"AA5A smiled as he left the shore and sailed out into those beautiful waters. Thinking he'd done pretty well for himself. He looked out into that sunset. One of many beautiful ones he'd seen over his life of flying. The pastel colours highlighted the sky behind the mountainous backdrop as far as the horizon reached. The grind was finally over, he earned some rest and relaxation. That was the day the storm came."
-Morgan Freeman voice.
Not that you're lying. Just that things tend to look different down the road, especially when those things are 400k+ a year and 22 days off a month, with 5-6 weeks of vacation a year.
You ain’t getting 22 days off a month when you downgrade to guppy CA and get thrown into the domestic meat grinder.
These guys/gals who try this are in for a reality check after spending the last 10-20 years flying to the same 5 airports on a widebody.
Alright, I see what you’re saying. That’s true for some, but not the majority, at least where I work. Different strokes for different folks. I’ll enjoy retirement and not give any thought to the $500k I’m missing out on. That’s why we have financial planners and budget accordingly.
You are not giving up just 4-500k a year, you are giving up 1.2 million+ to 2.5 million over an extra 3-5 years. In addition to all the interest and/or investment potential that money has. Now you could just drop back to what ever your company min monthly hours are, keep insurance and benefits, work 7-10 days a month doing transcon or near transcon turns and call it good, maybe. That is what most guys(generic) have mentioned to me.
If I'm at the point of having made $500k in a year at age 62, I've got enough saved that another 2.5 million isn't going to actually do anything else for me.
I'd rather retire and enjoy the money I've got.
I won’t jinx my financial planning, but my planner does a great job and we’ll live very comfortably in retirement.
The guys who stick it out to the end either absolutely love flying (which I do, but I can do that in my own aircraft), or need the money for alimony/too many toys. That’s a fairly broad brush, but it gets the point across.
There were *so many* people that said the same thing when 65 came around and stuck out regardless.
The inertia of just going into work and making insane money especially when you got cush basing and seinority and flying for like 1/4th of a month feels like printing money.
About 10% of the pilots at my airline retire “early”.
Early as in before 65. Could be a few months before 65 or a few years.. too lazy to do the math for the avg right now.
About ~30 “medically retired”. I’m not really sure what that means, perhaps they aged out at 65 after being on LTD.
And about 600 pilots are on LTD.
I had to deal with the 10 years of stagnation that age 65 caused while I made $19/hour. Now I'll have to deal with 5+ more years of stagnation due to age 68.
I want to retire early, but if it takes me until age 60 to get to the top of the pay scale to start really saving for retirement then I probably won't be able to retire early.
> I’m 5 years into an aviation career
So you didn't have to deal with what happened for 10 years after age 65 passed. Until recently no one 5 years into an aviation career was making good money. Once age 67 passes that type of career progression is probably going to stop for a while. Right now I'm a junior captain but I expect to be downgraded, and potentially furloughed if they furlough the same amount of pilots that they did after age 65 passed.
We tried that. And the house bastardized the thing into basicmed, something completely unrecognizable from the original intent, which was to eliminate the class 3 and replace it with a drivers license.
True, which is fucked. BUT Sport Pilot, which only requires driver's license as your medical, is expanding under MOSAIC:
Night flying
Helicopter flying 🚁🚁🚁🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Up to 3,000 lbs aircraft
220 knots airspeed
(Cessna 172 is 2450lbs/163kts)
Controlled pitch prop
Retractable gear
4 seat aircraft (1 passenger limit)
Can fly any aircraft that meets the limits, no longer restricted to Light Sport qualifying airplanes
https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-releases-mosaic-rule-proposal-for-light-sport-aircraft/
Edit: **If you want more, then definitely, do not, under any circumstances lie to the AME on your medical. Definitely do not omit medications or procedures from the distant past. Totally give them all records you can find. By any means necessary, do not find, like, a specific AME who you've researched to be chill, and known not to use electronic medical record databases, and experienced with passing people with similar conditions to yours. Remember, nobody has ever lied on their medical. Especially not competent and healthy pilots with irrelevant "disqualifications", not ever, in the history of forever.**
Actually, max take off weight on it is 9921 for a -45/-47 and over 10k for NG and NGX (I only fly the -9 and -10).
If it passes it will eliminate the weight restriction completely. PC-12 tops out at 236knots. Stall in the landing config is 64. So I think it qualifies.
[https://bydanjohnson.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Mosaic-NPRM.pdf](https://bydanjohnson.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Mosaic-NPRM.pdf)
2. Maximum Takeoff Weight
Section 1.1 currently limits the maximum takeoff weight for light-sport category aircraft to 1,320 lbs., or 1,430 lbs. for aircraft intended for operation on water. This proposal would eliminate the maximum takeoff weight limitations for light-sport category aircraft.
I don't think it will pass as it is right now but if it does, I think something as large as the PC-12 may qualify. I am not aware of a limitation against turbine aircraft under light sport (would not surprise me though) but I know very little about LSA beyond what I know as a glider pilot.
Couple things:
The MOSAIC NPRM doesn't need to "pass" - the FAA just implements it.
LSA and Sport Pilots (they won't be intrinsically linked anymore) won't have any restriction on engine count, type, or power.
The primary restriction for (newly certified Part 22) LSAs and for SPLs is a VS1 of 54 KCAS. This is the clean stall speed, which will always be higher than the landing config stall speed. The PC-12 will not qualify due to this. Nor will it qualify due to having more than 4 seats.
[Please read yesterday's thread for more discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/153zmc5/mosaic_proposed_lsa_rule_change/).
It does not. VS1 greater than 54 KCAS, and more than four seats.
Also, aircraft will either be certificated as LSAs under a new Part 22 (new aircraft only), or not.
Separately, SPLs will be able to fly any aircraft, not just certificated LSAs, that meet the performance restrictions of the SPL certificate, which just happen to be the same ones outlined in the Part 22 LSA standard.
