Who in the name of all that's holy wants to keep doing it past 60? I wan't to tend to my garden, fix the kitchen and not have to have continual arguments about cost cutting and the ever-increasing crap.

Shot One
You have not carefully read what I wrote. I stated that the ICAO data used to raise the age limit from 60 to 65 identified that the 1% incapacity threshold occurred beyond 65.
It had to say that other wise the age limit could not have been increased to 65. Think about for a second before you reply......
that was based on data from 2004. That is in Dr Evans evidence. That data is 14 years old. Group Capt Timperley's presentation to the Royal Aeronitical Society pointed to the 1% threshold being breached at 80. There is a growing body of evidence to support his work. It is not peer reviewed. But then there is no data to support the current limit of 65. Just a load of data confirming the limit of 1% occurs AFTER 65.
My challange is quite straight forward. It is that the current limit of 65 is not supported by any effort to "review with rigour and an open mind" areas of Discrimination in Age, Gender, sexual orientation etc. etc. If the regulator has not done that they have failed in their Statutory Obligation.
The statment about 10 countries permitting over 65 pilots to operate isn't central to the challange it just helps to expose the absurdity of the rule.
I have not made any claims which do not stand up to your scrutiny (or anyone elses).
Wayne

Doc Fly
thanks for the steer to Dr Evans. I am familiar with it. It is quite central to the legal challange.

Which, with respect to commercial pilots, is not reality at all. Reality will be the average life expectancy of commercial PILOTS. Indeed, any figures quoting UK averages for any condition, including heart attacks, are irrelevant if they are not exclusive to commercial pilots.

Quite. The average would be dragged down by all those in the general population who are obese, smokers, stress merchants, drunks, druggies etc, and those with unfortunate genes - many with a combination of these problems.
Pilots SHOULD do better than this average. But not all will, and it is those who don't beat the average that supports the other side's argument. Unfortunately for those wishing to hang in there past 65, I believe that the counter argument will prevail in much the same way as we have ever more prescriptive SOPs and regulations to cater for the the lowest common denominator.

Hi Mach E Avelli
If the counter argument always prevail we would still have Navigators and Flight Engineers in the Flight Deck and only 4 engine planes would cross oceans.

So, after having deemed this 1% to be an acceptable risk level it has been found that, in practice, we have been operating at a lower risk level, which has, on the whole been safe. You now want to increase the risk level in order to make money post 65th birthday. The arbitrary figure of 1% is not as safe as the current, lower, risk level and financial gain is not a suitable argument to increase the risk. There is no bar to flying beyond 65 however, there is no cause to increase the risk to paying passengers who place their trust in the regulators and operators.

Oh, like most here I understand financial reality. The divorce rate and child support arrangements are almost a given frankly. It's part of the way of life in the pilot's world for various reasons. But I want MY life. I downsized, bought a share in a PA28R for fun, and walked away. Stress is a major cause of all sorts of medical issues and the older you get, the greater the likelihood. It's hard to adjust sometimes to not roving the world and all the fun and games. But I quite like my tomatoes and my cumcumbers have done really well this year...

My wife of forty one years says you're talking from your back end.....

An oft-repeated allegation without independent pilot-specifc data to support it. Or at least none I've been able to find.

It'd be interesting to see the statement addressed to substantiate or disprove it.

This thread seems remarkably short of hard evidence ;)

Beard
It is entertaining reading your views. They do bring a smile to my aging face 😀.
let's try this one more time.
The REGULATOR decides what the acceptable level of risk is. It a a black and white value.
Some pilots over 65 meet this level of safety. BUT because of AGE DISCRIMINATION these pilots are prevented from operating and earning a living.
The High Court is being asked to rule as to whether or not the CAA has discharged their Statutary obligation in respect of this discrimination.
It has nothing to do with your arbitrary level of current levels of safety and whether or not they are eroded.
Do you get it now.?
Wayne

Reacher19
The High Court is "a law unto itself" All I can go on is the best guess of the legal team.
They expect the HC to consider the arguments submitted by both sides and during Sept set a date for trial. Then we go to Court and argue. At some stage they give their judgement. One side looses and one side prevails.
There is an option for the CAA to ask to go to arbitration. So working out a "time line" is impossible.
what we have achieved is the CAA cannot "fob us off" They would have had to consider this at Board level. Therefore lower level managers can no longer "kick this can down the road" We have forced the regulator to give this serious consideration.

The fact is that there is no rational justification for defending a rule not supported by evidence. I can only offer an educated guess as to how they will respond?
wayne

Yes I do, I got it from the start and I find your sarcasm unbecoming of you.


How is the authority to assess which of those avaricious old men fit his 1% model, a figure which is based on a statistical analysis of a large population and is not applicable to individuals or is that of no concern to the case?

I have no financial interest in the outcome of your court action. I elected to retire at 60 even though I could have carried on.

Good for you. Obviously, you would not have done so if your financial situation did not allow it.