I understand that SWAPA has taken a position recently of increasing the mandatory pilot age in the US to 67 or 68. Is there a position taken by ALPA or APA? It seems like changing retirement age or accepting lower standards are the options that the FAA considers when there is a pilot shortage.

It’s ridiculous when you consider that the 1500 hour rule had no evidence and is limiting the supply of legal pilots, but the age 65 rule is based on scientific evidence on cognitive decline. This is all about rewarding particular people financially… not safety. The US safety culture is really in danger. Lobbyist groups have way too much power.

LCDFlight wrote:

It’s ridiculous when you consider that the 1500 hour rule had no evidence and is limiting the supply of legal pilots, but the age 65 rule is based on scientific evidence on cognitive decline. This is all about rewarding particular people financially… not safety. The US safety culture is really in danger. Lobbyist groups have way too much power.

This is a false equivalence. Science on cognitive decline does not mean that a hard ban on 66/67 year old pilots is the correct policy.

Cubsrule wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

It’s ridiculous when you consider that the 1500 hour rule had no evidence and is limiting the supply of legal pilots, but the age 65 rule is based on scientific evidence on cognitive decline. This is all about rewarding particular people financially… not safety. The US safety culture is really in danger. Lobbyist groups have way too much power.

This is a false equivalence. Science on cognitive decline does not mean that a hard ban on 66/67 year old pilots is the correct policy.

You could simply test a 65 year old pilot who still wants to fly. And I’m not talking of something as simple as a MoCA test. I would image a written test together with a test in a simulator would be required. Physical and cognitive decline varies by individuals. I know some incredibly sharp and vibrant 70 year old. And I have seen mental decline in a few 50 year olds.

MrBretz wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

It’s ridiculous when you consider that the 1500 hour rule had no evidence and is limiting the supply of legal pilots, but the age 65 rule is based on scientific evidence on cognitive decline. This is all about rewarding particular people financially… not safety. The US safety culture is really in danger. Lobbyist groups have way too much power.

This is a false equivalence. Science on cognitive decline does not mean that a hard ban on 66/67 year old pilots is the correct policy.

You could simply test a 65 year old pilot who still wants to fly. And I’m not talking of something as simple as a MoCA test. I would image a written test together with a test in a simulator would be required. Physical and cognitive decline varies by individuals. I know some incredibly sharp and vibrant 70 year old. And I have seen mental decline in a few 50 year olds.

That’s along the lines of what I’m thinking. Getting a medical ought to involve some cognitive testing beginning at an age below (perhaps well below) 65, and in that sort of regime a hard age cap probably doesn’t make sense.

Here's a link to a presentation on ICAO's raise to 65 back in 2006. It discusses why the limit shouldn't be higher based on available health evidence. It's a good read.

https://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/Mee ... -Evans.pdf

I'll agree with the sentiment that efforts to raise the age are about money, not safety. Money for pilots. A stable pool of pilots for carriers.

People get older, it's logical that retirement ages can be adapted.
If you look at old photo's of Lyndon Johnson or Marlon Brando when they were 55, they looked like someone of 75 nowadays. I am sure they can do increased testing to see if a pilot in his/her 60s is still capable. Retirement at 55 would be rediculous if someone is still in his prime.

In ATC you can submit for a waiver through the flight surgeon for an additional year or two. Maybe something similar can be done for pilots.

kiowa wrote:

I understand that SWAPA has taken a position recently of increasing the mandatory pilot age in the US to 67 or 68

To me, 67 or 68 seems like too old to become a pilot.

kiowa wrote:

I understand that SWAPA has taken a position recently of increasing the mandatory pilot age in the US to 67 or 68. Is there a position taken by ALPA or APA? It seems like changing retirement age or accepting lower standards are the options that the FAA considers when there is a pilot shortage.

All of the unions will eventually support it. The senior pilots generally pull in the highest pay and result in higher income for the union from their dues.

Also don’t forget there is a rule that 2 pilots over a certain age (maybe 60?) can’t fly together.

Very few other jobs have mandatory retirement ages. Railroad engineers for example have hundreds of people if not thousands riding on a single train. Failing to stop at a signal or missing a speed restriction can cause a mass casualty event. No mandatory retirement age there.

Nuclear armed countries with the power to destroy the whole world routinely have top decision making officials and leaders that are well above age 65. No age limits there.

