It was run at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto, Ca and sponsored by the American Association on Aging, the FAA and Stanford University.  As far as I know, it is ongoing.  To participate, one had to have at least a Private Pilots license, a current medical and be willing to spend the better part of a day once a year in testing.  They had an upper age cutoff: 70 and I believe that the minimum age was 45, but I could have missed that one.

Each session consisted of several sessions on a computer going through a bunch of timed tests on matching items and identifying items and some other stuff that I can't remember.  Then, you also spent two or three sessions in a Frasca simulator, flying headings, changing altitudes, changing squawk codes and radio frequencies by memory.

[bosshawk]

For some reason, my computer won't allow me very much verbage(probably not a bad idea).

The study has produced some reports and I have seen one or two.  They made lots of conclusions, but one in particular got my attention: there is evidence that aging pilots have a lessening of their cognitive skills as they age.  Since I am not a scientist, I am not sure what affect that has on pilot performance.  What do I know, I am just an airplane driver.  Point me in the right direction and I can take you there.

[Climbnsink]

iirc some of the old pilot studies found that pilots that had learned to fly at a young age did ok, and old pilots that learned to fly later in life were the significant poor performers.  If that is the case good luck writing rules that make the distinction. 
Personally I think we should wait until after an old geezer CAP pilot related fatal crash and overreact then.   

[DG]

iirc some of the old pilot studies found that pilots that had learned to fly at a young age did ok, and old pilots that learned to fly later in life were the significant poor performers.  If that is the case good luck writing rules that make the distinction. 
Personally I think we should wait until after an old geezer CAP pilot related fatal crash and overreact then.

I am very impressed with the thinking around here lately

(seriously)

[Fuzzy]

iirc some of the old pilot studies found that pilots that had learned to fly at a young age did ok, and old pilots that learned to fly later in life were the significant poor performers.  If that is the case good luck writing rules that make the distinction. 
Personally I think we should wait until after an old geezer CAP pilot related fatal crash and overreact then.

So your basically saying pilots who have been flying from when they were kids did better than pilots that more recently earned their wings?

I think I can understand why.

[Climbnsink]

It isn't as simple as hours logged it has to do with skills learned at a young age are retained better.  From what I recall all of the old pilots had some deficiency, eyesight, cognitive speed, or some such, but the ones that had learned to fly a long time ago did better at  flying than their peers(with similar total hours) with identical age related facilities.  If you study some of the sleep/learning stuff it seems plausible but how do you codify it in regulations?  I'd suggest an annual checkride to determine fitness for flight, and not just for the old bastards lets make every CAP pilot have an annual checkride.  

So your basically saying pilots who have been flying from when they were kids did better than pilots that more recently earned their wings?

I think I can understand why.
[/quote]

[Short Field]

I'd suggest an annual checkride to determine fitness for flight, and not just for the old bastards lets make every CAP pilot have an annual checkride.

Maybe something like an annual Fm 5 checkride???

[Climbnsink]

I'd suggest an annual checkride to determine fitness for flight, and not just for the old bastards lets make every CAP pilot have an annual checkride.

Maybe something like an annual Fm 5 checkride???

Nah that one doesn't work.  Maybe form a committee to come up with a Form 5.1 checkride. <sarcasm>

[sparks]

Great idea, CAPF 5.1 the rest of the story would be the committee of judges in the back seat with performance value cards like they have in the Olympics. Everyone would be looking for the perfect 10.

[heliodoc]

^^^
SAWEEEET!

CAP types aspiring to be paid contract DPE 's or real FAA examiners, huh?

Even those folks know there is not a puuuuuuurfect world like some CAP types would love to aspire to!

