>There is a difference between having something and then losing it vs not having it yet.
I disagree. The reason for the policy would be the same.
Probability of person of age x causing collision is too high.
>The bureaucracy finds it more manageable to put policy in place than to determine individual skill.
Yes, of course. Testing every single person all the time can get costly, and it may or may not be deemed worthwhile by a society (or whatever government leader). Obviously, when people are young, their faculties are getting better, so testing once is not unreasonable.
But at advanced ages, faculties can degrade, and degrade at varying rates. For this scenario specifically, maybe it is not onerous to sufficiently test 90+ year olds that want to fly, since there are so few.
However, since an airplane crash in an urban area has a high likelihood of causing damage to others, society does have an interest in controlling who is in the pilot's seat.
I disagree. The reason for the policy would be the same.
Probability of person of age x causing collision is too high.
>The bureaucracy finds it more manageable to put policy in place than to determine individual skill.
Yes, of course. Testing every single person all the time can get costly, and it may or may not be deemed worthwhile by a society (or whatever government leader). Obviously, when people are young, their faculties are getting better, so testing once is not unreasonable.
But at advanced ages, faculties can degrade, and degrade at varying rates. For this scenario specifically, maybe it is not onerous to sufficiently test 90+ year olds that want to fly, since there are so few.
However, since an airplane crash in an urban area has a high likelihood of causing damage to others, society does have an interest in controlling who is in the pilot's seat.