Pilots and ATC have legal age limits that are still in place today because of the perception that these jobs are much more difficult and stressful than other jobs as well as the responsibility attached. The fact is that airlines today are hiring new hire pilots without interviews. Anyone with time and money can easily become an airline pilot. No advanced degrees or specialized training is needed before obtaining a job. If safety is the primary concern, there would be greater legal barriers to entry.

Likewise, the FAA has made diversity and affirmative action a part of the hiring process. If safety was so important then this would not be the case. Like pilots, ATC is a job that doesnt require any advanced degrees or specialized education. Anyone off the street can apply and within a short time be working as a controller.

The fact is that mandatory retirement ages make no sense. In the case of ATC, it severely limits the pool of applicants as there are a lot of people older than age 30 that would make great controllers.

The problem for airline pilots isnt age 65. It is a seniority system that awards the most desirable and highest paying jobs to those with the highest seniority. Seniority also determines your level of job security. If seniority was not a big issue, all the pilot unions would be pushing for a change to the mandatory retirement age. SWA currently has one of the more senior pilot groups so it wouldnt be a surprise to see SWAPA in favor of this change. ALPA has a large contingent of pilots that are young and want a quick path to the equipment, routes, bases and stability at the majors.

Pilots are not alone in this. Most non-management and certain management jobs in the airline industry use seniority to determine everything from work assignments to priority for vacation days to your job security.

If you ask most pilots, they would mention career progression and job security as the main reasons for keeping the age 65 rule. Few would have safety as a top reason for keeping the rule. Personally, I believe once this retirement wave ends in about ten years we will see the end to age 65. The millenial generation wont be as willing (or able financially) to retire in order to allow younger generations to have their seniority number.

MEA-707 wrote:

Retirement at 55 would be rediculous if someone is still in his prime.

Far too many people working in large corporations are forced out in their 50s, still in their prime. Look at the recruiting website for any Fortune 500 company in the US. All the photos are of people in their 20s and early 30s. Age-ism is real.

As it relates to pilots, airlines should be more sophisticated in their abilities to test the capabilities of pilots.

silentbob wrote:

kiowa wrote:

I understand that SWAPA has taken a position recently of increasing the mandatory pilot age in the US to 67 or 68. Is there a position taken by ALPA or APA? It seems like changing retirement age or accepting lower standards are the options that the FAA considers when there is a pilot shortage.

All of the unions will eventually support it. The senior pilots generally pull in the highest pay and result in higher income for the union from their dues.

The incentive for unions is not to support it. the shortage increases pay on the supply and demand curve, using this solution throttles the gains the unions are close to getting.

Age 65 is an appropriate limit. Many pilots at 60-65 cause a lot of training issues and safety issues on the line. Taking it to 68 would make it much much worse.

Not saying airlines won’t pay for it but their training departments and the FAA are well aware of the significant issues.

kiowa wrote:

I understand that SWAPA has taken a position recently of increasing the mandatory pilot age in the US to 67 or 68. Is there a position taken by ALPA or APA? It seems like changing retirement age or accepting lower standards are the options that the FAA considers when there is a pilot shortage.

You have misunderstood. All SWAPA did was inform the membership that a Bill is about to be introduced in the Senate by Lindsay Graham I believe to raise the mandatory retirement age to either 67 or 68. SWAPA has taken no official stance either for or against this proposal. They have said they will be conducting polling of the membership to see whether there is any interest in changing the current limit. Of the small sample size that I have seen so far, there is no support whatsoever from the membership of SWAPA to support any change to the current retirement age.

MEA-707 wrote:

People get older, it's logical that retirement ages can be adapted.
If you look at old photo's of Lyndon Johnson or Marlon Brando when they were 55, they looked like someone of 75 nowadays. I am sure they can do increased testing to see if a pilot in his/her 60s is still capable. Retirement at 55 would be rediculous if someone is still in his prime.

Other than maybe blood pressure medication and less smoking, I speculate that people are less healthy today (mentally and physically) than they were in say 1975. Life expectancy (in the US) is falling, not rising. I don't think young people are as healthy as they used to be, either.

kiowa wrote:

I understand that SWAPA has taken a position recently of increasing the mandatory pilot age in the US to 67 or 68. Is there a position taken by ALPA or APA? It seems like changing retirement age or accepting lower standards are the options that the FAA considers when there is a pilot shortage.

