It's ICAO and it's worked for everyone else for quite a while.

Don't expect any changes because someone flops over once in a while.

Exactly, if the "Old Guard"( and I dont mean that derogatory) are the consumate Professionals (like Prater says they are at the majors, as opposed to us at the regionals) then they would openly admit to themselves when they know they are medically no longer fit to fly. That is a true professional, unfortunatly some are only still here past 60 because of money, once again the true root of all evil..

Or maybe just accept the fact that Age 65 is here to stay and get over it.

No way is it ever going to get rolled back...no need to waste any energy thinking about it.

A couple of issues...

A more thorough exam would require more technology and be more expensive...who's going to pay? $120 every six months could easily become $1800 every six months to pay for MRI's, treadmill tests, etc.


There are two medical concerns:

- Gradual degradation of ability due to illness or age. This can hopefully be detected at a routine medical before it reaches dangerous levels, or at least it will get caught within a few months, minimizing the risk window.

- Sudden incapacitation. The risk of this can predicted:

1. Age: The risk goes up with age, and it increases in a non-linear fashion after age 55 or so. For this reason it makes perfect sense to have an age limit and I think 65 is about right. REGARDLESS of how well you do on physical exams, body-fat tests, cardio tests, cognitive tests, and simulator checks a 75-year old has a very high chance of sudden incapacitation compared to a 55-year old.

2. The presence of certain diseases (cardiac, diabetes, etc).



The current exam is probably good enough in that there are very few sudden incapacitation events in the 121 world.

What they could do to improve it would be to require a military-style cardio fitness test (run, swim, bike, your choice) and establish body-fat standards. This would not cost much and could be administered by the airlines coincident with SIM or recurrent events. This would treat the root cause instead of using expensive tests to detect the symptoms after the damage is done. A little invasive? Sure, but I would be all for it because the unfit, overweight pilots would be better off and happier once they got in shape anyway.

I would probably also be OK with an annual blood panel to check cholesterol and a few other things...the benefit of that would be more to inform the individual in time to do something about it, with disqualification only for extreme cases.

Are you and I the only two people who realize this? Apparently...

It's totally age discrimination and if it was a policy created by anybody other than the govt, it would be verboten.

But, it is a govt policy and it is totally acceptable for the govt to discriminate in very limited circumstances provided they are applied in a uniform manner. Yes, it would be better for the individual if the govt elected to come up with some complex medical/mental examination to indicate whether an individual could continue to fly 121 safely-but, it's not required to do so.

SO, age discrimination for pilots, police officers, fire fighters, ATC controllers, etc, is highly likely to continue.

For the life of me, I can't figure out how people think the Age 65 restriction is going to suddenly be ruled un-constitutional and thrown out when Age 60 lasted for so many years as the law of the land.

If more pilots die at the controls (and they will), I think that will be enough to keep the age at 65. Age 65 was a bad rule that was established because pilots lost their pension. It is not based on safety, just economics. If there was no issue of safety, why have a guy under 60 in the seat to baby sit?

That said, it is the law. It is unfortunate they don't require more stringent medical standards for over 60 individuals. We all know the current system is a joke.

Here in the land of heat and sand, our physical does include a BMI measure. A horrible measurement to be sure, but nevertheless, it is there. Anything over, I think, 33 requires monitoring and some sort of awareness training. I do think you guys are right, many guys will finally say, enough already. It is simple really, give them there pensions back and many will say adios. Not all, but many will. And the guys that have their pensions, will get tired after awhile. So hang in there young ones. It won't be as bleak as it appears now.

Yeah, like that money is sitting on a shelf somewhere.