barit1
The real arbiter should be the very competent statisticians in the insurance industry. THEY know the accident/incident rates of every age group, and are best equipped to suggest who sits in front and who sits in the back
- we should all remember that the 'risk assessment' we are discussing here is to do with overflight/landing of/in CERTAIN COUNTRIES by 60+, not about operation by same EVERYWHERE else. As age 65 is accepted by JAR as the 'cut-off', where is the extra 'risk'? Any brokers/ risk-assessors care to explain?