Originally Posted by
parabellum
Possibly, but returning the age to 65 was simply righting an arbitrary wrong from the eighties.
True enough, but back then the state retirement age was 65 for men and 60 for women, it is now north of 67 and will continue this vector in the years ahead.
So a pilot retiring now is not eligible for a state pension, so must either self fund or find another job for no other reason than an arbitrary date. It is what it is but without credible scientific data it remains arbitrary and ageism, greed, selfishness, ex wives to fund & seniority are emotional sentiments but not relevant in law.
I will be surprised if the CAA win this one, the medical grounds are weak defence, a good number fail medicals well before age 65 the problem is do you set any age limit and for Wayne’s case to win I suspect the answer must be no, because any age limit is ageism.
Like wise limiting hours or type of flying is ageism, one could reasonably seek more frequent medicals for research, but I’m not sure that doing a medical every 3 or 4 months would add to safety and we are already reaching a crisis point with lack of new AME’s joining the declining pool, its notable that many AME’s seem to work well into their late 60’s and beyond.