[Capt. Chris Homko]

iirc some of the old pilot studies found that pilots that had learned to fly at a young age did ok, and old pilots that learned to fly later in life were the significant poor performers.  If that is the case good luck writing rules that make the distinction. 
Personally I think we should wait until after an old geezer CAP pilot related fatal crash and overreact then.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but, you could try this CAP fatal accident on for size, which may actually have been the one that spurred this debate to begin with....
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA08FA023&rpt=fa

This occurred on November 08, 2007 - aircraft N881CP a CT182T G1000 from Nevada Wing. Controlled flight into terrain. 2 fatalities, ages 73 (pilot) and 71 (observer). Both pilots were ATP rated and had over 25,000 hours, one was the Wing Commander and the other was the D.O. for the Pacific region. My apologies and condolences to those on here that knew them.

Not getting off subject, but I believe however that this accident was a G1000 issue, not so much an age issue. Technically Advanced aircraft have a much higher fatal accident rate than "round dial" aircraft. There is a thread on here about the recent NTSB report issued on March 09 2010.  The thread is here:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10081.0 and was started by sardak.

This is why I think the Air Force is getting concerned, perhaps wrongly focusing on age and not the aircraft type.

[tsrup]

This is silly.  There are already methods in place to ensure that the people climbing into and operating our aircraft are competent and proficient as well has physically fit.  There are the annual form 5 flights, biannual flight proficiency checks, flight physicals.  The problem is we are trying to apply a new regulation to solve a problem that should be solved by the checks and balances in place.  It is up to the Check pilot to see if the pilot is proficient enough, it is up to the Flight Instructor on the Biannual to give additional training and choose whether or not to extend the certificate, it is up to the Flight surgeon to check if the pilot is healthy enough for flight, and ultimately it is up to our FRO's to make those no-go decisions when we know in our gut that the flight wont be carried out safely.   We do not need more regulation (appears to be an AF mindset), but rather better enforcement of the regulations that we have. 

The safety officer and squadron commander have the authority to ground anyone they see unfit for flight operations and force another Form 5 whenever they sense the need.  It's time we used this authority, it just may save a squadron mate and a friend some day.

   

[sardak]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but, you could try this CAP fatal accident on for size, which may actually have been the one that spurred this debate to begin with....
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA08FA023&rpt=fa

This occurred on November 08, 2007 - aircraft N881CP a CT182T G1000 from Nevada Wing. Controlled flight into terrain. 2 fatalities, ages 73 (pilot) and 71 (observer). Both pilots were ATP rated and had over 25,000 hours, one was the Wing Commander and the other was the D.O. for the Pacific region. My apologies and condolences to those on here that knew them.

Said incident has been discussed here and elsewhere before - unfortunate, but old news. Age may have been a contributing factor, but it was certainly not the first time. Pilot age had been discussed within CAP before this incident.

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3491
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6331
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=7573

The glass cockpit may also have been a contributing factor but that's a topic for the other thread.

Mike

[DG]

iirc some of the old pilot studies found that pilots that had learned to fly at a young age did ok, and old pilots that learned to fly later in life were the significant poor performers.  If that is the case good luck writing rules that make the distinction. 
Personally I think we should wait until after an old geezer CAP pilot related fatal crash and overreact then.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but, you could try this CAP fatal accident on for size, which may actually have been the one that spurred this debate to begin with....
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA08FA023&rpt=fa

This occurred on November 08, 2007 - aircraft N881CP a CT182T G1000 from Nevada Wing. Controlled flight into terrain. 2 fatalities, ages 73 (pilot) and 71 (observer). Both pilots were ATP rated and had over 25,000 hours, one was the Wing Commander and the other was the D.O. for the Pacific region. My apologies and condolences to those on here that knew them.

Not getting off subject, but I believe however that this accident was a G1000 issue, not so much an age issue. Technically Advanced aircraft have a much higher fatal accident rate than "round dial" aircraft. There is a thread on here about the recent NTSB report issued on March 09 2010.  The thread is here:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10081.0 and was started by sardak.

This is why I think the Air Force is getting concerned, perhaps wrongly focusing on age and not the aircraft type.

We all are very familiar with this event.

Ed Lewis gave me my Form 5 in the GA-8 at Mojave.

The newly proposed age restriction regulation would not have prevented this flight.  It was not a cadet orientation flight.

And you are right, it really was a TAA and heads-down CFIT.