Old 09-28-2025 | 08:53 AM
  #1194  
BlueJetDork
Line Holder
 
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 972
Likes: 1
Default

Originally Posted by Meme In Command
From the executive summary of "Pilot Age and Accident Rates Report 4. Executive summary:

"The findings are consistent across the three analyses. First, for accidents occurringunder 14 CFR §121 and §135, the analyses supported the hypothesis that a "U"-shapedrelationship exists between the age of professional pilots holding ATP or commercial andfirst- or second-class medical certificates and their accident rate. Second, the accident ratefor the 60-63 age group was statistically greater than the accident rate for 55 or 56 to 59year old pilots in the a priori planned comparisons. Third, the main effect for age wasstatistically significant in all analyses. These findings suggested that the probability of anaviation accident under §121 and §135, as a function of pilot annual flight hours, wasrelated to pilot age."
Thank you very, very much.

2003? Hum!

Two… thousand… three!

2003!

In 2003, the Age-60 rule was still in force!

Context incoming …

Which means every single 60–63 accident in the CAMI dataset was Part 135.

And since the same report shows that roughly 75–79% of all accidents from 1988–97 were Part 135, the “U-shape” bump is basically telling you: surprise, the only accidents you counted at 60+ came from the part of the industry that’s like Part 121, minus the training, oversight, peer review, and institutional safety net.

Because only in APiC land is Part 135 at the same as part 121!

That context is everything.

And even the FAA’s own researchers stressed that age is not sufficient or appropriate as a stand-alone measure of individual pilot ability.

Bummer!

!