[QUOTE=180ToAJ;3954003]LEPF sent out the latest update.
I’m sure FSDO will post it soon.[/First update with more to come

ICAO Assembly report

News out of the 42nd ICAO Assembly is disappointingly short of the opportunity that was available, but not at all a defeat for those who hope to see the international pilot retirement age raised.

Working Paper 349, proposing to raise the current standard to age 67, was advanced to the ICAO Council for action. It was hoped that it would do so with significant and forcible support, but that did not transpire. Material for another discussion, the dynamics of that will be covered when we approach the topic of next steps.

Working Paper 291, proposing the establishment of common airman medical certificate reference points for collection and reporting purposes is related to the preceding WP106 on pilot age (and through it, to WP349), but is not, as some have too quickly asserted, a definite limiter or show stopper.

In the most basic, practical terms, WP106 invited ICAO Member States to consider and comment on the idea of raising the international pilot age standard and asked them to provide any medical and other performance data they may have regarding older pilots. The net return of that was low participation (due certainly to the complexity of the survey provided and general ambivalence of most nations) and NO negative input. From that, WP349 and WP291 were born. WP291 presumes that the response problem was a lack of workable information and seeks to cure that. WP349 represents that the obvious, common sense absence of negative assertions makes it appropriate to raise the age to 67.

Functionally, the United States and ICAO continue to look back and forth at each other, knowing what the right thing to do about the pilot age is, but each waiting for the other to take on the initiating risk. Both are looking to cover themselves with a “data” and/or “Well, THEY said ‘it’s okay’” blanket. If you insist that there has to be a specific, NEW generation of data and prediction of pilot health prognoses in order to raise the age, and believe you don’t have that information and can’t get it now, then 291 COULD be used as a means to significantly delay progress on raising the age. HOWEVER, if you adhere to the common sense reality that there already have been, through many millions of hours and millions of cycles, pilots over the age of 65 flying safely (and much safer than less experienced pilots), then you don’t need 291 to continue on 349. Your “data” package is the existing, extensive history of U.S. Part 135, Part 91 and multi-national air transport operations of pilots age 65 and over. You let 291 go forward alongside as a good idea, but not a prerequisite to acting on 349.

As we’ve said all along, the swingweight of the U.S., properly exercised within the arena of ICAO, is most likely going to be the key to moving this ball. What we saw this week was disheartening, but just a temporary product of not having an Ambassador and normal diplomatic order in place. Addressing the ICAO Assembly, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy echoed President Trump’s tone to the U.N. - that the U.S. will pursue its interests without shame or deterrence. We can expect that approach to be picked up by the incoming Ambassador. Domestically, House Aviation Chair Troy Nehls has affirmed Congress’ intent to address the pilot age issue, introducing a fresh bill. There are efforts underway to bring out identical Senate support.

EPAS is already at work, doing what it has from the outset - thoughtfully assessing evolving conditions, self-critiquing, strategizing and executing. Look for more about what this will look like, very soon this week.