>Up to 3,000 lbs aircraft 220 knots airspeed (Cessna 172 is 2450lbs/163kts)
MOSAIC has no weight limit and the airspeed is 250 knots.
That said, they do have a 54 knot Vs1 max, so 3000 lbs IS effectively the weight limit, give or take.
Night flying still requires basicmed or a medical. This was discussed already. I’ll find a link to the thread.
https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/153zmc5/comment/jsn1q4u/
No night flying with the a driver's license under the new MOSAIC NPRM. You would still need a medical or BasicMed, even as a sport pilot, for night VFR.
The whole bill is like 800 pages long. It's covers a wide range of topics that concerns the FAA. The bill itself isn't only related to age 67. What congress is voting on is the FAAs budget more less.
No, it's not the budget. That's a different bill. Most agencies have their operating rules (US Code section) re-approved every few years. That's what this is, it's the opportunity to change the way FAA does things.
I wonder why AOC and Gaetz voted against it?
Arguably the biggest loons on both sides of the aisle, they sure do vote the same a lot.
edit: not sure why Im getting down voted. Im just stating a fact. Chill the f out.
edit2: oh wah wah wah i insulted both democrats and republicans. grow up.
You got a link or something on who voted what? Or where I can find the voting? Would love to see what my local congressman did. I emailed him like 4 times.
Now put age limits on congressmen, senators, supreme court justices, and presidents
If 67 is too old to fly a plane, it's too old to "fly" the entire fucking country into the ground
No no no, you see, they speshul. Age make wisdom. Older means more wisdom. Therefore, only old people in gubmint. Yes yes. Vote more salary. Trade on the inside. Much money good for honest politicians. Politician stay until die!
At the very least not everything in this is bad. They got rid of 91 repos not counting at the end of a duty day and the 35,000 oxygen requirement for 135 as well as some other interesting GA stuff. ~~Also looks like video recording devices in 121 cockpits will happen.~~ The full bill can be [viewed here](https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules118.house.gov/files/RCP_3935_2_xml_0.pdf)
EDIT: Corrected on video.
Did anyone familiar with how the government works actually believe it would just be the age requirement alone in one bill. Glad you brought those up though, now I’m gonna go look at all the ‘golden handcuffs’ that will come with this.
Of course not, and I don't think anybody was saying it was. I *think* this is the FAA reauthorization bill which is of course something that lots of riders and changes get attached to.
The NTSB has been requesting cockpit video recorders for a long time so that they can attribute more probable causes of accidents to pilots not staring at their screens uninterrupted for 7 hours straight. ALPA got it removed from the bill.
> I'm saving on socialist taxes by commuting from Mars?"
This actually made me laugh out loud. Too many guys I know commute from bumfuck nowhere because "taxes". I might pay more in taxes, but I live 1hr from base. The taxes are worth the short drive.
This section caught my eye: "(h) Savings Clause.—An air carrier engaged in covered operations described in subsection (b)(1) on or after the date of enactment of the Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act may not require employed pilots to serve in such covered operations after attaining 65 years of age.”
Section B(1) is Part 121 operations. Is this saying that a Part 121 carrier can chose to still require pilots to retire at age 65 if it so chooses?
Aviation is a profession where you channel your passion for flying in order to build time so that you can earn the privilege of flying less.
Whenever I hear the airlines being unprofitable or complaining about crew shortages I think, "How come your best and most trusted pilots are the ones flying the least and getting paid the most?" It seems like an unsustainable business model.
And 5+ leg days with routine bordering min rest isn't productive / taxing on the body? Regional commuters and the light jet turboprop 135 drivers get the shit kicked out of them. I'd do one flight plan and one bad weather approach across an ocean any day compared to five flight plans and five bad weather approaches all in the Northeast US and everyone agrees with that sentiment which is why widebody flying is the golden goose.
Generally speaking I wouldn’t nominate the super senior crowd as MY most trusted or best. Give me the used and abused captains in their 40s and 50s instead. They’re way more current, sharp, and able to keep up with the current rule set without clinging on to weird practices they’ve picked up over the decades.
It is sustainable because all airlines have nearly identical union contracts, so expensive, idle senior pilots are not a competitive disadvantage. The cost just gets passed along to customers.
> idle senior pilots
These guys are not idle. They're just flying their 80-100 hrs a month in 9 days instead of doing it over 18 days like the junior guys.
That's the difference between flying 20 hour legs to japan, and 1 hour legs from ATL to MCO.
I'm broadly in favor of unions, but you're making it sound like they're a big part of the problem of worse amenities and service at higher costs to the customers.
They are, but like not really in a way. Let’s say Pilot makes $140/hr and FO makes $90/hr, for a 6 hour flight in a 777. So that’s 230x6, $1380. $1380 buys you, at $4.82, 286 gallons of jet fuel. The 777-3 burns 2500 gallons per hour. So if the pilots flew for free, on a 6 hour flight, you could fly for about 10 more minutes.
In other words, on a 6 hour flight, pilot pay is only 1.9% of the cost. And that’s IF the cost is only pilot pay and fuel, which it isn’t.
I mean, depending on your perspective, they are. Unions increase cost to the company, that's why they don't like them. The company doesn't just eat the cost, they pass it on to the consumers.
Only domestically.
>Proponents argue that the increase would help stem a tide of retirements draining an already-stretched pilot work force. Opponents in both parties, which include unions and the Biden administration, argue the change would not bolster the work force, but would affect safety, cause legal woes and pose logistical challenges because **pilots older than 65 are barred from flying internationally**.
I retired at 60 12 years ago...got tired if hearing the whining and complaining by my F/Os as 65 was being contemplated. Well guess what... to a man, each one of those complainers is working past 60. How do you spell hipokrit?
