Interesting comparison, FE.
I’d be surprised if CASA’s “Jim” is a real case study. If he is, good on him for managing to maintain a Class 1 medical certificate to the age of 75 with type 2 diabetes and high cholesterol and high blood pressure.
But, like you, I don’t know how CASA could reasonably come to the view that, if you take a sample of 100 Jims, there’s a less than 1% risk that one of them will suffer sudden incapacitation in their 75th year. Maybe I’ve misunderstood how CASA’s magic percentages work. Nowluke might be able to clarify.
I agree with your view that the terms of the letter from the CASA decision maker to the “independent” expert were “unforgivable”. As I’ve said, it was in my view biased and intellectually dishonest. Which brings up another interesting comparison: The ‘uber’ specialist I’m seeing has instructed me as follows: “Please note, Professor [X] does not review documentation until after he has seen each patient, to allow the taking of an unbiased history and physical examination.” I’m relieved that at least he gets the concept.