In New Zealand today (4 million inhabitants) has only 500 people aged 100 or more and most
of them still driving their cars. But in 50 years, that number will swell to I5,100, say Statistics
New Zealand projections.

	Sainsbury’s research found centenarians were stronger, fitter and had fewer spells in
hospital than doctors would have predicted.
	“I just think that is a survival characteristic. You have something special about you to get to
this stage.”
	Sainsbury said genetics played a part, as did living a healthy lifestyle from an early age.
Aesearch has also clearly shown a positive attitude to retirement and ageing improved the
quality of later life.
	At 105, Elva Shepherd agrees. “I am very happy and don’t feel old.” Shepherd, who was
driving her car, “Bubba”, until she was 102 says “the best part of being old is experience. “you
are learning all the time”.
	In the next 45 years, the nation’s median age will increase 10.3 years, from 35.6 to 45.9.
Life expectancy will increase from 77.3 for males and 81.8 for Females, to 83.5 and 87
respectively.
	Christchurch School of Medicine elderly health care expert Sally Keeling said changing
family structures would have a huge effect on the elderly. Remarriage and blended families
means grandparents might lose ties with the younger generation.
	‘There’s not a family in New Zealand that’s untouched by family change, and what that
means for ageing, none of us knows.”

	I do not think the CAA took into consideration all these changes because in the near future
an active pilot of 80 or 90 years old, will be considered “normal”.
	So, what the CAA intends to do about people living longer and still fit to have a normal life
including pilots?. The 1% or 2% rule is not an ICAO compulsory standard. In point of fact,
however, it is neither internationally recognized nor widely used, in that the few countries such
as Britain who even know about the 1% rule use it an entirely different way. The CAA try to
escape the criticism by imposing now the 2% rule giving the impression it is more flexible, but
that changes nothing, it is still not an international standard.
	The rule shows that its statistical foundation lack scientific rigor, since cardio vascular
incapacitation of the pilot in the cockpit is shown to be insignificant statistical risk in New
Zealand and worldwide aviation.
	What we need is a more practical and efficient system as 3 class medical, and a training to
teach a new “culture” for more individual responsibility because we like it or not the CAA has
already some problems, if the CAA does not withdraw the so-called 2% rule. For example a
problem with the International communities, a problem with the International Human rights, a
problem with the ICAO because the 2% rule is not an International compulsory rule, a problem
with the medical profession. As Professor Rod Jackson has stated (Medical Review
Committee 21 September 2000), that “aviation authorities and pilot organisations seriously
consider a world-wide study to develop a risk prediction tool samples”. He also pointed out that
this high level of imprecision for one year risk, is too great to justify estimation of one-year
risk”. (previous CVD risk-level charts have always used 5-10 years groupings, whereas the
CAA”s 1% Rule calculates risk-levels on one year-by-year basis, and increased 2% is still not
good enough.

	The 2% rule is not an international aviation rule. It is a New Zealand CAA invention with a
complete disregard and consultation of the International aviation medical profession. A typical
example of politicians and bureaucracy ignorance of today modern world and ignorance of what
going on in the rest of the world. Any visiting overseas pilots over 50 cannot hire an aircraft and
fly in New Zealand territories until they have to pass the test on the treadmill to meet the 2%
rule. You can count on me to mention this fact overseas.

James E Lobet, EAA aviation Foundation Contributor, NZ PPL 46449.