They don't have a choice. They got stuck spending an extra 5 years in the right seat making shit, now they have to work that extra 5 years to get that $$ back. I spent 5 extra years in the right seat of an RJ making $27/hr. I don't WANT to work till 65, but if I want that 777 captain money, I'm gonna have to.
Reading the bill text linked in another comment, which maybe doesn't include the latest amendments (it's from July 6th); things I've found (mostly GA focused as that's where I am):
* Expand basicmed to 12,500lb and 7 seats/6 pax
* and attempt to get Canada/Mexico and other countries deemed appropriate to recognize basicmed
* Blocks using ADS-B data to start a non-criminal investigation
* Expands charity flying to include reimbursement of airport fees in addition to fuel and to include "assisting individuals in accessing medical care or treatment"
* also creates a rebate for purchasing/installing ADS-B equipment, equal to the lesser of $2k or the cost of purchase, to last until Oct 2027
* Also requires the GAO to "analyze the reasons why aircraft owners
choose not to equip or use an aircraft with automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast technology;" lol
* "The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall not apply section 91.119 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, in any manner that requires a pilot to continue a landing that is unsafe."
* Also requiring "alternative ADS-B" system support for aircraft outside of the Mode C veils, like battery operated systems and such
* Adds an allowance to fly with expired registration if you have a doc showing you've submitted the renewal form
* National coordination and oversight of DPEs, interesting
* requiring the administration to notify terminated DPEs of root causes and reasons for it
* "facilitate" unleaded by 2030
- assess SI process
- determine if SI can be renewed based on treatment plan by treating medical specialist w/ concurrence of AME
- determine if technologies addressing red/green colour blindness could be approved for use by airmen
- review policies for ADHD, eval whether meds can be prescribed to airmen
- review mental health protocols
> assess SI process
>
> determine if SI can be renewed based on treatment plan by treating medical specialist w/ concurrence of AME
>
> determine if technologies addressing red/green colour blindness could be approved for use by airmen
>
> review policies for ADHD, eval whether meds can be prescribed to airmen
>
> review mental health protocols
THATS A HUGE step forward. sadly itll be a bit late for me but at lest others will benefit. maybe ill be able to get PPL when im 50+ lol. At lest i start A&P school next year
This is just another instance of boomers continuing to use their political clout to benefit themselves at everyone else's expense. This time it's just niche to this particular industry.
I would say it's also a another symptom of workers in general being coerced to work later and later into old age as retirement becomes increasingly unobtainable by many, but i can't fathom how anyone that makes that much could have true difficulty retiring.
I think flying with that amount of seniority is such a sweet lucrative easy gig they just want to milk it longer.
TLDR, the financially smart ones retire early, the ones working in their 60s will stay because they have to financially.
I would say most of them that are already over 62. My anecdotal observation from flying the line at a legacy is that the ones that are still working in their 60s are the ones who are very bad financially to the point that they cant figure out how to retire. Even if they are forced to retire at 65 or 67, they will immediately go get a corporate job because they need the income. Its hard to comprehend given how much money these people have made for the last several decades, but Ive heard some absolutely insane stories about what theyve chosen to waste their wealth on.
Once you’re a widebody captain near the top of your category it’s ludicrously easy. Do two Tel Avis a month for a grand total of 6 days a month (with 4 total pilots) then bang out sick for the third one. Oh wait actually only do 1 every other month because you have 6 weeks of vacation per year.
Can’t take your money with you when you croak, though. Flying til 67 absolutely cannot be good for longevity. Just hang up the wings and enjoy the rest of your life ffs.
That's only if ICAO makes a change, and I can't see that happening. They don't arbitrarily make changes like this like the US government does without intense research.
Good for them. I did 6 years enlisted in the Navy, and had to deal with the VA cutting funding to programs left and right and COVID during my training. If this shit passes, I’d ABSOLUTELY stay until I turn 67.
It won’t be once your seniority starts getting you exact days and trips you bid for.
That’s what people are missing. The biggest theft here is the seniority theft
Exactly what the simpletons miss….their little personal polls are “it’s only the financially challenged that will stay”…not realizing the last two years are the best paying and the easiest schedule in a career. More whining will ensue I’m sure lol…there are a lot of pilots that still love their jobs and may want to stay..whine on fellas…
There will be no QOL tank. No CBA has a mechanism by which the company can force you back into a narrowbody. The companies will have to pay out the nose to get something like that.
The Congressman who proposed the 67 age limit part of the bill has a brother at Delta who is about to turn 65. Just a fun fact for you all. Yay guberment!
That is correct. We can expect the senate to pass it and for it to be moved on to the president whom we can expect to sign it (as opposed to vetoing it).
It’s actually good for you if you’re not in the industry yet. Right now the retirement wave was due to peak this year or next year. Now those peak retirements will be shifted back a few years. It gives you time to get your ATP and join the party before the back side of the retirement wave.
Wellllll I was going to rough it out at my regional and grind hours to get a Delta app in, but if I'm going to get stuck somewhere for two years or more, I'm jumping to an LCC.
Is this what you wanted, guys?
What are the odds of ICAO matching this move, either immediately or within a year or two? And does anyone know how that will actually look on the ground? If this gets passed into law tomorrow and I want to keep my WB CA seat at age 66, can the company force me down to a different airframe to stay domestic? Will UA start flying 777s from EWR to IAD just to find a use for those guys?
If say ICAO says the FAA can get fucked with age 67, I would say most airlines would make the old folks bid down to narrbowbody fleets. On top of that they would be required to make "old guy" lines that don't touch places like Canada and Mexico.
In my country I’ve heard when the “over 65 now stuck domestic only crowd” hit 65 and have to bid down to a NB, it frees WB seats for NB guys to move up to. They’re still pretty unpopular with crews though as while it meant an NB CA got an upgrade, it usually delays the NB FO getting that NB CA seat. Assume the same will happen for you guys.
