Originally Posted by FangsF15

No, it issue is not whether YOUR 65th birthday is an appropriate measurement, it is whether the masses, writ large, can be assured are fully capable by that measurement. The Class 1 is YOUR measurement, 65 is a 'secondary barrier' which is there to be reasonably sure that people flying John Q Public around, unaware and unable to pick their pilot, can reasonably be assured are good to go.

Does 65 screen out some fully capable pilots? I'm sure it does. But the Government and public would rather a few 66 year olds not fly part 121 than risk having age-related decline creep into the impeccable safety record. It's all about risk mitigation, and 65 is an admittedly blunt instrument to 'trap the error' of insidious decline. And the public wants it that way.




You completely miss the point. If there are people flying at 64 (or 60, or...) with undiagnosed 'measurable cognitive decline', it's already a problem and raising the age will clearly make that problem worse.

Most of us find the often-stated arguments for raising the age to be self-serving and uncompelling.