If you have empirical evidence that this is a real danger, (maybe it is maybe it isn't), then I think it would be appropriate for all pilots to have to take a cog test as a baseline when 50 and every 5 years after until 65. Then test every two years to continue to fly. I wonder how many 55 year old pilots would find themselves with a problem......

That's what government does best.

I don't think it's unreasonable to think we will see the 67 age in the next 5-10 years. The pilot shortage will brighten up the decision room in time. I'm not saying I'm for or against it, but supply and demand will play in again.
My 2 cents.

And how many 40 year old weak pilots were sharp at age 30? A weak 40 year old was always weak. A weak 55 year old was always weak. A weak 64 year old is too often a sad reminder of the sharp guy that we used to fly with.

We decline as we age, it is a simple ugly truth. Some more than others, but anyone in their 50s who is planning their retirement needs to consider that at some point they are likely to have to stop driving, likely to become more vulnerable to scams (buy gold coins!), likely to need help keeping their life in order. And that is just normal aging -- Dementia is an altogether different ball game.

I have a family member who is a physician. He recently commented that medicine's understanding of the brain is 100 years behind that of the rest of the body. It was a casual comment, but the underlying point is that we really do not have a good grasp of how the brain works, and anyone putting faith in current medicine to reliably identify early deterioration is being wildly optimistic.

The only people that are supporting the fly till you die concepts are the guys with no pension! It's rare to see a guy age 65 that is financially able to retire actually want to keep doin this.

Pilots submit to a cog check no less than 3 times a year, (baring those who have an approved AVQ Program) two sim checks a year, and the annual line check, and of course the no notice line check.

I have to say, nightrider, your statement, IMO, is one of emotion and frustration, rather than having any validity. If my observation is incorrect, then do share you data collection tools used whilst conducting your study that lends credibility to your statement.

You should know there are countries that have not subscribed to the ICAO retirement age 65.

Really????? I have prepared my finances so that if I lost my medical I could retire today. I work for K4 because I love what I do. If you don't love your job in aviation then, for your health, get out and do something else. The argument of "you are in my seat" no longer applies at K4. The same can be said for many other airlines today. We are starving for qualified pilots and I expect to see our upgrade time go to under 2 years soon. When I reach 65, if the limit is higher and I still love going to work I will probably stay.

If the age is raised again, it should not result in furloughs or delayed career expectations. Sure, before either happens, there will be some room to play with due to demand. However, ultimately, the only way this can be guaranteed is to decide now and delay age 67's implementation by 44 years. (or if the age is 70, by 47 years, et al.). The math is based on those getting their 117/121 careers started at 23 and those after them will be the only ones that will benefit.

Sure, hiring phases and the economy will have cycled a few times and in that time, or hell, we might even go to single or no pilot ops, but so what. Of course this will not be popular with those nearing retirement (most of us know we what we got into and we already got a 5 year extension) or with the airlines (raise the damn pay and bennies).

What's K4? I am 64 and 3/4 and I would stay. The job is easy and I enjoy it. I am happy to go to work and happy to go home. ��