In the following (edited) letter published in the UAL MEC magazine "Leading Edge", SO John Houser (UAL) brings forth some compelling reasons why FAR 121.383c (age 60 rule) should be abolished.

Some say that there must be a compelling reason to change the age 60 rule. That might be true if there had ever been a compelling reason to establish it in the first place. Supposedly, the rule came into effect due to the advent of the jet in commercial aviation. The truth is that the jet is actually a much safer mode of conveyance than the piston aircraft it replaced. Check it out! In fact, commercial aviation owes its safety record, in large part, to the jet airplane which has more reserve power, is easier to fly, less critical with an engine out and more reliable. Ergo, it follows that there has not been a requirement for the ace of the base to be in charge of the front office since the demise of the piston. Therefore, there was no reason for the rule to begin with other than the fact that C.R. Smith, president of American Airlines, was having a squabble with his pilots over imposing an age 60 retirement rule and General Quesada, head of the FAA, needed a fatter retirement check than he was going to get from the U.S. government. Round one: fear and suspicion win over fact and intelligent research! Just the kind of situation we, as professionals, like to support?

Opponents use rumored higher accident rates in retirement communities to support their thesis that, when you are over 60, you’re out to lunch. This looks to me like an excursion into unscientific territory. I wonder if any of the octogenarians referred to in this—uh "study," had ever been subjected to a physical, mental or practical test as a requirement to retain their driving privileges. We don’t ask for similar treatment as airline pilots. We seek only the opportunity to prove appropriate mental and physical capacity along with professional competence and the right to exercise it. And, we are not (as some would accuse) asking for no age limit. We are asking for reality based limits.

What about the opposition's argument regarding declining capabilities due to age and the assertion that anyone can pass a canned P/C. I recently came off a four-year tour as a standards captain. I learned during that time that ALPA has a great deal of influence over the standards applied to UA pilots. So what is the opposition saying here? Have we gone too far is search of fairness? I suggest to all of us that, if we are depending upon the age 60 rule to save us from the incompetent, we are committing a serious error in judgment— an error not to be tolerated by those who claim the moniker of "Professional Airline Pilot." One of two realities are afoot here. Either we have the correct standards or we do not. If we don’t, we tighten the standards. Awaiting the onset of age to save us from the incompetent is not an activity that is likely to be widely accepted by the public. How much less should it be accepted by us? The assertion has been made that no doctor will certify a medically sound person with the prediction that he/she will not suffer cardiac arrest the following day. To the contrary, reasonable estimates can be made regarding future physical fitness based upon lifestyle, family history and current medical condition. ALPA has fought hard for, and is dedicated to, the premise that such certifications can indeed be made— even after a debilitating medical event! OK, let’s see if I got this straight. I can fly after I have recovered from a heart attack (a proven weakness in my physical constitution) but, if I have no detected weaknesses and my lifestyle, physical condition and personal and family history indicate I am not likely to suffer a suddenly debilitating physical event, I can’t fly simply because I am over 60. How much sense does that really make?

We now embark upon a discussion over the relatively large number of S/Os over 60 who are on the sick list as proof that we (over 60 pilots) are more likely to suffer a catastrophic physical dysfunction while on the job. I wonder how many of these sick list pilots suffered a suddenly disabling illness while on the job (as compared to those under age 60). It would seem that a fair assessment of these statistics should accompany any such allegations. The broaching of this subject without statistical support exemplifies the ignoble human failing of making up one’s mind without the benefit of supportable data. Been there— done that!

Moreover, if any of us put ourselves in the shoes of these former pilots, now functioning as second officers, we will eventually figure out the sick list issue. If it doesn’t come to you right away, give it some time.

The opposition says that 60 is an arbitrary age barrier and then makes the assertion that, "So is 16 for a driver’s license, 18 for voting, 23 for an ATP and 200’ for an ILS DH." This is an adventure into the land of conjecture without benefit of a map! The aforementioned ages are based upon sound data regarding mental and emotional maturity. In fact, there is a movement afoot to raise some of these ages based upon this data. In Europe, the minimum age for driving in most countries is 18. The FAA’s own study indicated that there was no statistical or other medical data that would preclude an immediate raising of the age 60 limit. In addition to the opposition's other age 60 arguments, the claim that a 200’ DH is purely arbitrary demonstrates a rather disappointing lack of knowledge regarding purely professional issues. To the contrary, the 200’ DH is based upon several scientific factors including the accuracy of the ILS system, aircraft instrumentation limitations, required approach lighting, training requirements, runway length, weather reporting systems and closure rates. Ergo, much of the limitations we encounter in life are based upon sound data. Why are we supporting one that is not?

