Originally Posted by JohnBurke

There's no good case against age 67, least of all a medical one.

Medical scrutiny increases as one ages, under the FAA. The interval for the EKG, for example, or even the requirement for the EKG.

Age 60 as a retirement age for airline operations was never based on medical guidlines that showed it as a limiting factor. It was political.

Age 65 set a higher age limit, but also was not based on medical data showing it as a science-based limiting metric. It was a political increase, not limited to 65 because valid data showed that older would be harmful or would post a greater hazard, but to stay within international convention.

The quest to expand slightly to age 67 represents a broadening of the political limit, but likewise does not represent the ceiling of an acceptable health range; there is no valid reason to exclude age 65 and age 66 pilots from working.

Age 60 pilots are subject to medical screening requirements, as are age 65 pilots, as will be age 67 pilots.

It's interesting that while the first class medical is as low-key and non-invasive as it can be, and presents as little jeopardy to one's career as possible, individuals would whine that it's not invasive enough, or doesn't present enough jeopardy. Why pay so much for such a short exam? We need longer exams. Why pay so much for an examp that only asks questions about one's medical history, does an EKG, does a vision test, checks blood pressure, listens to the chest, looks at hearing and vision, and then let's one go? Perhaps if you're healthy, that's all it takes.

Ask anyone who has any kind of an issue on their medical, just how mch of a "joke" it is. When the medical is a quick process every six months, one ought not whine that it's not harder, takes longer, or is in some way more of a jeopardy-event. If it turns out you're not healthy, or have a medical wrinkle, then medical certification can turn into a nightmare, depending on the degree by which one is impaired or unable to meet the standard.

The more recent article cited (Washington Post) includes a statement by an attorney, who speculates, without evidence, at the percentage of pilot applicants who fraudulently apply. Other than an attorney's opinion, there's nothing to back up that wild assertion. If one were to suggest that the medical applicaiton is a "joke" because a large percentage of applicants get away with supplying false information, and one could back that up with actual data, one might have a leg to stand on. Therefore, back it up.



After extensive practice, I gained some skill at opening and applying a bandaid, and eventually came to master applying just the right dab of neosporin. That I can do so at altitude is purely coincidental. Does that count?