Is there a minimum or maximum age to become a pilot? I am not talking about commercial pilots just private planes.
IIRC, the minimum age in the US is 16, and there is no max age (although you must pass periodic medical exams to stay certified).
Arjuna34
Just to add to that… The oldest active pilot in the U.S. was Hal Wright, who was still flying last year at the age of 95. Unfortunately, he died last June.
There are plenty of 70+ people flying airplanes. Bob Hoover is a stunt pilot, and still flies airshows at almost 80 years of age. Chuck Yeager is 78 years old, and he’s still current in the P-51 Mustang and the F-16 and F18 fighters.
Looks like 17 is the minimum for private pilots, 16 for student pilots. I think the minimum ages used to be different, but I don’t remember. see http://www.awp.faa.gov/fsdo/ans_minimum_age.htm
A student pilot must be at least 16 years old to solo an airplane, and at least 17 years old to obtain an airplane license. bibliophage posted a link for other types of aircraft. I’m not sure how old a person must be to fly an ultralight; they require no license last time I checked.
While there is no upper age limit for private pilots, the aircrew in the jets you probably take on your trips have a mandatory retirement age of 60. You may remember the crash in Sioux City several years ago. The pilot, who did a fantastic job of flying and saved many lives, was forced to retire shortly after that flight because he reached the age of 60.
Many older pilots are trying to overturn the mandatory retirement rule, pointing out that older pilots have experience that can be extremely useful in an emergency situation and using the Sioux City crash as evidence to back up their claim. They also point out that people are living longer and are generally more healthy at an older age than was the case decades ago. Nevertheless, the FAA likes to err on the side of safety and has kept the mandatory retirement rule. I suspect that there is pressure to keep the rule by younger pilots. Landing a job with a major airline is very difficult and younger pilots have a better chance of finding a slot if older pilots are forced out.
[slight hijack]
I recall about 10 years or so ago a little girl (and by “little girl” I mean “under 10”) crashed her plane and died horribly. She was a fully-licensed pilot and was trying to break some sort of record. Did this minimum-age requirement stuff spring up because of that incident?
[/slight hijack]
No. The requirements have been there for a long time. The little girl was not a licensed pilot. While the rules say that a student must be 16 years old to solo an airplane, there was not (at least at the time; the rule may have changed) a minimum age for taking lessons. The Pilot-in-Command of the ill-fated Cessna 177 Cardinal was the girl’s instructor. The girl may have been the “sole operator” of the controls, but the responsibility for the flight was entirely her instructor’s.
The take-off that resulted in the crash was at a rather high airport. Adding to the density altitude (i.e., the altitude at which the at which the airplane “thinks” is is) was the high humidity. Non-pilots may not realize it, but most “little airplanes” can’t fly much more than about 15,000 feet. Unlike military fighters that can climb at thousands of feet per minute, a typical General Aviation airplane only has a climb rate of hundreds of feet per second – at sea level on a standard day. The higher you go, the less dense is the air. If you try to take off from a high airport, you may find that the aircraft’s climb performance is lacking; especially if the air is hot and/or humid (IIRC, it was cold but raining for that flight) or if the aircraft is heavy.
In the case rastahomie mentions, the airport was high and it was humid. The aircraft was “over gross” (i.e., it weighed more than its certified gross weight). The Cessna 177 Cardinal, while a sporty-looking aircraft, was known for being under-powered. It just didn’t have the performance most pilots would want in an aircraft of its class. (Sort of like getting a sports car with a four-banger in it when a 6- or 8-cylinder would be better.) And the weather was rotten. If any one of those factors had been different, there might not have been a crash. But the girl had a teevee engagement later that day and there was a lot of media attention. It wouldn’t “look good” to delay the flight for better conditions. As an old FAA safety poster once said, “Get-there-itis / May someday bite us!”
They could have waited for a lower density altitude. They could have unloaded some of the baggage of fuel. They could have chosen to land at a lower airport. They could have waited for better weather. They could have decided that their lives were more important than a teevee show. They could have done a lot of things. But they didn’t. The instructor should have known better. This was a tragic case of poor decision making.
Or to put it another way: They screwed the pooch.
“…baggage or fuel.” :o
I’m glad Johnny LA addressed the incident involving the young girl and her instructor. That unfortunate accident gave General Aviation a bad, and undeserved black eye.
As I recall, the girl’s family had the audacity to sue a lot people, including the engine manufacturer (Lycoming?).
Wow! I want to fly with you if your typical GA airplane climbs at hundreds of feet per second! Talk about getting maximum performace out of your airplane ;).