ALPA, APA, or IBT (Atlas, UPS) hasn’t taken a pro or a con stance. It’s taken the stance of informing the union members the situation. From what I’ve seen, there isn’t a big support for it except for only folks that are in it for their own pocket books.

I sure don’t support it. For folks concern about the pilot shortage situation. This is the last thing you want to see happen. Why, because it again will kick the retirement can down the road, bring hiring at the majors slow to halt and stop upward career movement. That will stop folks from wanting to come into the industry because they will not see to see their careers getting stuck at the regionals.

LCDFlight wrote:

It’s ridiculous when you consider that the 1500 hour rule had no evidence and is limiting the supply of legal pilots, but the age 65 rule is based on scientific evidence on cognitive decline. This is all about rewarding particular people financially… not safety. The US safety culture is really in danger. Lobbyist groups have way too much power.

I don’t think that comment is factual, the science is suggesting there should be no upper limit. A number of countries including Canada have no upper limit.

questions wrote:

MEA-707 wrote:

Retirement at 55 would be rediculous if someone is still in his prime.

Far too many people working in large corporations are forced out in their 50s, still in their prime. Look at the recruiting website for any Fortune 500 company in the US. All the photos are of people in their 20s and early 30s. Age-ism is real.

Who said anything about 55? The current limit is 65.

MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:

Very few other jobs have mandatory retirement ages. Railroad engineers for example have hundreds of people if not thousands riding on a single train. Failing to stop at a signal or missing a speed restriction can cause a mass casualty event. No mandatory retirement age there.

Nuclear armed countries with the power to destroy the whole world routinely have top decision making officials and leaders that are well above age 65. No age limits there.

Pilots and ATC have legal age limits that are still in place today because of the perception that these jobs are much more difficult and stressful than other jobs as well as the responsibility attached. The fact is that airlines today are hiring new hire pilots without interviews. Anyone with time and money can easily become an airline pilot. No advanced degrees or specialized training is needed before obtaining a job. If safety is the primary concern, there would be greater legal barriers to entry.

Likewise, the FAA has made diversity and affirmative action a part of the hiring process. If safety was so important then this would not be the case. Like pilots, ATC is a job that doesnt require any advanced degrees or specialized education. Anyone off the street can apply and within a short time be working as a controller.

The fact is that mandatory retirement ages make no sense. In the case of ATC, it severely limits the pool of applicants as there are a lot of people older than age 30 that would make great controllers.

The problem for airline pilots isnt age 65. It is a seniority system that awards the most desirable and highest paying jobs to those with the highest seniority. Seniority also determines your level of job security. If seniority was not a big issue, all the pilot unions would be pushing for a change to the mandatory retirement age. SWA currently has one of the more senior pilot groups so it wouldnt be a surprise to see SWAPA in favor of this change. ALPA has a large contingent of pilots that are young and want a quick path to the equipment, routes, bases and stability at the majors.

Pilots are not alone in this. Most non-management and certain management jobs in the airline industry use seniority to determine everything from work assignments to priority for vacation days to your job security.

If you ask most pilots, they would mention career progression and job security as the main reasons for keeping the age 65 rule. Few would have safety as a top reason for keeping the rule. Personally, I believe once this retirement wave ends in about ten years we will see the end to age 65. The millenial generation wont be as willing (or able financially) to retire in order to allow younger generations to have their seniority number.

What do you have against seniority being used for assignments and pay? What would you use instead?

The FAA needs to crack down on the rubber stamping of FAA Medical certifications by AME’s… there is no way some of these obese pilots pass a real medical. Metabolic syndrome galore in ATL, DFW, ORD, IAH, etc… and they should not be allowed to fly a plane. Fit guy over 65 should be flying long before the younger big guys.

So. You just keep flying corporate. If over 65 makes you unsafe, flying a business jet doesn’t change that. But yet they go there.

65 seems very young for today's world. Hopefully it will be increased to at least 67 soon. Airlines need to move beyond seniority pay. Pay should be more equitable. People should not be paid poorly because they are young. It takes just as much skill to fly a RJ as it does a 777.

