The 'age 60 rule' was adopted by ICAO in 1972 and implemented in 78, after having been in force in some way in the US since 1958 (correct those dates if I'm incorrect).
Robin Wilkening summarised the main concerns very well in his 'Age discrimination in Commercial Aviation' article in 2002, stating that the main concerns surrounding the rule were risk of sudden incapacitation, undetected cognitive decline and the risk of medical investigations not identifying medical problems that could potentially cause incapacitation.
Of course 2006 saw the start of the 'age 65 rule'....... and that is subject of some of the debate here, along with the knock on effect that it had on the junior generations, not something i know a great deal about.
However, all of the concerns addressed in the initial rule are valid, but to what extent now? I am of the opinion that if the regulatory bodies are going to implement a rule, they should make sure that it is based on solid scientific evidence and that this evidence can be translated into a sound and fair system within which to assess pilots and their fitness to fly. We know that cardiovascular deaths rates in the under 75's have decreased by around 25% since 1996, and we also know that memory and information processing decreases with age, but it may be suggested that as a pilot ages, he or she may have some protective effect from their level of experience.
Those who impose and implement such rules really have a responsibility to keep the regulations current to the changing times. I think that there is call for a system that allows each pilot to be assessed as an individual and to have an individual risk score calculated based on their age but also on the entire medical history, presence of risk factors and the role they are in, but also incorporating performace scores as well. Incorporated into the consideration as well would be the potential loss as an outcome of incapcitation. This would of course by a dymanic process and on-going scores can be compared and acted upon if mecessary. This would allow that older but more physically and mentally fit pilot to fly for longer based on a safety assessment set on firm scientific grounding and vice versa.
Using this system may not mean that a pilot who is not fit to fly certain operations with a higher potential loss as an outcome, may not be able to fly other operations and can therefoe be likened to Dame Carole Black's report on work and health, with it's emphasis on the 'fit note', which concentrates on what a person is fit to do rather than what they are not fit to do.
The inevitable question of cost to develop such a system is raised and that is of course a big issue because it's not just the set up cost, but the price of implementing on an on-going basis as well. One could also argue that at some point relatively early inthe implementation process, certain areas for screening programmes would be identified as good prevention schemes. Of course, why should an organisation go to so much effort and so much cost to develop and implement such a scheme when really, the financial benefit in letting some pilots work for longer, and some not etc, would not be worth it. Therefore the costs would be passed on, directly or indirectly to the crew themselves.
I think we're in an age where we have so much information regarding health risk, that simply setting a seemingly arbitrary figure as an age limit is a little short sighted. Surely setting a relative risk per individual in a certain situation is a more reliable thing to do from a safety point of view?
I am all for the age to be relaxed but only if it's done in a safe and controlled way.
B