Originally Posted by
Boeing Aviator
If there are significant cognitive issues or performance degradation with older pilots, surely you have the data to back up your claims, correct? If this was true, there would be identifiable significant failure rates or significant training issues with older pilots conducting simulator training for 121/135/91K initial, recurrent, transition and line checks.
Where are all the FSAP, ASAP & NASA reports documenting these so called claims? How many pilots have walked off airplanes or refuse to fly with these so called older pilots with these age related issues?
Are there a small minority of pilots of ALL ages who slip through the cracks, yes. However, if what you all claim was true, there would be irrefutable data to back up your so called older pilots related performance issues.
First, let me say thank you for engaging. I think it's important that supporters of both sides are able to make their arguments freely, and in good faith.
That said, I think it's interesting that the push is for 2 more years (or 3?) One of the most used arguments I see is that, "1 day before turning 65, the pilot is perfectly capable, yet a day later he/she is unsafe!" Even if that's true, what makes 67 any different? You could make the exact same argument 720 days later!
But all that misses the point, IMO. There simply MUST be a line drawn somewhere. With over 100,000 pilots flying part 121 in the US. The system as a whole couldn't handle more granularity than that. As I argued in the other thread about this, there are lines drawn everywhere. Driving, voting, driving, holding an ATP, running for president. All those are age lines drawn "arbitrarily" somewhere. But for good reason. Is there any serious person arguing that drivers licenses should be discretionary age? Of course not. As a society, we have decided that (though some 15 year olds are mature enough to handle it) 16 is the proper age for a DL. And on, and on for the other items. It's all the same basic argument. X age is ok, X +/- 1 day is not. It simply cannot be any other way.
The only other possible argument is for no age at all - aka "as long as you can hold a medical", which is a
really bad idea, and would come with a ton of unintended consequences.
NONE of us should want that. We don't need greater scrutiny in our 50's/60's for losing our medical, and thus 50% of our income. And that's partly why that path will never happen. A4A will ensure it, even if ALPA didn't.