Recent news has focused on positive changes for the nation’s airline pilots. First, it would appear that an unrealistic regulation that long has forced U.S. pilots to retire at age 60 is due to be changed. The new limit will be age 65, with a sensible backstop. If a plane’s “captain” is between 60 and 65, he or she is required to have a co-pilot or second officer under the age of 60. That seems to be the best of both worlds: letting experienced people who still qualify for senior pilot status use their skills and expertise for another five years while providing backup to appease those who wonder about the merits of letting “old coots” continue to fly.

It is difficult to see why all this won’t work to the advantage of good and experienced pilots, the airlines and their passengers.

This up-to-65 action should be particularly pleasing to Bob Marshall, a former Kansas University football player, onetime Marine fighter pilot, eventual commercial airline pilot and now an athletic director in Fort Scott. Marshall and experienced colleagues for years pushed for a 65 retirement age and even volunteered to be “guinea pigs” for experiments. But they still had to retire at age 60 while they had much more to offer.

Then there is the important issue of arming pilots, a trend that has expanded sharply in recent years, primarily since 9/11. We are told there are signs of growing pains and that some pilots and their labor groups are displeased about a lack of supervision and the difficulty of finding time to take part in training courses.

Most agree it is wise to have pilots properly armed and trained for emergencies, but a haphazard program could easily create more problems than solutions. Concerned that pilots’ handgun skills could be deteriorating, federal security officials are launching a refresher training program. Armed pilots must attend a two-day mandatory course three to five years after they are empowered to carry guns. Some already have taken refresher courses and will be evaluated accordingly, but the effort is commendable.

The gun program was started in 2003 with strong backing from many sources. Progress has been made, but not enough, and there is a strong need for supervision and oversight, along with the updating of procedures.

Properly handled, all the pilot programs that have been in the news lately are valuable and desirable. Now it is a case of proper administration of such programs in the best interests of the public.