I didn't think that alone paid the bills. I bet the cognitive dissonance is excruciating.

 

Weren’t you the one accusing people of high school debate tactics? Now you are using reduction to absurdity.
When you can’t debate back, you agree.
”Your opinion is dumb”
”Yes, you are right my opinion is the dumbest in the world. No opinion has ever been more dumb.”

It kind of just exposes your lack of reasoning

 

I offered my positions factually and using civility.

The replies are incivility.

That is the cadence.

I don't contribute to ALPA pac. Said why.

You can contribute all you want.

Never said anyone is dumb. But repeating that its 50/50 when it has been 75/25 and is easy to verify is programming.

It's narrative.

And then drop the scab-like reference as the out!

Reasonable conversation stops.

 

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[QUOTE=180ToAJ;3954003]LEPF sent out the latest update.
I’m sure FSDO will post it soon.[/Let Experienced Pilots Fly

NOTAM #20

“EXPERIENCE MATTERS”



September 27, 2025

This update includes:

· Update on ICAO’s 42nd Assembly

· IFALPA’s Position

· Next Steps

**While we have yet to receive an official readout on the ICAO 42nd Assembly, which adjourns October 3, 2025, Flying magazine has published the following article:

https://www.flyingmag.com/what-diffe...etirement-age/

We have some thoughts regarding what we know at the moment. It appears during discussion in the Technical Committee of the Assembly regarding WP 349, some countries voiced their concerns regarding their own inability, or shortcomings, in aviation:

Several countries claim there is no data to support raising the age. This is not an accurate statement.



In 2007 the US raised the age from 60 to 65. That represents 17 years of data unequivocally proving that no accidents, incidents, or medical incapacitations were attributed to pilot age as a causal factor.

Furthermore, FAA Aviation Medical Examiners, and renown cardiologists, have gone on record pointing to medical data that shows there is no correlation between a pilot’s age and any health risk in cognition or incapacitation.



In fact, science shows that the preponderance of medical incapacitation for pilots rests in the 50-55 age range, and most of those cases are due to gastrointestinal issues.

History shows that no pilots over the age of 60 have been a causal factor in any incapacitation or medical deficiency. Furthermore, retired airline pilots over 65 are being hired at operations such as NetJets, and corporate flight departments, flying the same heavy-metal jets in the same airspace and airports as airliners.

The claims by some underdeveloped countries that they need more data because of (perceived) risk in “fatigue, medical standards, training, regulatory structures, etc.” is not because of the absence of these programs.

The US and all other highly developed countries already have in place Safety Management Systems that include Flight Time/Duty Time (FTDT), Fatigue Risk Mitigation Systems (FRMS), robust and comprehensive medical certification standards, and training programs that by design clearly identify risk and provide sound mitigations. ICAO supports these programs. These programs are blind to age and applied to all pilots. Within the training and medical certification programs, medical and cognitive issues, as well as technical performance, are evaluated every 6 months for medical/cognitive deficiency and every 9 months for technical/cognitive performance.

ICAO has a mantra of “No Country Left Behind”. It appears ICAO is accepting a lowering of the bar of acceptable pilot safety management systems, rather than doing the comprehensive work to “Raise the Standards of Countries that are Behind” to meet the rest of the aviation world.

**IFALPA’s (International Federation of Air Line Pilot Associations) position is simply duplicitous. IFALPA represents 10 country’s airline pilot unions that currently fly over the age of 65.

Is IFALPA stating that those country’s pilots are less safe? They need to answer this!

ALPA (Air Line Pilots Association), the largest pilot union member of IFALPA, represents half of their pilot groups (Canadian pilots) who fly over the age of 65. They need to answer the same question: Are they stating that half of their membership is unsafe?

IFALPA and ALPA cannot have it both ways. The issue is not safety. The issue is discrimination against their most qualified, experienced, senior, and seasoned aviators, in exchange for political gain of their leadership.

**We applaud IATA and their common sense and pragmatic approach to ensuring the pilot experience shortage in global aviation is addressed at ICAO.

LEPF stands ready to continue its advocacy to ensure the United States remains a leader in aviation and not beholden to the lowest denominator, nor beholden to labor unions making false safety claims at the expense of the traveling public’s highest safety standards and experienced aviators.

Senator Cruz is right, in his letter to the US president. “As one of ICAO’s largest Member States and one of the 36 members of the ICAO Council, America should lead on the international stage in support of raising, or even abolishing, the pilot retirement age. The rules should not be based on arbitrary opinions, unfounded studies, or fictitious narratives. It should be based on truth.”

As we learn more and as WP349 makes its way through ICAO, we will keep you up to date.

One final comment to ICAO and regulators around the globe: The burden of proof should be on the agencies that restrict the pilot license privileges at a certain age, to justify why they do so, because EXPERIENCE MATTERS!

In Unity,

Let Experienced Pilots Fly

 

[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.

 

Then counter. But you don't.

ALPA supported Rouda in my District. He was a progressive. I don't support progressives.

You can.

I will not.

 

[mod input]. Allright folks. Enough of the scab talk. That has a very specific meaning, and we will not dilute it here. EPAS/LEPF may be a lot of things, but they are not crossing a picket line. Knock it off.

 

You can't just support a single party and get your agenda passed. It's why ALPA contributes on a bipartisan basis. I get that that you are so blinded and biased by your own personal politics that it's unfathomable that someone you don't agree with might actually be able to help you. ALPA isn't "supporting.". They are paying for access. You go to a fundraising dinner so you can meet and discuss the issues that affect your cause. That's how politics works.

 

Breezy, he said God, family and country. Bruv ain't got no room up there for the intricacies of lobbying in the modern political landscape. His world view can be boiled down to "I watched an early 2000's Marine Corps recruiting commercial and got a half chub".