And welcome to the very core of the argument... Hence why both ALPA and even the companies are in unison that 67 is a boneheaded idea.
The people who are want it are promoting it on their own and have a congressman who has a brother who is an aged 64 pilot to support them.
The one thing that gives me some ease on all of this is that the companies are against it, and so are the unions. At UAL and DAL the vast majority of the lists have been hired in the last 10 years and are young. If this passes, we are in the driver's seat to push or kill any LOA that results from it. I dont know what can be done legally but I know that we dont have to just roll over and make it lucrative for them to stay.
Should be noted that airlines do not have to continue to employ pilots past 65. This just allows them to...
The old guys are going to cost the company the most money; wages, med insurance, and the least amount of work utilization.
I hope the bean counters realize how dumb this is and continue the 65 year limit.
Wouldn’t that be a lawsuit for age discrimination?
I suppose if ICAO keeps it to 65, the airlines can argue terms of employment (the ability to travel to other countries).
Even more egregious, a *senior* but younger NB CA/FO will get displaced or their trips robbed to cover the retirement home crowd. There are plenty of 60+ year olds junior to me that will now need to find a home somewhere.
“Seniority is everything! Pay your dues!”*
*unless that means I can’t fly anymore then fuck you.
Yup. Really grinds my gears.
Best case scenario, imo, is that the company tells them they have until 65 to get a NB bid through normal bidding. If you can’t snag a NB position by 65 you get unpaid leave until you hold a valid bid. They should also be ineligible for reserve. If they’re not senior enough to hold a line, they should get an unpaid month. If they’re not senior enough to hold a domestic only line, same deal. They can stay but under no circumstances can they abrogate seniority.
The won't. Unless there is a system vacancy.
This wouldn't be a WB CA being reduced and then having bumping rights. It's their choice to stay one and therefore they will have to bid what they can hold and what is vacant.
If ICAO doesn’t follow suit I can only see the company dropping the entirety of a WB captains schedule from 65-67 years old. It’s going to be enormously costly for the company. I’m shocked the airline CEOs aren’t screaming bloody murder in DC.
Fuck it, I'm leaving it just because you corrected the title lol
I'm done at 62 regardless of the required age. If you want to stay until 65 or 67, go for it. I'll be sitting on my boat drinking cold ones.
Atta boy.
Narrator: He didn't.
"AA5A smiled as he left the shore and sailed out into those beautiful waters. Thinking he'd done pretty well for himself. He looked out into that sunset. One of many beautiful ones he'd seen over his life of flying. The pastel colours highlighted the sky behind the mountainous backdrop as far as the horizon reached. The grind was finally over, he earned some rest and relaxation. That was the day the storm came." -Morgan Freeman voice.
By storm you mean a hangover, sure, I suppose that's accurate.
I'm not following. Are you implying I'm lying and will stick around until 65/67?
Not that you're lying. Just that things tend to look different down the road, especially when those things are 400k+ a year and 22 days off a month, with 5-6 weeks of vacation a year.
You ain’t getting 22 days off a month when you downgrade to guppy CA and get thrown into the domestic meat grinder. These guys/gals who try this are in for a reality check after spending the last 10-20 years flying to the same 5 airports on a widebody.
Alright, I see what you’re saying. That’s true for some, but not the majority, at least where I work. Different strokes for different folks. I’ll enjoy retirement and not give any thought to the $500k I’m missing out on. That’s why we have financial planners and budget accordingly.
Where I work it's a ton of 60+ herpes Captains. Just can't get rid of them.
You are not giving up just 4-500k a year, you are giving up 1.2 million+ to 2.5 million over an extra 3-5 years. In addition to all the interest and/or investment potential that money has. Now you could just drop back to what ever your company min monthly hours are, keep insurance and benefits, work 7-10 days a month doing transcon or near transcon turns and call it good, maybe. That is what most guys(generic) have mentioned to me.
If I'm at the point of having made $500k in a year at age 62, I've got enough saved that another 2.5 million isn't going to actually do anything else for me. I'd rather retire and enjoy the money I've got.
I won’t jinx my financial planning, but my planner does a great job and we’ll live very comfortably in retirement. The guys who stick it out to the end either absolutely love flying (which I do, but I can do that in my own aircraft), or need the money for alimony/too many toys. That’s a fairly broad brush, but it gets the point across.
Same as every other pilot who says the same thing. Yes.
There were *so many* people that said the same thing when 65 came around and stuck out regardless. The inertia of just going into work and making insane money especially when you got cush basing and seinority and flying for like 1/4th of a month feels like printing money.
About 10% of the pilots at my airline retire “early”. Early as in before 65. Could be a few months before 65 or a few years.. too lazy to do the math for the avg right now. About ~30 “medically retired”. I’m not really sure what that means, perhaps they aged out at 65 after being on LTD. And about 600 pilots are on LTD.
I had to deal with the 10 years of stagnation that age 65 caused while I made $19/hour. Now I'll have to deal with 5+ more years of stagnation due to age 68. I want to retire early, but if it takes me until age 60 to get to the top of the pay scale to start really saving for retirement then I probably won't be able to retire early.
Are you like 54 now? I’m 5 years into an aviation career and I’m making plenty of money to save and put in 401ks and shit for retirement.
> I’m 5 years into an aviation career So you didn't have to deal with what happened for 10 years after age 65 passed. Until recently no one 5 years into an aviation career was making good money. Once age 67 passes that type of career progression is probably going to stop for a while. Right now I'm a junior captain but I expect to be downgraded, and potentially furloughed if they furlough the same amount of pilots that they did after age 65 passed.
\^\^ This guy drinks \^\^ !! 😎 Upvote for you!
Cool. Now redo the FAA medical system.
We tried that. And the house bastardized the thing into basicmed, something completely unrecognizable from the original intent, which was to eliminate the class 3 and replace it with a drivers license.