Dr. Lao: You see what happens when I post before caffeine? :eek:
Of course, I meant that the typical GA airplane has a climb rate of hundreds of feet per minute.
:o
Good Lord - the Joe Meier incident raises it’s ugly head again. (You groundhuggers probably know this better as the “Jessica Dubroff incident”) And the girl in question was 8. Her flight instructor and father were also on board
Still no minimum age for lessons. When I flew out of Palwaukee there was a 12 year old student ready to solo from a skill level - but unable to solo until 16.
A couple more points: The weather at the Cheyenne airport was below VFR minimums - meaning only pilots with an instrument rating were legal to fly. The ATC tapes clearly have Mr. Meier’s voice asking for a “SVFR” (which means basically that even though it’s not the legal minimums for “eyeball” flying the pilot is asking for permission to take off under the Visual Flight Rules anyway - something that might be safe for an instrument-rated pilot to do, but not someone without such training) and performing all communications with the tower.
The reconstruction of the accident showed that it was Mr. Meier at the controls, not Jessica (holding onto the controls while an airplane slams into the the ground results in very distinctive hand, wrist, and arm fractures). Apparently, her Jessica’s father, who was sitting in the back seat, had reached forward and pulled the girl backward, and was holding her in his arms at the time of impact. So clearly Jessica was NOT flying, which sort of blew the whole idea of her flying from coast to coast.
Also - they were planning to cross the continental United States in 3 days. While this is theoretically possible, it’s quite a push in a Cessna 177. I have a friend who flew “only” from Wisconsin to Arizona in a plane of simillar speed and capabilities, a man with a couple thousand hours of flight experience, who budgeted an entire week for the trip to allow for both weather and just simply getting tired. The idea of an 8 year old flying California to Maine in just 3 days in the sort of plane is sort of… well, pretty bizarre once you know what’s what.
There were a number of things wrong with this whole trip.
Ultralights still require no license and no medical whatsoever. Although there are no legal restrictions on age (either minimum or maximum), the 2 of the 3 organizations that oversee the legal instructors for ultralights forbid soloing anyone under 14. There are children under 14 who have flown ultralights solo without incident, but an ultralight is a much simplier aircraft than a Cessna 177 Cardinal and these children were flying in very unoccupied airspace, far from other traffic - they were not trying to set any sort of record that would lead to pressures that could prompt an otherwise responsible adult (Joe Meier) to do foolish things and take foolish chances.
Personally, I’m not comfortable with the idea of a child in the 6-14 age group soloing an aircraft. Sure, they are capable of physically manipulating the controls, but the hardest part of flying is not making the machine go where you point it. The hardest part is exercising good judgement, and a young child simply does not have the life experience or the mental maturity to make sound decisions with life-or-death consequences. Hell, a lot of adults don’t have that capability, either.
My father took five days to complete a solo flight from Yonkers, NY to (I think) San Jose, CA to deliver a Cessna 207 to the Civil Air Patrol. Granted, he did not take the most direct route; he flew south from NY and flew across Texas, etc., then turned north in So. Cal.
I know that the FAA had a discussion about proposed rule-making that would have prohibited a pilot from allowing a person under a certain age from manipulating the controls. The AOPA lobbied against the rule, saying that such manipulation of controls is what gets a lot of kids excited about flying in the first place. They said that “letting the kids fly” was good for aviation. I didn’t hear much about it after the first proposals (ever notice how people who know nothing about aviation are always exceedingly quick to propose imposing more restrictions?) and I’m glad to hear it didn’t pass. But isn’t there a rule that says children are not allowed to fly an aircraft in order to set or break records? Or was that one shot down as well?
That’s what I thought. Thanks.
Another factor is that an ultralight is restricted to 55 knots. Although ultralights can and do crash and their pilots can and do sustain fatal injuries, their slower speed should enhance the pilots’ chances for survival.
I got my first mini-bike when I was six. I started on motorcycles when I was 10. It doesn’t compare to flying, but it’s as close as I can come in my personal experience. Based on those experiences, I would think that a child should not solo an ultralight until the age of 14. Here’s the rub: A kid can get enough dual training in an ultralight to solo at the age of X < 14. If he or she could get an ultralight (perhaps from overindulgent parents) there would be nothing stopping him from flying it solo.
