Put the old pilots out on the ice floe

[davidsinn]

Why does there have to be data?

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

I agree with that statement however it's emotion that is keeping them flying when there are pretty good reasons they shouldn't be. Nobody wants to be the bad guy and ground an older pilot.

My family had this situation with my great grandmother at around 80. She wasn't fit to drive but nobody wanted to be the guy that pulled her keys. It finally took a head-on collision at a closure rate on the sunny side of 75 mph that nearly killed her and her sister in law in one car and a friend of mine and his friend in another car.

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.

I read that as saying a check pilot should have grounded the pilots because they were too old. This proposal is removing the ambiguity and making it mandatory.

Data is not required here because the benefits out way the risks of adopting it. We'd lose a small fraction of pilots but gain a much better safety margin.

[N Harmon]

Data is not required here because the benefits out way the risks of adopting it. We'd lose a small fraction of pilots but gain a much better safety margin.

But how do you know that? What kind of safety margin is actually gained? And how much of our flying is made up by that fraction of pilots?

[flyguy06]

I guess thats the difference between managers and leaders. Managers manage resources and ensure the resgs are followed to the tee. Leaders, however are proactive and see things ahead and make things happen in order to accomplish the mission. We have a lot of managers in CAP. We need more Leaders. Leaders need tobe proactive. see things before hand. Leaders lead by example. managers interpret rules and regs and established policies. leaders make rules and regs and established policies.

[lordmonar]

Data is not required here because the benefits out way the risks of adopting it. We'd lose a small fraction of pilots but gain a much better safety margin.

But how do you know that? What kind of safety margin is actually gained? And how much of our flying is made up by that fraction of pilots?

It would affect 12% of our O-ride pilots and 1% of our CAP pilots according to the OP.

So it MAY cause problems with O-rides but not very much.

[Flying Pig]

You can be good manager while at the same time a terrible leader but you cant be a leader without knowing how to be an effective manager.  People like to try and separate the two but it doesnt work.

[arajca]

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.

I read that as saying a check pilot should have grounded the pilots because they were too old. This proposal is removing the ambiguity and making it mandatory.

I read it as the check pilot FAILED to properly conduct the check ride and evaluate the pilot's abilities.

[Al Sayre]

Data is not required here because the benefits out way the risks of adopting it. We'd lose a small fraction of pilots but gain a much better safety margin.

But how do you know that? What kind of safety margin is actually gained? And how much of our flying is made up by that fraction of pilots?

It would affect 12% of our O-ride pilots and 1% of our CAP pilots according to the OP.

So it MAY cause problems with O-rides but not very much.

Yes but what % of the O-flights are these 12% providing?  Generally our older members are the ones with the free time to do things like O-flights and weekday missions.

[flyguy06]

You can be good manager while at the same time a terrible leader but you cant be a leader without knowing how to be an effective manager.  People like to try and separate the two but it doesnt work.

Thats a very true statement. managers arent neccessarily leaders. But leaders are also managers. I say that because managers take the regs and thats the only thing they know.Leaders inspire. Managers interpret regs.

[Eclipse]

Yes but what % of the O-flights are these 12% providing?  Generally our older members are the ones with the free time to do things like O-flights and weekday missions.

I was going to ask that earlier, but we should not assume the answer is a high percentage.  Just because you are F5'ed 91'ed, and/or O-Ride approved doesn't mean you actually contribute to the program.  We all know guys like this who do their check rides and never actually fly for CAP.

This is where that "data" would be important.

[lordmonar]

You can be good manager while at the same time a terrible leader but you cant be a leader without knowing how to be an effective manager.  People like to try and separate the two but it doesnt work.

+1

[Short Field]

You can be good manager while at the same time a terrible leader but you cant be a leader without knowing how to be an effective manager.  People like to try and separate the two but it doesnt work.

Thats a very true statement. managers arent neccessarily leaders. But leaders are also managers. I say that because managers take the regs and thats the only thing they know.Leaders inspire. Managers interpret regs.

So a leader who is also a manager only takes the regs and thats the only thing they know?     In fact, poor managers tend to write more rules so they can fall back on them instead of having to be put on the spot and make a decision.  That is the current problem with a lot of the check pilots: they don't have a really strong rule to fall back on and have to rely on their own judgment as to if the pilot is really qualified to keep flying.  They are afraid to be made out as a bad guy and, in many cases, know they will be overruled by the leadership in the organization and the poor pilot will just end up getting another check pilot to pass him.

[Short Field]

History is full of great leaders who led people in the wrong direction.

[lordmonar]

Data is not required here because the benefits out way the risks of adopting it. We'd lose a small fraction of pilots but gain a much better safety margin.

