*** PREVIOUS RESULTS *** Last week, AVweb asked its readers for opinions on the Age-60 Rule. A full half of those who responded were in lock-step: You said that safe piloting can only be determined on a case-by-case basis, and the Age-60 Rule does a disservice to pilots of all ages. The other half of you were divided on the effectiveness of the Age-60 Rule. 14% of you (72 voters) admitted that Age-60 is unfair but conceded that the Rule is a practical way to keep unsafe pilots on the ground. Another 14% said that a conservative age cap is the cost of safety. Plus, votes were nearly equal for those in favor of self-certification (no medicals) and those who believe medicals are a must. But only 4% (22 voters) said that older pilots represent a clear, immediate hazard.
*** THIS WEEK’S QUESTION *** This week, AVweb would like to hear readers’ opinions on the widening gap between technology and flight training. Can training keep pace with new technologies?
Have an idea for a new QOTW? Send your suggestions to qotw@avweb.com.
Note: This address is only for suggested QOTW questions, and not for QOTW answers.
AVweb’s Question of the Week …
Key Takeaways:
- Half of the surveyed readers believe pilot safety should be determined on a case-by-case basis, deeming the Age-60 Rule a disservice to pilots.
- The other half of readers were divided on the Age-60 Rule's effectiveness, with some acknowledging its unfairness but practicality (14%), and others considering a conservative age cap a necessary cost of safety (14%).
- Views were also split between self-certification (no medicals) and mandatory medicals, while only a small minority (4%) saw older pilots as a clear hazard.
- The article introduces a new poll question concerning the widening gap between technology and flight training, asking if training can keep pace.
See a mistake? Contact us.