Pi7472000 wrote:

65 seems very young for today's world. Hopefully it will be increased to at least 67 soon. Airlines need to move beyond seniority pay. Pay should be more equitable. People should not be paid poorly because they are young. It takes just as much skill to fly a RJ as it does a 777.

Some of that skill requires years of practice to acquire.

TVNWZ wrote:

So. You just keep flying corporate. If over 65 makes you unsafe, flying a business jet doesn’t change that. But yet they go there.

Part 135 as well. The 65 rule only applies to Part 121. You can fly at Part 135 until the age of 736 as long as you can hold a medical.

Pilot incapacitation is clearly a catastrophic event, so it should be subject to the FAA rules for those events, i.e., a probability of occurrence on the order of 1 x 10-9 or less.

If the link between age and probability of pilot incapacitation has not been established, perhaps it should be. "Incapacitation" is a complex concept, and cognitive ability is just one part of it.

The current rationale for age limits seems to be based on less rigorous and objective criteria, e.g., https://public.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pressroom/testimony/2005/2005-7-19_Woerth-Written.htm (from 2005, so perhaps not up to date).

johns624 wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

65 seems very young for today's world. Hopefully it will be increased to at least 67 soon. Airlines need to move beyond seniority pay. Pay should be more equitable. People should not be paid poorly because they are young. It takes just as much skill to fly a RJ as it does a 777.

Some of that skill requires years of practice to acquire.

Once you have the skills to fly an RJ you can acquire the skills to fly a 777. An RJ may actually be harder to fly than a 777 in some cases. A 25 year old can be trained to fly a 777 just as well as a 60 year old. There should not be any difference in pay just because of age. This is a very out dated and discriminatory way of paying people.

TWA772LR wrote:

TVNWZ wrote:

So. You just keep flying corporate. If over 65 makes you unsafe, flying a business jet doesn’t change that. But yet they go there.

Part 135 as well. The 65 rule only applies to Part 121. You can fly at Part 135 until the age of 736 as long as you can hold a medical.

Corporate, charter…what about freight? Thx, I’m not familiar that beast of a document of rules from the FAA.

Pi7472000 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

65 seems very young for today's world. Hopefully it will be increased to at least 67 soon. Airlines need to move beyond seniority pay. Pay should be more equitable. People should not be paid poorly because they are young. It takes just as much skill to fly a RJ as it does a 777.

Some of that skill requires years of practice to acquire.

Once you have the skills to fly an RJ you can acquire the skills to fly a 777. An RJ may actually be harder to fly than a 777 in some cases. A 25 year old can be trained to fly a 777 just as well as a 60 year old. There should not be any difference in pay just because of age. This is a very out dated and discriminatory way of paying people.

Okay. How do you think pay should be determined? How do you think aircraft type should be determined? How do you think schedule should be determined? How much is loyalty worth? How much is experience worth? If RJ pilots got paid as much as 777 pilots, there wouldn't be any RJs because costs would be too high.

zeke wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

It’s ridiculous when you consider that the 1500 hour rule had no evidence and is limiting the supply of legal pilots, but the age 65 rule is based on scientific evidence on cognitive decline. This is all about rewarding particular people financially… not safety. The US safety culture is really in danger. Lobbyist groups have way too much power.

I don’t think that comment is factual, the science is suggesting there should be no upper limit. A number of countries including Canada have no upper limit.

Agreed. If I’m being pedantic, the rule suggests that all men lose the skills & ability to fly a plane at the stroke of midnight on their collective birthdays. Sure the argument may be its not all, just too many and the risk profile is too high, but that is a bad reason to prevent skilled and experenced pilots from working.

Surgeons work well into their 70s (that I know of personally) and possibly even older.

An appropriate exam, perhaps biannually or quarterly seems like a more prudent decision.

Men from my grandparents generation WWII were old at 60. My grandfather died 6 months after retirement at age 62. These days 60 is midlife almost. My parents don’t look or act like my grandparents. I saw pictures of my grandfather at 45 my age. He looked 60. Vaccines a better standard of living and advances in medical care have helped. Another factor is the smoking and drinking. My grandparents chain smoked. These days if you smoke people treat you like a leper.

kjeld0d wrote:

kiowa wrote:

I understand that SWAPA has taken a position recently of increasing the mandatory pilot age in the US to 67 or 68

To me, 67 or 68 seems like too old to become a pilot.