Just a note: IMO, Bob Hoover was treated very shoddily by the FAA. (For those who don’t know, they yanked his medical certificate. You must have a medical in addition to your license in order to fly.) The charges against him were proven false. He was examined at great expense by specialists and FAA doctors who all gave him a clean bill of health. And yet the FAA would not relent. Hoover performed in Australia while the he fought the FAA. He finally did get his medical back, but the FAA’s reputation is blemished. http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/1996/9601pc.html
This is a slight hijack that I will qualify by sticking to a previous slight hijack… I’ve always wanted to learn to fly. We have a local airport that offers lessons that I could probably afford. But I’m afraid I would be turned down on medical grounds. Someone told me that even high blood pressure can keep you grounded. I have been diagnosed with white-coat hypertension (i.e. it only goes up when someone is strapping that damn cuff to my arm and saying “just relax”). Would that keep me grounded for life? I’m 21, by the way, so I’m old enough for training and license (there, I qualified the non-hijack hijack).
SF
Yes, high blood pressure can ground you - but not always.
If you have genuine “white-coat hypertension” but normal blood pressure otherwise it is possible for you to get past the medical, but it will be more complicated that for the average person. What you need to do is consult an AME (Aviation Medical Examiner) with experience in getting folks with a problem through the medical certificate process BEFORE you take your medical exam. AOPA (Airline Owner’s and Pilot’s Association) can help you with that, if you are a member. For more information on that organization go to www.AOPA.org
Your alternatives to taking a medical exam are balloons, gliders or ultralights. It’s airplanes, helicoptors, and blimps that require a medical certification.
Years before the mess in Cheyenne happened, all the official recordkeepers in both aviation and people like Guiness stopped recording any aviation records of any sort attempted by anyone too young to solo. At the time these groups stated that they were concerned that the push to have younger and younger children set these records would result in death down the road.
In other words, even had this ill-conceived voyage ended safely, it would have been recorded nowhere officially.
The odds of walking away from an ultralight crash are higher than, say, walking away from a twin-engine plane crash for those reasons you state. On the other hand, you are far more likely to have an accident at all in an ultralight - less training (if any) for the pilot, fewer backup systems (if any), and they are built and maintained by amateurs, not licensed mechanics. Which is not to say accidents in them are inevitable - I survived flying them quite well - but there is little to no oversight over their activities. A responsible, careful person can fly them for decades with no major problems. An idiot can easily nominate himself for a Darwin Award on the first flight.
Back to the topic at hand: I think allowing children to sit in the cockpit of a small plane and manipulate the controls under the watchful guidance of a qualified flight instructor in highly controlled circumstances is a fantastic opportunity, and one I wish I had had as a child. But it’s on the same level as letting a child sit in the driver’s seat of a car on private property and drive around at slow speed with an adult supervising for just a taste of driving before they’re 16. No way would we let such a child on the road by him or herself. Likewise, young children have no business flying on their own.
On the other end of the spectrum - I think there should be no upper age limit. As long as the person is healthy I think they should be allowed to fly. That means some people in their 30s are unfit, unsafe, and “too old” and other folks in their 80s and 90s are still young enough.
OK, so I’m a big overweight fat-ass who hasn’t set foot in a gym in 16 months. I get slightly winded from moderate exertion but no heart trouble or anything. I use a rescue inhaler about twice a month. I also can’t see very well without glasses. Will that keep me grounded?
Well… I’m not overweight but use an inhaler myself occassionally and I’m blind as a bat without my glasses but it didn’t stop me.
If you got asthma (I presume that’s what you’re talking about) if it’s actually under control and you aren’t experiencing any hazardous side effects from any medication you’re taking they’ll let you fly. As far as vision goes - if your vision corrects to 20/40 or better you can get a private license allowing you to fly yourself and any passengers you care to bring along for fun but not for money. If you want to fly commercially your vision needs to be correctable to 20/20. That’s the federal rules. Some airlines (like United) require uncorrected 20/20 (that means no LASIK, either). Others don’t care if you need glasses to achieve 20/20.
About the only things that are really going to stop you from flying are epilepsy, insulin dependent diabetes (although there are now a couple exceptions), heart disease (although some folks have regained a medical after heart attack or surgery), and severe, uncorrectable vision defects. There are folks in wheelchairs who fly, deaf people who fly, one-eyed people who fly, there’s a guy with no hands who is a stunt pilot… The main concerns, at least from the standpoint of recreational flying are 1) can you control the aircraft? and 2) are you a hazard to others? (You’re allowed to be a hazard to yourself - ultralights are single-seat aircraft where only the pilot is likely to be hurt or killed, and given their size and speed they aren’t likely to do much damage on impact, so no medical required)
Flying for a living - now that’s a slightly different matter, with higher standards. If you have a physical problem you may have to jump through some extra hoops to get your medical, and it may cost you more money, but whether it’s worth the time and effort is up to the individual.