Originally Posted by
BlueJetDork
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!
!
Hmmm, and yet even within that subset of Part 135 pilots over 60 there's a direct correlation between age and accident rates.
Nice try though!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!