I remember hearing something about the combined age in the cockpit, but couldn't remember the specifics. One thing puzzles me though: if all of the proponents of age 65 say that safety isn't compromised by allowing someone to fly past age 60, then why not have two 64 year-olds in the cockpit at the same time?

I would say because most (of the ones you refer to) have spent the majority of their careers flying non-glass cockpit/non-FMS type aircraft. I'm not saying that glass-pilots are weak by any means, just that the round-dial guys (and gals) have learned and practice a lot of techniques that cannot be or are hard to acquire in the magic jets.

My personal opinion is that you will have two 64 year-olds in the cockpit down the road. That's assuming the age 60 rule gets overturned, which I think will happen.

The one pilot under 60 would be a "transistion" rule, although I would suggest it will take several years to change.

JMHO.

There's something to what you say. Another factor is that the round dial guys have been hand flying climbs, descents, and approaches for years. They actually learned to fly and for the most part, kept at it. Even in the magic jets, if the magic quits, they can still fly the airplane.

It would be interesting to hear how many of the people that say experience does nothing for safety or competence have: had a blown weather forecast at the destination AND the alternate and had to hand fly the approach to whatever weather there was at the time; flown single pilot IFR professionally; had an emergency requiring a landing 10 minutes ago; had to argue with a flight follower (or owner of the company) that the flight wasn't going because of safety concerns; had to argue that "yes, the freight is going to be bumped because I don't trust the forecast and want the fuel"...you get the picture. Some things have nothing to do with wiggling the controls but have lots to do with having experienced some or all of them before. Experience is not just "flying along watching the autopilot."

That is very well-stated.

Are you too lazy to prove me wrong? :D You go ahead and search for data that says differently.
I have sat through several classes which compared accident data to number of hours flown. The graphs were similar in both military and civilain statistics.
Do you think that 1500 hours for an ATP is just another arbitrary number chosen by the FAA? No science behind it; they just pulled the number out of their skivvies, just like age 60?

Andy, YOU'RE the one spouting statistics and studies to support YOUR position. Since you're the one using them, roll 'em out or quit using them. I don't have to prove anything. It's your burden to prove your point.

So, what's my incentive to provide this data to you? More insults from you?

What insult? You call me "old timer" and tell me to "hang it up" and I'm insulting you? Come on. I'll make it easy. Forget the studies, just show me how I insulted you.

If it's an insult to be asked to provide references to "studies" you're using to prove your point that a pilot's peak of competence is at 1500 hours, you better grow a thicker skin, cause you're going to be called on statements like that whenever you make them.

Just a quick jaunt on the 'net. 1998 statistical data. Page 29. http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/ARG0301.pdf
Unfortunately, no breakdown on this study between <1500/>1500. However, the point is graphically illustrated. There are other studies in GA and the military that break it down better. I've sat through several CFI refreshers (& a few military briefings as a UPT IP) using charts showing the high accident stats at less than 1500 hrs flight time.