waveflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Posts
- 10,005
So Yip,
Notice you still haven't answered the original question? Seriously, why would it be appropriate to fly well into old age, when we are largely responsible for ourselves, and the loudest proponents of an age increase or abolition cannot answer truthfully that they will not be able to OBJECTIVELY evaluate their own permanent mental decline.
Hell yip, you don't acknowledge mental decline exists at all.
No, yip, I actually am not scared of higher objective standards- I'm saying we've all jumped through enough hoops to be where we are, and another expensive set of tests will neither be effective or administered well by the FAA. I have lobbied for years for higher academics- if I can figure out how to make a $million, I'm certainly not worried about what the FAA can throw at me. (how's that for a hobby, flamethrower above?)
Maybe it's a good idea, but it's a be careful what you wish for thing-
We have decades of stats that the vast majority of us are sharp and safe captains up to age 60- let that be the benchmark instead of giving more power to the FAA's medical department. What I'm saying is that I do believe we can safely fly for years after 60- (we agree) but we ought not be the one in command as we age bc we do need objective pilots evaluating our skills and mind as we get older. You can't do that for yourself, I'm sorry - we're all human and none of us are good at that.
It boggles the mind that you guys are asking for a more probing beauracracy - but then again, it doesn't- you have nothing to lose.
Notice you still haven't answered the original question? Seriously, why would it be appropriate to fly well into old age, when we are largely responsible for ourselves, and the loudest proponents of an age increase or abolition cannot answer truthfully that they will not be able to OBJECTIVELY evaluate their own permanent mental decline.
Hell yip, you don't acknowledge mental decline exists at all.
No, yip, I actually am not scared of higher objective standards- I'm saying we've all jumped through enough hoops to be where we are, and another expensive set of tests will neither be effective or administered well by the FAA. I have lobbied for years for higher academics- if I can figure out how to make a $million, I'm certainly not worried about what the FAA can throw at me. (how's that for a hobby, flamethrower above?)
Maybe it's a good idea, but it's a be careful what you wish for thing-
We have decades of stats that the vast majority of us are sharp and safe captains up to age 60- let that be the benchmark instead of giving more power to the FAA's medical department. What I'm saying is that I do believe we can safely fly for years after 60- (we agree) but we ought not be the one in command as we age bc we do need objective pilots evaluating our skills and mind as we get older. You can't do that for yourself, I'm sorry - we're all human and none of us are good at that.
It boggles the mind that you guys are asking for a more probing beauracracy - but then again, it doesn't- you have nothing to lose.
Last edited: