Originally Posted by
Jetjok
So it's an age thing?
Yes, why do you think it's coined the
Age 60 rule?
Originally Posted by
Jetjok
All of the above are beginning ages for the above situations, with the one exception of Social Security. None of the above have not-greater-than ages, like the arbitrary Age 60 retirement of pilots. Why is that? Because in all of the above cases, it's assumed that a person both matures and gets smarter with age (IMHO).
That is exactly what discrimination is. You assume that a younger person isn't mature, based solely on age not the person. Why not look at the individual, just as you want to be looked at individually as an older person.
Originally Posted by
Jetjok
Maybe that's why they've put the lower age limits in place for many of the above. Personally I don't think that it's age discrimination to not allow someone under the age of 18 to drink and/or drive. I think it's common sense, and if you don't believe me, just check with your insurance carrier and ask why insurance for younger drivers is so high. It's because they are, as a group, bad drivers.
So my question to you, why is it always the old fart in the left lane going 15mph under the speed limit...
As a group 60+ are more likely to die of a heart attack/stroke than a 20-30 year olds. Stop the "grouping" excercises....
Originally Posted by
Jetjok
So my question to you is: Why must "society find an age that can be accepted to define when someone is or isn't fit to hold some position." Wouldn't it be better to come up with tests, both physical and cognitive, that would be better predictors as to when someone should retire from a given job?
The same reason that you say all 18 year olds are too immature to drink/drive (not in combination BTW...) Yes it would be nice to test only on individual basis but that will probably never happen. I was driving my dad's pickup around the farm well before I was 12. I could have easily passed the driving test. I got my DL at 16 never had a wreck (and still haven't) or a speeding ticket until I was past 24 and that was due to me being called to work at the last minute. But wasn't I one of thoes "dangerous" drivers.
See it's easy for you to discriminate with a young person saying it's experience. I agree that a young person is less experienced than he will be 10,20,30 years down the road. But that 17 year old might have more experience than a 40 year old in another situation. Yet you're going to clump all "youngsters" as immature?
Some 18 year olds are fine to drink because they know when to say when, some 55 year olds are alcoholics and can't get up in the morning without a brandy and a scotch before work.
Some pilots (like yourself
) can be perfectly fine in the cockpit at 70. If I was a 16 year old that grew up with Bob Hoover, Chuck Yeager, Evelyn Johnson ( I hope you know who she is) as personal mentors and could ace any flight exam, would you want me as your capt in the 727 as you're flipping switches? Probably not.
Originally Posted by
Jetjok
Maybe that's the same reason why there are beginning age limits on other aviation-related licenses. But the same can't be said for the Age 60 rule.
You and nobody else really knows that. ICAO just changed the rule. In 20 years there will be enough data to make a fair determination of the effects of flying past 60 as a 121 pilot
I understand everything you've said, and I agree with some of it.
What I really don't get though is how you don't see the same discrimination happens to both young and old.