[CharlesWayneCT]

Also, while the study SAID 10,000 hours, if you look at the actual data, there was a drop-off in deaths in the 5000-9999 hour window.

However, above 9999 hours, the death rate increased precipitously, and never returned to the 5000-9999 level.

So it might be that we would be safest if airline pilots flew only cargo until they got to 5000 hours, and were only allowed to fly 5000 hours of commercial, and then they had to go back to cargo.

Of course, that’s putting a lot of faith into a simple study of whether older pilots are riskier or not.

I have no doubt that the pilots in the Colgan crash needed better training, but I do doubt that increasing the minimum hours will correct the problem of lack of qualified training.

Colgan air operated out of Manassas for years, and had a good record. My state senator founded the airline, and they just sold it in the past couple of years.

But there is still the underlying question. If you paid the pilots more, would those people be alive?

And if you raised the price of every commuter flight to pay the pilots more, and 10% of the people stopped flying commuter and instead drove, would MORE or FEWER people be dead today?

I’m sure with sufficiently high-priced tickets, I could ensure that every one of my commuter plane trips was made on a super-safe jet flown by the most experienced pilot in the world.

But I would never want to pay that much to fly, and am willing to even risk DEATH in order to save money on my airline flight. Because the relative risk isn’t as important to me as the absolute risk, and the absolute risk of airlplane flight, EVEN taking into account commuter crashes like the Colgan crash that could be prevented by proper training, is still less than driving a car.

[zipper]

Also, while the study SAID 10,000 hours, if you look at the actual data, there was a drop-off in deaths in the 5000-9999 hour window.

However, above 9999 hours, the death rate increased precipitously, and never returned to the 5000-9999 level.

I think old pilot, with more than 19,000 hours, would disagree with your assumptions.

"....I am worried that the airline piloting profession will not be able to continue to attract the best and the brightest. The current experience and skills of our country's professional airline pilots come from investments made years ago, when we were able to attract the ambitious, talented people who now frequently seek professional careers elsewhere. That past investment was an indispensable element in our commercial aviation infrastructure, vital to safe air travel and our country's economy and security. If we do not sufficiently value the airline piloting profession and future pilots are less experienced and less skilled, it logically follows that we will see negative consequences to the flying public and to our country...."

http://blogs.courant.com/travel_columnists_leblanc/2009/02/sullenberger-pay-cuts-driving.html

[zipper]

"Also, while the study SAID 10,000 hours, if you look at the actual data, there was a drop-off in deaths in the 5000-9999 hour window.

However, above 9999 hours, the death rate increased precipitously, and never returned to the 5000-9999 level."

-----------------

A totally misleading statement that was NOT in the study [highlighted in bold] that misrepresents what the study you cite ACTUALLY said:

With adjustment for age, pilots who had 5,000–9,999 hours of total flight time at baseline had a 57% lower risk of a crash than their less experienced counterparts (relative risk = 0.43, 95% confidence interval: 0.21, 0.87). The protective effect of flight experience leveled off after total flight time reached 10,000 hours. The lack of an association between pilot age and crash risk may reflect a strong "healthy worker effect" stemming from the rigorous medical standards and periodic physical examinations required for professional pilots.....With adjustment for age, having 5,000 or more hours of total flight time at baseline reduced crash risk by more than 50 percent. The protective effect of flight experience on crash risk appeared to level off after total flight time at baseline reached 10,000 hours..... There is little evidence that the prevalence of pilot error is significantly associated with age in professional pilots... And oh by the way the authors of the study explained the increase on the diagram in relative risk from the 5000-9999 mark to th 10,000-14,999 mark as follows:

The crash rate in general aviation is 4.5 times the rate for commuter air carriers and is about the same as that for air taxis (23). Since information on exposure to flight was unavailable for specific categories of aviation, we were unable to calculate crash rates separately for commuter air carriers and air taxis and for general aviation. It is possible that exposure to general aviation in this study population may increase in the process of aging because of increased leisure time. Given that two out of the three crashes that occurred at age 60–64 years involved general aviation flights, the crash rates for older ages reported in this study may have been somewhat overestimated. Additionally, crash risk in this study was assessed without consideration of the probable causes. Previous studies showed that pilot error is a contributing factor in 71 percent of commuter air carrier and air taxi crashes (33). There is little evidence that the prevalence of pilot error is significantly associated with age in professional pilots (33, 34). A study based on general aviation crashes revealed that older male pilots tend to make fewer errors, particularly poor decisions, than younger male pilots (35).

Also, remember the study you cited only included part 135 pilots who were:

1) holding a Class I medical certificate; 2) being employed by one of the 14 CFR Part 135 airlines identified from the FAA’s list of airline employers; 3) being 45–54 years of age; 4) flying for business or both business and pleasure; 5) listing "pilot" or "commercial pilot" as one’s occupation; 6) having 20 or more hours of flight time in the previous 6 months; and 7) having 500 or more hours of total flight time.

So the group as a whole was more experienced and older than many of the entry-level pilots in the commuter airlines -- the very pilots that are most likely to be paid least, since it is rare for a 45-year old to enter the part 135 'commuter airlines' at all, let alone with only 500 hours by that age.

[zipper]

For better context, splice this into my above post -- they are saying there were some 25 accidents that were off-duty included in the study that biased the data toward older pilot crashes -- they explain that the older pilots are more likely to take up leisure flying, and that type of GA flying has a 4.5 time higher accident rate, generally. Makes sense, since older pilots tend to have more disposable income, more free time, and are more likely to have accumulated wealth.

......Although the target population in this study was commuter air carrier and air taxi pilots, the reported crash rates were based on all crashes experienced by the study subjects before they were censored, including 25 general aviation crashes. It is not uncommon for professional pilots to fly under general aviation regulations for pleasure and recreation while off-duty. The crash rate in general aviation is 4.5 times the rate for commuter air carriers and is about the same as that for air taxis (23)...........