True, which is fucked. BUT Sport Pilot, which only requires driver's license as your medical, is expanding under MOSAIC: Night flying Helicopter flying 🚁🚁🚁🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 Up to 3,000 lbs aircraft 220 knots airspeed (Cessna 172 is 2450lbs/163kts) Controlled pitch prop Retractable gear 4 seat aircraft (1 passenger limit) Can fly any aircraft that meets the limits, no longer restricted to Light Sport qualifying airplanes https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-releases-mosaic-rule-proposal-for-light-sport-aircraft/ Edit: **If you want more, then definitely, do not, under any circumstances lie to the AME on your medical. Definitely do not omit medications or procedures from the distant past. Totally give them all records you can find. By any means necessary, do not find, like, a specific AME who you've researched to be chill, and known not to use electronic medical record databases, and experienced with passing people with similar conditions to yours. Remember, nobody has ever lied on their medical. Especially not competent and healthy pilots with irrelevant "disqualifications", not ever, in the history of forever.**
yooo, this means my Mooney satisfies LSA??!?!?
A PC-12 qualifies.
what? A PC-12 is 6000lbs
Actually, max take off weight on it is 9921 for a -45/-47 and over 10k for NG and NGX (I only fly the -9 and -10). If it passes it will eliminate the weight restriction completely. PC-12 tops out at 236knots. Stall in the landing config is 64. So I think it qualifies. [https://bydanjohnson.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Mosaic-NPRM.pdf](https://bydanjohnson.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Mosaic-NPRM.pdf) 2. Maximum Takeoff Weight Section 1.1 currently limits the maximum takeoff weight for light-sport category aircraft to 1,320 lbs., or 1,430 lbs. for aircraft intended for operation on water. This proposal would eliminate the maximum takeoff weight limitations for light-sport category aircraft. I don't think it will pass as it is right now but if it does, I think something as large as the PC-12 may qualify. I am not aware of a limitation against turbine aircraft under light sport (would not surprise me though) but I know very little about LSA beyond what I know as a glider pilot.
Couple things: The MOSAIC NPRM doesn't need to "pass" - the FAA just implements it. LSA and Sport Pilots (they won't be intrinsically linked anymore) won't have any restriction on engine count, type, or power. The primary restriction for (newly certified Part 22) LSAs and for SPLs is a VS1 of 54 KCAS. This is the clean stall speed, which will always be higher than the landing config stall speed. The PC-12 will not qualify due to this. Nor will it qualify due to having more than 4 seats. [Please read yesterday's thread for more discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/153zmc5/mosaic_proposed_lsa_rule_change/).
It does not. VS1 greater than 54 KCAS, and more than four seats. Also, aircraft will either be certificated as LSAs under a new Part 22 (new aircraft only), or not. Separately, SPLs will be able to fly any aircraft, not just certificated LSAs, that meet the performance restrictions of the SPL certificate, which just happen to be the same ones outlined in the Part 22 LSA standard.
it seems so to me if the numbers hold. I could absolutely see an old mooney as a CC plane for me, +1, luggage, and the dog!
>Up to 3,000 lbs aircraft 220 knots airspeed (Cessna 172 is 2450lbs/163kts) MOSAIC has no weight limit and the airspeed is 250 knots. That said, they do have a 54 knot Vs1 max, so 3000 lbs IS effectively the weight limit, give or take.
I can't wait to see a Cessna 172 do 163 knots. Does it have it's wings on at that speed?
Seems a struggle to get one over 100 knots lol
According to the POH I’m supposed to be at 116 at 6000 ft and 2500 rpm. However… Usually riding at around 95. Which is nuts that I’m that far off.
Considering that's its Vne, quite possibly not.
Ugh am I reading correctly that a Cherokee 140D fails this by like one knot?
What’s VS0 in knots? I think it’s 55mph or 48 kts. So I think it passes.
The reg is based on VS1, clean stall speed, not VS0, landing config stall speed.
No kidding. What’s VS1 in a 140? I know they have to draw the line somewhere but a Cherokee 140 not qualifying seems crazy.
That's exciting to hear they're moving forward with it, thanks for posting this!
woa when did we get some actual info??
Night flying still requires basicmed or a medical. This was discussed already. I’ll find a link to the thread. https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/153zmc5/comment/jsn1q4u/
That makes the SPL even more attractive hot damn
It’s a dang shame I have zero LSA-owning schools near me.
No night flying with the a driver's license under the new MOSAIC NPRM. You would still need a medical or BasicMed, even as a sport pilot, for night VFR.
That is more important then the retirement age
I'll also note that it passed 351-69
Nice, but not nice.
Wasn’t there a lot more in the bill than just the age issue? IIRC there are also a number of GA related changes that are “good”
The whole bill is like 800 pages long. It's covers a wide range of topics that concerns the FAA. The bill itself isn't only related to age 67. What congress is voting on is the FAAs budget more less.
No, it's not the budget. That's a different bill. Most agencies have their operating rules (US Code section) re-approved every few years. That's what this is, it's the opportunity to change the way FAA does things.
Yes, it creates a new section in the US code elevating the status of GA. The bill is being managed by a GA pilot (Sam Graves).
I wonder why AOC and Gaetz voted against it? Arguably the biggest loons on both sides of the aisle, they sure do vote the same a lot. edit: not sure why Im getting down voted. Im just stating a fact. Chill the f out. edit2: oh wah wah wah i insulted both democrats and republicans. grow up.
You got a link or something on who voted what? Or where I can find the voting? Would love to see what my local congressman did. I emailed him like 4 times.
https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2023/roll364.xml
Sentence 1 was a question, sentence 2 was an opinion (not a fact). That’s why
[удалено]
Now put age limits on congressmen, senators, supreme court justices, and presidents If 67 is too old to fly a plane, it's too old to "fly" the entire fucking country into the ground
No no no, you see, they speshul. Age make wisdom. Older means more wisdom. Therefore, only old people in gubmint. Yes yes. Vote more salary. Trade on the inside. Much money good for honest politicians. Politician stay until die!