I do agree with the opposition's assertion that changing the age to another arbitrary age is no improvement. The change should be based on sound scientific data. The FAA’s own study indicated that raising the age to 63 in the short run was eminently practical.

Japan did that a few years ago and is now going to 65. Fourteen nations of the European Economic Community are ready to go to age 65 as soon as France can be brought into the 20th century on this issue. Obviously, a significant portion of the world thinks there is enough data to support raising the age limit. In a few short years, even more statistical data will be available from other countries. Will ALPA continue to assert that age 60 is a safety issue while these "aged" pilots from other countries fly safely in our very own skies?

This has all the earmarks of crying, "Wolf!" Our professional credibility has been damaged in the past over political issues. A perfect example of this was the position at UAL that the 737 could not safely be flown without a second officer. UAL pilots maintained this premise while Frontier, Continental and others safely flew the same or similar aircraft with two pilots. Gentlemen, if we expect to get the credibility we deserve in all areas of our endeavors, we must be credible on all issues and that includes the age 60 rule. To support the age 60 rule is to support a denial of your professional rights— a denial created by the economic and political captains of this industry in order to quash a labor dispute. The clones of these same persons stand ready today to live off the fat of your acquiescence, apathy and ignorance of basic freedoms. To support this rule is to sell your individual and collective rights to the likes of C.R. Smith, E.L. Cord, Maytag of Eastern Airlines, Frank Lorenzo and Elwood Quesada. If you don’t recognize all of these

names, your future is in doubt because you may be doomed to repeat the past under the tutelage of their successors.

We already have fewer rights and more restrictions than any other professional group. If those in high places decide tomorrow to place yet another arbitrary restriction upon your career, you will be very disturbed. In the wake of Egypt Air, you may now expect regular psychological testing. Your acceptance of the age 60 rule is the seedbed for such future arbitrary restrictions by virtue of simple precedent. Moreover, by your support of this rule, you are actually plowing the ground for such actions by those who seek their own benefit over yours. You may be in support of the age 60 rule because (let’s face it) you believe it is to your economic advantage. Gentlemen, no rule of law that inflicts restrictions upon your basic freedoms without sound reasons is worth the implied benefit. To let this precedent stand is to invite the erection of yet another arbitrary and restrictive barrier to your professional rights.

To answer the opposition's questions: If the age 60 rule were changed, would safety be enhanced? Not having the benefit of their standard of logic, I say, "Maybe— maybe not." Would it benefit the majority of ALPA or U.S. pilots? I say that anything that removes arbitrary restrictions to your career is a plus. The old saw that you should not burn bridges actually refers to those you have already crossed, with the thought that you may someday wish to return. How much less sense does it make to burn a bridge that is yet ahead of you?

Finally, gentlemen, I would ask you that if, in the process of gaining a foothold in this industry and experiencing advancement that is probably beyond your dreams, have you neglected to research the beginnings of your profession? Do you know the pitfalls of historical events? Have you considered that, if you ever have to start over, it will be at the bottom?

The opposition is right about one other issue. "Anyone who embarks upon a career path with the expectation of a 30 year uninterrupted career with good pay, good working conditions and a good retirement needs to check their expectations." Unfortunately, this logic only goes half the distance. If they see the pitfalls ahead, why do they intentionally burn the bridge that could facilitate a crossing? Is this another case of decision making without benefit of empirical data? Ladies and gentlemen, what ever you decide about the age 60 rule, you might want to reconsider the commitment of yourself to a course of action that reduces your credibility, depends upon the age 60 rule to save you from the incompetent, supports arbitrary restrictions upon your career options, burns a bridge ahead of you or sacrifices long term objectives for the tyranny of the urgent.

John R. Houser

S/O DC-10