Bringupthebird
Grumpy? Who-Me?
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Posts
- 2,182
Occam
Proof positive that dull razors do more harm than good.
What makes the current level of air safety sufficient? Could you explain that to the families of air crash victims? Should we dismantle the NTSB as their work here is clearly done? I'll let you mull that over.
Meanwhile, why do you suppose we enjoy this level of safety? I'll explain. It's because the FAA has adopted many recommendations from the NTSB culled from many accident investigations, none of which have been related directly or indirectly to the age of the pilot. Advances such as ILS, jet engines, GPWS, TCAS have done far more to boost the safety record than keeping qualified pilots from continuing to fly. The age 60 rule was not borne from any accident, it was and is purely political.
Occams argument (if you can call it that) would be akin to, "Who need TCAS? We're safer now than when we flew the mail in Jennys! It's safe enough!"
Occam, Flop, et.al. need to face two facts: First- Age 60 is going away like it or not. Second - If you want the featherbed protection of an Age 60 retirement rule, you'll have to negotiate it into your next contract. And from what you tell us about the widespread support your side has, it should be a shoe-in. Right Boeingman?
Proof positive that dull razors do more harm than good.
What makes the current level of air safety sufficient? Could you explain that to the families of air crash victims? Should we dismantle the NTSB as their work here is clearly done? I'll let you mull that over.
Meanwhile, why do you suppose we enjoy this level of safety? I'll explain. It's because the FAA has adopted many recommendations from the NTSB culled from many accident investigations, none of which have been related directly or indirectly to the age of the pilot. Advances such as ILS, jet engines, GPWS, TCAS have done far more to boost the safety record than keeping qualified pilots from continuing to fly. The age 60 rule was not borne from any accident, it was and is purely political.
Occams argument (if you can call it that) would be akin to, "Who need TCAS? We're safer now than when we flew the mail in Jennys! It's safe enough!"
Occam, Flop, et.al. need to face two facts: First- Age 60 is going away like it or not. Second - If you want the featherbed protection of an Age 60 retirement rule, you'll have to negotiate it into your next contract. And from what you tell us about the widespread support your side has, it should be a shoe-in. Right Boeingman?