AOPA SPEAKS OUT AGAINST AGE 60
Jun 4, 2003
Author: AOPA EDITORIAL

AOPA Speaks Out Against Age 60 Rule


Forced retirement of air line pilots automatically at the age of 60, required by a new Federal Aviation agency regulation which becomes effect March 15, is described editorially in the January issue of The AOPA Pilot as an “arbitrary and capricious” action unsupported by factual evidence. The Pilot is the official magazine of the 78,000 member Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Following is the text of the editorial, which advocates revision of the Federal Aviation Act to curb such high-handedness as an exemplified in the action against older air line pilots.

“The FAA has decreed, in an atmosphere of virtual omniscience, that air line pilots are to be grounded automatically at age 60, effective in March. Thus has Mr. Quesada & Company added one more case history of arbitrariness and capriciousness to the FAA’s already dismal record.

“If the fate of a handful of air line pilots seems little cause for concern to the average AOPA member, one need only to think for a short moment to see how serious such arbitrary FAA action really is to all in civil aviation, not just to a small minority of older men flying the air lines.

“The public record--which FAA itself quite candidly helps fill--makes it abundantly clear that the Government has no factual evidence or justification for this act. They say so in their public announcement, presumably a stroke of public relations acumen that is supposed to take the wind out of the sails of anyone pointing to this obvious fact in amazement. This precisely what they did not long ago when the FAA-again, arbitrarily and capriciously-ordered important changes in the medical requirements governing the vast majority of all civil pilots.

“In the case of the airline pilots, the FAA pronouncement blandly says they are taking this step “in the interest of safety”—the aeronautical equivalent of “we’re against sin and for motherhood.” Even more unfortunately, there’s an articulate segment of the uninformed press that leaps on that bandwagon of platitudes, just as if the FAA has, at long last and after much effort, taken a step that will have sweeping effect on the safety record of the airlines.

“In reality, all this is pure bureaucratic fakery, the very sort of thing that makes it imperative that the Federal Aviation Act be overhauled as quickly as possible, for the good of civil aviation. As a matter of fact, 1959—the first full year of the FAA’s existence—has proved to be the worst airline-accident year in history.

“AOPA supports the Air Line Pilots Association in their fight against this sort of bureaucracy, because of the principle involved. If the FAA can be this arbitrary and capricious with airline pilots, and get away with it, then anyone and everyone in civil aviation is fair game, for whatever fancied notion happens to cross the minds of some FAA officials. Pilots with blue eyes are in danger, as are pilots with runny noses, fallen arches, pot bellies, or those who voted the wrong political ticket.

“While this is AOPA’s basic reason for joining with ALPA, the facts in this particular case also are of interest, because we had to check them to make sure the FAA was being as high-handed as we suspected. We did our checking quickly and easily on the phone.
First, we had the FAA's own word for it that they don’t have supporting evidence to substantiate their case. Then we checked with the Civil Aeronautics Board, which keeps detailed and elaborate records on all airline accidents. Their records indicate that, between 1951 and 1958 they have analyzed 132 air line accidents in which the pilots were found to be a causal factor. Three accidents in these seven years involved pilots in the 50-59 age group. But not one of these was attributable to physical incapacitation.

“So we checked in other public-carrier fields. The Interstate Commerce Commission, which has jurisdiction over all interstate operations of railroads, commercial buses and trucks, has no maximum age limit, and they only require a physical exam every three years (air line pilots must take them every six months). Some bus and trucking companies have more stringent rules of their own (such as annual physical), but the Government does not. The U.S. Maritime Commission told AOPA they not only don’t have such a maximum age limit, but they recently found in a survey that fully 34 per cent of all deck officers, engineers and radio officers certificated by the Government are over 50 years of age. Our informant knew of one engineer still active on a public-carring (sp) vessel who’s 79. Ship captains themselves are very likely to be in their 60’s. Even so, all the Government requires is that they renew their masters’ certificates every five years –the physical requirement, incidentally, being confined to a test for color vision. The bus companies themselves use quite a number of drivers in the 50-60 bracket, and keep right on using them so long as they meet the requirements. Most bus drivers retire voluntarily because of attractive company pension plans. The same is true of the railroads.

“It can hardly be said that locomotive engineers, bus drivers and steamship captains do not have the same responsibilities as the air line pilot. Obviously, they do – and with much greater numbers of the traveling public than the airlines will carry for many more years to come.”

“AOPA learned this with a few brief phone calls. The FAA could at least have done that, had they been concerned with acting like public servants. Instead, they have once again acted without regard for the consequences of their caprice. This latest evidence of their callous indifference to their responsibilities to foster and promote civil aviation has served to bring together all the usually diverse elements of civil aviation behind one goal: put a stop to this high-handedness, fix the Federal Aviation Act to assure that the Federal Aviation Autocracy assumes the role originally intended for it.”

Reprinted from February 1960 ALPA Airline Pilot

nal Initiatives