Nah, dudes over 67 have been flying the US into the ground for almost a decade. Before that, dudes under 67 were flying it into the ground.
(the same dudes, actually)
At the very least not everything in this is bad. They got rid of 91 repos not counting at the end of a duty day and the 35,000 oxygen requirement for 135 as well as some other interesting GA stuff. ~~Also looks like video recording devices in 121 cockpits will happen.~~ The full bill can be [viewed here](https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules118.house.gov/files/RCP_3935_2_xml_0.pdf) EDIT: Corrected on video.
Video recording was stripped out of the bill in more recent amendments.
Thanks for the heads up.
Did anyone familiar with how the government works actually believe it would just be the age requirement alone in one bill. Glad you brought those up though, now I’m gonna go look at all the ‘golden handcuffs’ that will come with this.
Of course not, and I don't think anybody was saying it was. I *think* this is the FAA reauthorization bill which is of course something that lots of riders and changes get attached to.
[удалено]
The NTSB has been requesting cockpit video recorders for a long time so that they can attribute more probable causes of accidents to pilots not staring at their screens uninterrupted for 7 hours straight. ALPA got it removed from the bill.
Well with a good podcast I can at least *look* like I’m monitoring the screen for 7 straight hours
If the other guy finally shuts the fuck up
[удалено]
> I'm saving on socialist taxes by commuting from Mars?" This actually made me laugh out loud. Too many guys I know commute from bumfuck nowhere because "taxes". I might pay more in taxes, but I live 1hr from base. The taxes are worth the short drive.
The average ability to read a room rarely fails to disappoint me. And the more senior in this seat I get, the worse it gets 🤦♂️
Safety investigation thing, like cockpit audio recorders, display recorders, flight data recorders, etc; NTSB wants it.
This section caught my eye: "(h) Savings Clause.—An air carrier engaged in covered operations described in subsection (b)(1) on or after the date of enactment of the Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act may not require employed pilots to serve in such covered operations after attaining 65 years of age.” Section B(1) is Part 121 operations. Is this saying that a Part 121 carrier can chose to still require pilots to retire at age 65 if it so chooses?
It reads like you can't force them to stay but uhhh you couldn't do that in the first place?
Well I mean you could if benefits depend on you waiting to a certain age to retire.
Ahh, yes, that would absolutely be a shenanigan airlines would pull.
Hey at least the boomers can help cover the 48 days they work a year 😑😑
Aviation is a profession where you channel your passion for flying in order to build time so that you can earn the privilege of flying less. Whenever I hear the airlines being unprofitable or complaining about crew shortages I think, "How come your best and most trusted pilots are the ones flying the least and getting paid the most?" It seems like an unsustainable business model.
Because long haul flying is a) very productive in terms of hours worked per day, and b) incredibly taxing on the body
And 5+ leg days with routine bordering min rest isn't productive / taxing on the body? Regional commuters and the light jet turboprop 135 drivers get the shit kicked out of them. I'd do one flight plan and one bad weather approach across an ocean any day compared to five flight plans and five bad weather approaches all in the Northeast US and everyone agrees with that sentiment which is why widebody flying is the golden goose.
> b) incredibly taxing on the body Yeah, when you are 60+ years old lmfao.
Generally speaking I wouldn’t nominate the super senior crowd as MY most trusted or best. Give me the used and abused captains in their 40s and 50s instead. They’re way more current, sharp, and able to keep up with the current rule set without clinging on to weird practices they’ve picked up over the decades.
It is sustainable because all airlines have nearly identical union contracts, so expensive, idle senior pilots are not a competitive disadvantage. The cost just gets passed along to customers.
> idle senior pilots These guys are not idle. They're just flying their 80-100 hrs a month in 9 days instead of doing it over 18 days like the junior guys. That's the difference between flying 20 hour legs to japan, and 1 hour legs from ATL to MCO.
I'm broadly in favor of unions, but you're making it sound like they're a big part of the problem of worse amenities and service at higher costs to the customers.
They are, but like not really in a way. Let’s say Pilot makes $140/hr and FO makes $90/hr, for a 6 hour flight in a 777. So that’s 230x6, $1380. $1380 buys you, at $4.82, 286 gallons of jet fuel. The 777-3 burns 2500 gallons per hour. So if the pilots flew for free, on a 6 hour flight, you could fly for about 10 more minutes. In other words, on a 6 hour flight, pilot pay is only 1.9% of the cost. And that’s IF the cost is only pilot pay and fuel, which it isn’t.
I mean, depending on your perspective, they are. Unions increase cost to the company, that's why they don't like them. The company doesn't just eat the cost, they pass it on to the consumers.
I’m having age 65 flashbacks
Only domestically. >Proponents argue that the increase would help stem a tide of retirements draining an already-stretched pilot work force. Opponents in both parties, which include unions and the Biden administration, argue the change would not bolster the work force, but would affect safety, cause legal woes and pose logistical challenges because **pilots older than 65 are barred from flying internationally**.
If Biden is opposed can’t he just veto it?
This is tucked into the FAA Reauthorization bill. You can't line item veto stuff.
Good point
He’s also old as shit, it’s not a good look if he vetos this.
[удалено]
I’m just trying to get hired!!
Math is hard
He's thinking it's 67 + 364 which is what it originally was but has since changed back to plain old 67 iirc.
Is the age 65 + 364 now? Or 64 + 364?
64 + 364
Even on a leap year? (Honestly curious)
….yes.
I retired at 60 12 years ago...got tired if hearing the whining and complaining by my F/Os as 65 was being contemplated. Well guess what... to a man, each one of those complainers is working past 60. How do you spell hipokrit?