They are not talking to become a pilot.They are talking about pilots that have flown for years, flying a few years longer.

I got a kick out of whomever mentioned that 65 seemed too old to fly a plane. It must have been a young person. I am older so I have a different view. The other day I flew a commuter airline about 150 miles. I will leave out the name of the company or aircraft. The captain looked about 30 to me. I compare him to relatives/friends of that age so I think I was close. The FO, was very overweight and apparently under 30. It struck me that I wish a couple old f..ts were flying the plane instead of a couple young bucks when one was obese. I wonder how someone like that passes the physical. So it all depends where you are coming from.

tlecam wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

TVNWZ wrote:

So. You just keep flying corporate. If over 65 makes you unsafe, flying a business jet doesn’t change that. But yet they go there.

Part 135 as well. The 65 rule only applies to Part 121. You can fly at Part 135 until the age of 736 as long as you can hold a medical.

Corporate, charter…what about freight? Thx, I’m not familiar that beast of a document of rules from the FAA.

Doesn't matter what kind of flying it is, as long as it falls under 135 or 121. FedEx and UPS are part 121, but FedEx's Caravan operators (I believe) are 135.

Pi7472000 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

65 seems very young for today's world. Hopefully it will be increased to at least 67 soon. Airlines need to move beyond seniority pay. Pay should be more equitable. People should not be paid poorly because they are young. It takes just as much skill to fly a RJ as it does a 777.

Some of that skill requires years of practice to acquire.

Once you have the skills to fly an RJ you can acquire the skills to fly a 777. An RJ may actually be harder to fly than a 777 in some cases. A 25 year old can be trained to fly a 777 just as well as a 60 year old. There should not be any difference in pay just because of age. This is a very out dated and discriminatory way of paying people.

In Asia, so many 25-30yr olds are flying 777, 787, A350 & A380's safely (like at ME3). Many such younger aged ones are also Captains. They tend to be a better fit medically and in being able to fly complex roster patterns.
In US, the Class 1 medical is so lenient, that any one can clear it. Ask anyone who has done flight training in the US and then gone back to their home countries (like to Asia) for medicals, and realised the difference in medical requirements. No wonder so many 60+ year olds continue to fly in US.
In Asia, the stringent medicals would make them unfit by 60 when you account for a lot more issues that kick in after a certain age like blood sugar, heart issues, cognitive issues, eyesight and overall physical fitness.

If you can pass all the required training and qualify for a medical 67 is not a big deal

avier wrote:

Pi7472000 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Some of that skill requires years of practice to acquire.

Once you have the skills to fly an RJ you can acquire the skills to fly a 777. An RJ may actually be harder to fly than a 777 in some cases. A 25 year old can be trained to fly a 777 just as well as a 60 year old. There should not be any difference in pay just because of age. This is a very out dated and discriminatory way of paying people.

In Asia, so many 25-30yr olds are flying 777, 787, A350 & A380's safely (like at ME3). Many such younger aged ones are also Captains. They tend to be a better fit medically and in being able to fly complex roster patterns.
In US, the Class 1 medical is so lenient, that any one can clear it. Ask anyone who has done flight training in the US and then gone back to their home countries (like to Asia) for medicals, and realised the difference in medical requirements. No wonder so many 60+ year olds continue to fly in US.
In Asia, the stringent medicals would make them unfit by 60 when you account for a lot more issues that kick in after a certain age like blood sugar, heart issues, cognitive issues, eyesight and overall physical fitness.

Does Asia have a lower accident rate due to these stricter medical requirements?

T54A wrote:

Does Asia have a lower accident rate due to these stricter medical requirements?

The US leads in the number of fatal civil airliner accidents.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/262 ... nd-region/

avier wrote:

T54A wrote:

Does Asia have a lower accident rate due to these stricter medical requirements?

The US leads in the number of fatal civil airliner accidents.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/262 ... nd-region/

You do realise that is the number of accidents and not the rate. Do you understand the difference and what it means in terms of aviation safety?

T54A wrote:

avier wrote:

T54A wrote:

Does Asia have a lower accident rate due to these stricter medical requirements?

The US leads in the number of fatal civil airliner accidents.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/262 ... nd-region/

You do realise that is the number of accidents and not the rate. Do you understand the difference and what it means in terms of aviation safety?

