Age 60 informal poll

[Phaedrus]

Well, my Dad said that old people are senile and cr@ppy drivers. The point is, who cares what Henry Duffy said his "beliefs" are? My belief is that you should vamoose. Is that any less credible than Duffy's belief? I know your answer, but the real answer is no, it isn't. It is as credible and as valid as Duffy's "belief". Until the ol' Duffer brings out data that prove otherwise his belief will be what it will be. Nada.

 

[Sluggo_63]

My analogy is not perfect but if you fail to get the point then you have just admitted to yourself and everyone else that you are a part of the problem.

Your analogy isn't even in the ballpark. It's not even the same sport (apologies to Jules Winfield).

If you equate your out of left field analogy to the current age 60 rule, then you, sir, not I, are part of the problem.

 

[The Prussian]

Well, my Dad said that old people are senile and cr@ppy drivers. The point is, who cares what Henry Duffy said his "beliefs" are? My belief is that you should vamoose. Is that any less credible than Duffy's belief? I know your answer, but the real answer is no, it isn't. It is as credible and as valid as Duffy's "belief". Until the ol' Duffer brings out data that prove otherwise his belief will be what it will be. Nada.

Question...Do you apply the same logic to your Dad's quote as you do to "the 'ol Duffer" in the last part of your statement???

 

[Phaedrus]

I absolutely do, until pressed to go further in the analogy. The difference is there is plenty of a posteriori data to prove my Dad's point. A fortiori there is plenty of scientific data to support his position. The ol' Duffer has nothing but faith in his position until he presents data to the contrary.

 

[The Prussian]

I absolutely do, until pressed to go further in the analogy. The difference is there is plenty of a posteriori data to prove my Dad's point. A fortiori there is plenty of scientific data to support his position. The ol' Duffer has nothing but faith in his position until he presents data to the contrary.

I would suggest-iori that before you line up a posteriori data and then further buttress it with a fortiori data, that you first-iori define "old people" as a subgroup with an applicable age range. You could then tie your data to specific age ranges for valid data points. Until then....your Dad's quote will be what it will be. Nada.

 

[jbDC9]

Another great post by Klako. A good analogy. Listen to this man, he's earned his stripes the hard way. No one has a right to steal what he's earned. His house or his job.

No, it's not a great post, it's a worthless and stupid analogy. Earned his stripes the hard way?? Oh sure, just like the rest of us, get hired on and then watch the calendar. Like Phaedrus said, for you to give him an attaboy for that post is just ridiculous.

You and Klako keep harping on the junior guys "stealing" the senior guys jobs. Right. So, Mr. Undaunted, how many senior guys jobs have you "stolen" over the last 37 years as you climbed the seniority list to be a senior 777 captain?

I would suggest-iori that before you line up a posteriori data and then further buttress it with a fortiori data, that you first-iori define "old people" as a subgroup with an applicable age range.

Huh? Careful with that, you're gonna start sounding like Klako...

 

[walden]

deleted

 

[Phaedrus]

Prussian, smartass-edness aside, the onus is squarely on those in favor of change. Surely as a real smart, perfectly organized, logical Teutonic you know the basic rules of debate and reason. When that responsibility is fulfilled I'd be happy to respond. 1,026 posts into this melee and not one pro-change advocate has posted a serious case, based on reason, to change this rule.

 

[3BCat]

Wrong, Phaedrus, and I quote...

Hi Phaedrus. No age limit - No discrimination.

I see you're still trying to prove the logic of your stance, instead of standing for logic.

 

[Phaedrus]

3B: To even pretend to take that ridiculous positiion unveils pure ignorance or pure stupidity, you choose. 16 year old FO's? 90 year old Captains? Please, present an argument that isn't kindergarten level thinking. I suppose your next assumption will be that discrimination is bad. Guess what? We live in a world of discrimination. It can be bad, but not per se.

 

[Phaedrus]

chirp, chirp

 

[3BCat]

chirp, chirp

He..he..You said chirp, chirp. Thats the sound little birds make after they crap.

Age 60 is not as complex as you believe. If you don't understand my reasoning, don't get mad. Get an education.

I've stated my position before. Age of the pilot is not a deciding factor in pilot competence between the ages of 23 and 59. At 60 it becomes the only factor. Age 60 is not about flight safety. It's an arbitrary limit.

So, lets try this. How about establishing a pilots age equivalent, based on his physiogical health? People have failing health regardless of age, and we all age until death. This would place the onus on current and everchanging science, and the flight surgeon to establish the overall capacity of each airman, individually. The problem of course is you never know when you might fall below the guidelines. Age sixty is way easier to plan for. Most guys that medical out don't get to plan for it though, so I think it's no greater harm.

You and I may not make it to 60. Then again, we may both be too healthy to meet Dr. Kevorkian until well past 70. Longevity, medicine and overall health of our population has improved markedly since this law was put into effect. It's time to overhaul it.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Longevity, medicine and overall health of our population has improved markedly since this law was put into effect. It's time to overhaul it.

Very well said..

 

[Sluggo_63]

...deleted...

 

[Phaedrus]

Age of the pilot is not a deciding factor in pilot competence between the ages of 23 and 59

So which is it 3B? A couple posts back and you were arguing that "no age limit = no discrimination". Again, prima facia, if the discrimination boogie man is your real problem you're going to have to allow 18 year old FO's and 90 year old captains if they qualify. Your problem is you're so mired in your facade of discrimination that you can't even admit to yourself what your true motive is.

 

[Sluggo_63]

Very well said..

Really. I think the American Heart Association and the American Medical Association would beg to differ with you on the statement that Americans are overall healthier than they were 40 years ago. There have been advances in medicine which drive the longevity higher, but you just have more old, sick people vs. 40 years ago when they died with their illness.

Maybe this is why British pilots are able to fly to 65, but US pilots to 60. Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/17/2037
Highlights:
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Results The US population in late middle age is less healthy than the equivalent British population for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, lung disease, and cancer. Within each country, there exists a pronounced negative socioeconomic status (SES) gradient with self-reported disease so that health disparities are largest at the bottom of the education or income variants of the SES hierarchy. This conclusion is generally robust to control for a standard set of behavioral risk factors, including smoking, overweight, obesity, and alcohol drinking, which explain very little of these health differences. These differences between countries or across SES groups within each country are not due to biases in self-reported disease because biological markers of disease exhibit exactly the same patterns. To illustrate, among those aged 55 to 64 years, diabetes prevalence is twice as high in the United States and only one fifth of this difference can be explained by a common set of risk factors. Similarly, among middle-aged adults, mean levels of C-reactive protein are 20% higher in the United States compared with England and mean high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels are 14% lower. These differences are not solely driven by the bottom of the SES distribution. In many diseases, the top of the SES distribution is less healthy in the United States as well. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Conclusion Based on self-reported illnesses and biological markers of disease, US residents are much less healthy than their English counterparts (emphasis mine) and these differences exist at all points of the SES distribution.[/FONT]

 

[johnsonrod]

No way. I don't want a 64 year old cop or fire fighter protecting me either.

 

[Phaedrus]

johnson, you big meanie.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

To: Sluggo 63:
The report you have reference is a comparison of the USA to another country. My statement compared today’s population with the American population of 50 years ago. As I had said, today’s population is healthier. The 60 year old of today is only middle aged.

 

[Phaedrus]

Middle-aged? Funny. Lets' see, the middle, otherwise known as the center, sometimes known as halfway. I didn't know that most people live to be 120. Thanks for the education.