But how do you know that? What kind of safety margin is actually gained? And how much of our flying is made up by that fraction of pilots?

It would affect 12% of our O-ride pilots and 1% of our CAP pilots according to the OP.

So it MAY cause problems with O-rides but not very much.

Yes but what % of the O-flights are these 12% providing?  Generally our older members are the ones with the free time to do things like O-flights and weekday missions.

I don't think it really matters.

Even if 100% of the O-rides were being flown my these 12% of the pilots we would just have to lead and manage our pilots better to get the O-ride mission done.

The question is.....should we be accepting the risk of older pilots flying these missions?  The USAF who funds them has concerns....we owe it to them and to our cadets to look into it. 

[RiverAux]

I did a little googling last night to see what there was out there in terms of studies of age-related accident risk in general aviation pilots.  Didn't find a lot.  There have been quite a few things related to commercial airline pilots.  I didn't do this, but I bet you can find a lot of good studies related to older people and car driving that might have some bearing on the matter. 

[flyguy06]

Sorry guys. i am guilty of what I have been complaining about. I didnt mean to turnthis thread into a Managers vs Leaders thread. I should have started a new one. i was just responding to the point about people wanting to base decisions on data as opposed to being proactive and trying to prevent a problem before it becomes data. If you see the potential for a problem such as pilots loosing skills as they get older ( I am not saying thisis the case) then dont wait until grandpa has an accident to do something about it so you can put it in your data. DO something about it now.


Anyway, lets get back on track. The National Board and making an age limit to fly in CAP

[Short Field]

Decisions based on fact or decisions based on opinion.  There is a world of difference.  Sometimes you don't have all the facts you need and you have to go ahead and make a decision.  But you only do that when you don't have time to get all the facts or you are unable to get the facts you need.  This situation is not time critical and the information is out there. 

I would like to see a decent study on the accident/mishap rate in CAP correlated to PD level and time in CAP.  I heard that most of the accidents were caused by Level I people.  Were they really new people or multi-year members who only joined for the free flying.  How does the rate (percentage) compare to other PD levels.  How does age factor in.  It might be safer for cadets if we required O'ride pilot to have at least Level III and be at least 50 years old.   

[lordmonar]

Here is what the NTSB said about age in 2005 (the last published report)

Age
The average age of all active pilots in the U.S. increased steadily from 1996 through 2005 and by 2005 was 46³¹ years. In contrast, the average age of general aviation accident pilots was 50. Despite the difference in average age, no meaningful conclusions can be made regarding specific age-related accident risk because FAA flight-hour activity numbers are not available for each age group. Age differences could be the result of activity if opportunities for recreational flying were to increase with age.

While the NTSB say "no meaningful conclusion can be made" it admits that the FAA does not keep records on specific age groups.

According to an AP report in 2006 Here

Among the findings:

Pilots age 60 and over accounted for 23.6 percent of all general aviation accidents even though they represented just 14.7 percent of all licensed pilots. Those in the 50-59 age group were responsible for 26.4 percent of accidents; they were 22.1 percent of all licensed pilots.

Pilots 50 and older were involved in 55.8 percent of all general aviation accidents that led to fatalities, although this group comprised just 36.8 percent of all licensed pilots.

Pilots in other age groups - those in their 40s, 30s, and 20s and teens -had proportionately fewer accidents over the five-year period and in each individual year.

[Climbnsink]

How many hours do the age groups fly?  I'm betting the older groups fly more due to wealth and time.   Without hours flown by the age groups accident rates are meaningless.

Among the findings:

Pilots age 60 and over accounted for 23.6 percent of all general aviation accidents even though they represented just 14.7 percent of all licensed pilots. Those in the 50-59 age group were responsible for 26.4 percent of accidents; they were 22.1 percent of all licensed pilots.

Pilots 50 and older were involved in 55.8 percent of all general aviation accidents that led to fatalities, although this group comprised just 36.8 percent of all licensed pilots.

Pilots in other age groups - those in their 40s, 30s, and 20s and teens -had proportionately fewer accidents over the five-year period and in each individual year.

[/quote]

[Climbnsink]

CAP needs to remember that everytime they make up a new rule a little piece of CAP's heart dies. 
Ground the 80 year olds and some 70 year olds will walk.  Will the world stop- no not this time.  Maybe next time though.

[lordmonar]

Well that is a slippery slope to go onto.

If we ignore a problem because people will walk.....we may end up going down the tubes for ignoring the problem.

If the USAF has concerns about us policing our own ranks...and they feel we are ignoring them....they may just pull the funding.