Ahh, now we are on the same page. Dumb questions get dumb responses.
Accident rates happen due to n-number of factors, yet you asked for a relation between accident rates of a region based on medical requirements of that place?

avier wrote:

T54A wrote:

Does Asia have a lower accident rate due to these stricter medical requirements?

The US leads in the number of fatal civil airliner accidents.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/262 ... nd-region/

That’s because the US has more flights…. so statically it’s going to lead by numbers….

MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:

Pilots and ATC have legal age limits that are still in place today because of the perception that these jobs are much more difficult and stressful than other jobs as well as the responsibility attached.

In the case of pilots that perception was a fact once upon a time but with today's technological advances, that is no longer the case. We are reaching a time when pilots exist merely to make passengers feel comfortable. We send tourists into space with pilotless rocket ships for chrissakes!

The actual aspects of flying the aircraft aside, its a fatiguing career and lifestyle.
Granted, many of the oldest pilots are generally at the high-end of the seniority list and can choose the more desirable trips/schedules, it still is a lot of flying across timezones, off-cycle sleep patterns, and nights in hotels.

airbazar wrote:

In the case of pilots that perception was a fact once upon a time but with today's technological advances, that is no longer the case. We are reaching a time when pilots exist merely to make passengers feel comfortable. We send tourists into space with pilotless rocket ships for chrissakes!

This is a very misguided viewpoint, there is a lot of active decision making made every day by pilots to get flights completed.

Ask any captain the hardest part of any flight is the 60 minutes before pushback. This is where experience is advantageous, in problem solving and communication.

The space tourism example is a red herring, the number of people involved for the launch, orbit, and recovery is staggering. It is still common to delay launch or return for weather.

avier wrote:

T54A wrote:

Does Asia have a lower accident rate due to these stricter medical requirements?

The US leads in the number of fatal civil airliner accidents.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/262 ... nd-region/

You use a chart that starts in 1945 and is just a total? Not per capita?

MEA-707 wrote:

People get older, it's logical that retirement ages can be adapted.

Oh yeah, just ignore the fact that you're not fit like a 30 year old guy when you are 67 then...?

32andBelow wrote:

You use a chart that starts in 1945 and is just a total? Not per capita?

It was meant to be a flawed response to his flawed question. Do you read the my post after that?

zeke wrote:

airbazar wrote:

In the case of pilots that perception was a fact once upon a time but with today's technological advances, that is no longer the case. We are reaching a time when pilots exist merely to make passengers feel comfortable. We send tourists into space with pilotless rocket ships for chrissakes!

This is a very misguided viewpoint, there is a lot of active decision making made every day by pilots to get flights completed.

Ask any captain the hardest part of any flight is the 60 minutes before pushback. This is where experience is advantageous, in problem solving and communication.

The space tourism example is a red herring, the number of people involved for the launch, orbit, and recovery is staggering. It is still common to delay launch or return for weather.

And you're telling me that a healthy 66 yo can't do the job required in those 60 minutes? Come on now.
My point is that there are a lot more safeguards today than there were 50, 40, even 30 years ago so we should be able to increase the retirement age.
And it's not a misguided viewpoint. It's the future. It may not happen in our lifetimes but pilotless commercial aviation is going to happen.

airbazar wrote:

And you're telling me that a healthy 66 yo can't do the job required in those 60 minutes? Come on now.
My point is that there are a lot more safeguards today than there were 50, 40, even 30 years ago so we should be able to increase the retirement age.
And it's not a misguided viewpoint. It's the future. It may not happen in our lifetimes but pilotless commercial aviation is going to happen.

My post was clear, I said an experienced pilot handles the situations better. Safeguards are hogwash, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is does a more experienced pilot have the cognitive ability to do their job effectively, and I would argue experience makes them more capable. I would rather have an experienced pilot any day of the week than an inexperienced robot that follows SOP but does not know why the SOP exists. I can guarantee you that any experienced pilot will have had multiple scares during their career, and it is my opinion less likely to be startled in the event of an sudden event.

This is why you don’t have check airman with no experience, pilots with no experience don’t know the problems that can occur, they would be totally ineffective in simulating realistic scenarios.

And I still think you are very misguided as to what the future will entail, you don’t see the daily problems that pilots solve.