Bringupthebird said:
Any safety issue regarding age must be viewed as a health issue. If these Age 60 proponents champion the cause of safety (actually, " the world would be safer if I was captain") then they must also advocate stricter medical standards for all pilots.
Ok...you don't understand the argument. That's cool.
Here's the part you're missing:
The current system is working. It is not broken. Need proof? - The safest form of transportation on the planet is provided by US airlines operating under Pt. 121 .
One of the rules that ensures this
ne plus ultra safety record is Age 60...even without specific standards for cognitive ability and reflexes, and without testing for same.
Before you start cutting-and-pasting a reply, please be sure you include admission that the current system is producing the safety record desired...the best. Also, please include empirical evidence that safety would be
enhanced by changing the rule.
As simplistic as it may seem, "
If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is tough nut for you to crack. If you can't provide a compelling argument for change that includes benefits for the system (ie: enhanced safety), then it's simply a "
What's best for ME!" issue.
Bringupthebird said:
Why stop with just kicking out the old guys? Why not fat guys with high cholesterol? Why not disallow all special issuance medicals and waivers? Why not bring back 20/20 vision?
There are rules for cholesterol and vision. There is a rule for Age 60. Together, the result has been the safest model for transportation in the world.
When the feds grounded Bob Hoover, they hit the issue head-on...there is no standard for cogntive ability. It would be nice if the traveling public accepted the ability of a pilot to perform dead-stick acro as proof that he can fly them safely, instead of relying on his ability to recite a spoken 9-digit number sequence backward (one of the cog-screen tests given to airline pilots returning from LOC or depression-related suspensions). But that's not the way rules work, is it?
Bringupthebird said:
The sixty-year-old of today in no way resembles the sixty-year-old of 1958. In fact to gain an actuarial equivalent you would have a retirement age of 71, so 65 is no great stretch.
Using the same logic; since the air transportation system is safer than is was in 1958, we should do whatever it takes to continue the trend. Why change something that has made us
safer?