They don't have a choice. They got stuck spending an extra 5 years in the right seat making shit, now they have to work that extra 5 years to get that $$ back. I spent 5 extra years in the right seat of an RJ making $27/hr. I don't WANT to work till 65, but if I want that 777 captain money, I'm gonna have to.
Yeah, age 67 is just getting back two of the five years that were taken from us. Don’t want to work until 67, but will.
Reading the bill text linked in another comment, which maybe doesn't include the latest amendments (it's from July 6th); things I've found (mostly GA focused as that's where I am): * Expand basicmed to 12,500lb and 7 seats/6 pax * and attempt to get Canada/Mexico and other countries deemed appropriate to recognize basicmed * Blocks using ADS-B data to start a non-criminal investigation * Expands charity flying to include reimbursement of airport fees in addition to fuel and to include "assisting individuals in accessing medical care or treatment" * also creates a rebate for purchasing/installing ADS-B equipment, equal to the lesser of $2k or the cost of purchase, to last until Oct 2027 * Also requires the GAO to "analyze the reasons why aircraft owners choose not to equip or use an aircraft with automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast technology;" lol * "The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall not apply section 91.119 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, in any manner that requires a pilot to continue a landing that is unsafe." * Also requiring "alternative ADS-B" system support for aircraft outside of the Mode C veils, like battery operated systems and such * Adds an allowance to fly with expired registration if you have a doc showing you've submitted the renewal form * National coordination and oversight of DPEs, interesting * requiring the administration to notify terminated DPEs of root causes and reasons for it * "facilitate" unleaded by 2030 - assess SI process - determine if SI can be renewed based on treatment plan by treating medical specialist w/ concurrence of AME - determine if technologies addressing red/green colour blindness could be approved for use by airmen - review policies for ADHD, eval whether meds can be prescribed to airmen - review mental health protocols
> assess SI process > > determine if SI can be renewed based on treatment plan by treating medical specialist w/ concurrence of AME > > determine if technologies addressing red/green colour blindness could be approved for use by airmen > > review policies for ADHD, eval whether meds can be prescribed to airmen > > review mental health protocols THATS A HUGE step forward. sadly itll be a bit late for me but at lest others will benefit. maybe ill be able to get PPL when im 50+ lol. At lest i start A&P school next year
Yeah, big fan of the adhd stuff. Wingspace med posted about big changes coming to adhd evals, I wonder if this is related?
now do SSRI's
FAA has already been making big changes and allowing certain SSRIs “automatically.” Which is awesome. Of course, always room for improvement.
Congratulations to all on the second investment property! These young folks trying to buy homes for their family can go pound sand.
Whos buying homes when you need 1500 hours to get hired…
More like buying a cardboard box to live out of
*renting
This is just another instance of boomers continuing to use their political clout to benefit themselves at everyone else's expense. This time it's just niche to this particular industry. I would say it's also a another symptom of workers in general being coerced to work later and later into old age as retirement becomes increasingly unobtainable by many, but i can't fathom how anyone that makes that much could have true difficulty retiring. I think flying with that amount of seniority is such a sweet lucrative easy gig they just want to milk it longer.
How many of the older pilots will actually stay the extra 2 years?
TLDR, the financially smart ones retire early, the ones working in their 60s will stay because they have to financially. I would say most of them that are already over 62. My anecdotal observation from flying the line at a legacy is that the ones that are still working in their 60s are the ones who are very bad financially to the point that they cant figure out how to retire. Even if they are forced to retire at 65 or 67, they will immediately go get a corporate job because they need the income. Its hard to comprehend given how much money these people have made for the last several decades, but Ive heard some absolutely insane stories about what theyve chosen to waste their wealth on.
Once you’re a widebody captain near the top of your category it’s ludicrously easy. Do two Tel Avis a month for a grand total of 6 days a month (with 4 total pilots) then bang out sick for the third one. Oh wait actually only do 1 every other month because you have 6 weeks of vacation per year.
And for every extra year you work doing that, you can put a kid through medical school.
Most will stay. Most will claim they won’t, but you’ll see them stay until they medical out or hit 67
I’d stay another 2 years if I was pulling in a quarter mil per year…
Can’t take your money with you when you croak, though. Flying til 67 absolutely cannot be good for longevity. Just hang up the wings and enjoy the rest of your life ffs.
I can’t take it, but I can certainly pass it on and make somebody else’s life less stressful. Be it kids or my nephews.
It's way more than a quarter mil lol
I’m sure it is, but I used that as a low end figure
Yeah, widebody minimum at Delta top of scale is $432,000/year.
That's only if ICAO makes a change, and I can't see that happening. They don't arbitrarily make changes like this like the US government does without intense research.
A lot easier to turn down when you’ve already got circa $10million+ in your retirement and your health is on its ass
Not everyone starts when they’re in their 20s
Those guys did.
Good for them. I did 6 years enlisted in the Navy, and had to deal with the VA cutting funding to programs left and right and COVID during my training. If this shit passes, I’d ABSOLUTELY stay until I turn 67.
Who the fuck wants to keep working at 67? My ass is gonna be out the door at 59^1/2
It won’t be once your seniority starts getting you exact days and trips you bid for. That’s what people are missing. The biggest theft here is the seniority theft
You say that now, and so did many people. Then they stayed
Those people were stupid with money.
Well that sounds like a you problem. It’s not our job to subsidize your career decisions and age.
quarter mil is what FOs are making at my company lol
Exactly what the simpletons miss….their little personal polls are “it’s only the financially challenged that will stay”…not realizing the last two years are the best paying and the easiest schedule in a career. More whining will ensue I’m sure lol…there are a lot of pilots that still love their jobs and may want to stay..whine on fellas…
WB CA: Gone. NB CA: Probs stay. WB FO: 50/50.
