Originally Posted by
OpieTaylor
I don’t think this is true.
Age 67 was not proposed by the FAA or NTSB. To benefit the flying public.
It is not some type of authentic truth proposal that has to be approved or disapproved by those who see authentic truth most clearly.
Someone greased a congressman it slip it into a bill without any consideration towards the flying public.
The 117 rest regs were changed due to a crash and were science based changes. The industry will never know how many crashes never happened because of the change. The industry will never know how many crashes never happened due to mandatory retirement.
Mandatory retirement serves the flying public and like all reg changes should require an unbiased science based change.
At a minimum a reg change should have the support of the NTSB. If the proposal fails to achieve the support in an unbiased manner then it shouldn’t be changed.
Sleep apnea testing was proposed by the FAA to benefit the flying public, and didn’t start with some one greasing a congressman. There is a process for unbiased change without waiting for a crash.
You're right. It was proposed by the self-serving pilots who wanted to take advantage of the pilot shortage and stay at the top. But at the same time, FAR 67 doesn't say that one has to be under the age 65. It only restricts 121 ops.