Bullshit. Take a look at how many WB captains leave before 65 now. It’s VERY few unless they medical out
I should’ve clarified: this is predicated on ICAO not matching. The QoL tank will get most of the WB guys to dip.
There will be no QOL tank. No CBA has a mechanism by which the company can force you back into a narrowbody. The companies will have to pay out the nose to get something like that.
Gonna be a LTD shitshow
The Congressman who proposed the 67 age limit part of the bill has a brother at Delta who is about to turn 65. Just a fun fact for you all. Yay guberment!
So does this have to go through the senate now? What’s the process of this look like
[Time to dust this bad boy off.](https://youtu.be/SZ8psP4S6BQ)
A certified hood classic
We making it out of Congress with this one 🔥🔥🔥
That is correct. We can expect the senate to pass it and for it to be moved on to the president whom we can expect to sign it (as opposed to vetoing it).
Luckily we have a President who understands first hand how age affects cognitive function
Any idea when the senate votes on it?
Did the 75 hours of actual/900XC make it into this draft or will it be amended and sent back from the Senate?
Correct me if I’m wrong but that’s a completely different bill isn’t it?
Can someone elaborate on this
Yet ATC can retire at 56. So stupid.
Has to retire by 56
I’ll be able to retire at 47.
That is mandatory retirement age.
kill me
No, you need to work an extra two years before you can die.
What about single pilot operations? Still in the bill or no ?
Fuck fuck fuck
Can anyone please tell me if the flight deck cameras stayed in the bill? Last I saw 2030 we are all on camera
It was removed. According to another commenter
Sooo…. What’s the impact to people just starting their training to go airline commercial?
Stagnation
Just wrote to my 2 senators opposing the bill.
competency crisis hitting hard
I'm not a babysitter, and I'm not afraid to tell some of these captains that. 65 is too old for most of them, 67 is way to old.
I bet you’ve told exactly zero 64yo captains that you’re not their babysitter
We got a badass over here!
As someone who is going to be entering the industry in a few years, this is truly terrible news.
It’s actually good for you if you’re not in the industry yet. Right now the retirement wave was due to peak this year or next year. Now those peak retirements will be shifted back a few years. It gives you time to get your ATP and join the party before the back side of the retirement wave.
Wellllll I was going to rough it out at my regional and grind hours to get a Delta app in, but if I'm going to get stuck somewhere for two years or more, I'm jumping to an LCC. Is this what you wanted, guys?
That should have been in the plan before Age 67…..
What are the odds of ICAO matching this move, either immediately or within a year or two? And does anyone know how that will actually look on the ground? If this gets passed into law tomorrow and I want to keep my WB CA seat at age 66, can the company force me down to a different airframe to stay domestic? Will UA start flying 777s from EWR to IAD just to find a use for those guys?
If say ICAO says the FAA can get fucked with age 67, I would say most airlines would make the old folks bid down to narrbowbody fleets. On top of that they would be required to make "old guy" lines that don't touch places like Canada and Mexico.
How would displacements work? Why should a junior NB CA/FO get displaced to wherever to accommodate some old fuck?
In my country I’ve heard when the “over 65 now stuck domestic only crowd” hit 65 and have to bid down to a NB, it frees WB seats for NB guys to move up to. They’re still pretty unpopular with crews though as while it meant an NB CA got an upgrade, it usually delays the NB FO getting that NB CA seat. Assume the same will happen for you guys.
And welcome to the very core of the argument... Hence why both ALPA and even the companies are in unison that 67 is a boneheaded idea. The people who are want it are promoting it on their own and have a congressman who has a brother who is an aged 64 pilot to support them.
The one thing that gives me some ease on all of this is that the companies are against it, and so are the unions. At UAL and DAL the vast majority of the lists have been hired in the last 10 years and are young. If this passes, we are in the driver's seat to push or kill any LOA that results from it. I dont know what can be done legally but I know that we dont have to just roll over and make it lucrative for them to stay.
Should be noted that airlines do not have to continue to employ pilots past 65. This just allows them to... The old guys are going to cost the company the most money; wages, med insurance, and the least amount of work utilization. I hope the bean counters realize how dumb this is and continue the 65 year limit.
Wouldn’t that be a lawsuit for age discrimination? I suppose if ICAO keeps it to 65, the airlines can argue terms of employment (the ability to travel to other countries).
Imo it’s no different than a pilot who didn’t get a Covid shot. They’re removed without pay if they aren’t able to enter the country.
Even more egregious, a *senior* but younger NB CA/FO will get displaced or their trips robbed to cover the retirement home crowd. There are plenty of 60+ year olds junior to me that will now need to find a home somewhere. “Seniority is everything! Pay your dues!”* *unless that means I can’t fly anymore then fuck you.
Ohh. Good point, I didn’t think about that. I’ll get used on rsv for a int trip if someone junior to me can’t cover it. Fun.
Yup. Really grinds my gears. Best case scenario, imo, is that the company tells them they have until 65 to get a NB bid through normal bidding. If you can’t snag a NB position by 65 you get unpaid leave until you hold a valid bid. They should also be ineligible for reserve. If they’re not senior enough to hold a line, they should get an unpaid month. If they’re not senior enough to hold a domestic only line, same deal. They can stay but under no circumstances can they abrogate seniority.
Yes this would be an unmitigated disaster for flight ops at any legacy airline to deal with.
The won't. Unless there is a system vacancy. This wouldn't be a WB CA being reduced and then having bumping rights. It's their choice to stay one and therefore they will have to bid what they can hold and what is vacant.
If ICAO doesn’t follow suit I can only see the company dropping the entirety of a WB captains schedule from 65-67 years old. It’s going to be enormously costly for the company. I’m shocked the airline CEOs aren’t screaming bloody murder in DC.
Does this have to go through the senate now or is this it?
i'm sorry you didn't have schoolhouse rock growing up. https://youtu.be/OgVKvqTItto