Andy

The House passed HR 5576, an appropriations bill for the DOT, HUD, and District of Columbia. It did not contain any provisions to change the age 60 rule in it.
HR 5576 then went to the Senate appropriations committee for amendments prior to being voted on. While there, the entire text of S. 65 was added in Section 114 under Administrative Provisions -- Offfice of the Secrety of Transportation (link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...sismU9:e379863: ) . This amendment is a back door way of getting legislation passed.
There is a way to have it removed, but it will require a Senator to object (a point of order can be made) to it once it is reported to the Senate. The bill has been reported to the Senate and is on the calendar under General Order Number 535. If the point of order is sustained (it should be, since this is a legislative rider on an appropriations bill), the bill will go back to the Committee on Appropriations. This is based on the Rules of the Senate, Rule XVI, paragraph 2. Link: http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule16.php

In order to stop the change from slipping in through the back door, it will require an effort on your part to write, fax, or e-mail (in order of preference) your Senators to express your opinion. Since there is more resistance to the change among the Democratic party, I'd recommend writing Democratic Senators outside of you home state if you have the time.
Here is a link to all Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm
If you click on Web Form, it will usually take you to an e-mail form to send. If you click on the Senator's name, you will find mailing addresses and fax numbers.

On the Democrat side, I'd recommend concentrating firepower on Sens Inouye, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, Cantwell, Dorgan, and Pryor. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...sel=TOC_17092&

If anyone recommends any other Senator to target, please post.

shackone

LOL!!

Be sure to add that when you reach 59, you'll be writing them back to have that bill reintroduced!!

Andy

I'd prefer to depart gracefully, as most that came before me have.

mike734

If I retire at 60 I will leave over 1 million on the table. With 3 kids entering college when I'm 60, I'm pretty sure I'm going to want that million.

__________________
Be Brief, Be Brilliant, Be Gone.

shackone

Gracefully or not, we didn't have a choice!

Depending on the individual's circumstances, this is a call that can go either way. You'd be amazed at how one's outlook can change when 60 looms near.

shackone

This all boils down to one simple fact. The age 60 rule is age discrimination, pure and simple.

We have laws against all kinds of discrimination...age being one of them. What other industry requires its workers to leave at a certain age? Or prevents their hiring at that age?

Andy

The age 60 rule is based on safety. There are tons of scientific reports proving the deterioration of one's physical and cognitive abilities as they age. While many aviators think that they are superman, they are subject to the same physiological aging process as the rest of society.

Other industries that requires workers to leave at a certain age? Did you think about that before touching the keyboard? Air Traffic Controllers, Policemen, Firemen, the military. Do I need find more examples or will those suffice? Because if you'd like me to compare pilots to bus drivers or many civil servant positions, I will be happy to point those out also.

OV1D

The current “Age 60 Rule” is all about age discrimination and must be abolished. The federal law mandating that all airline pilots must retire at the arbitrary age of 60 was never intended to be a vehicle to enhance aviation safety. Safety is the ruse that ALPA, APA and the FAA has used to deflect criticism of it’s “Age 60 Rule” as being discriminatory and unfair to older pilots. The FAA defends the “Age 60 Rule” solely on the grounds that no one has come up with a study proving that pilots will be safer beyond their 60th birthday. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Marion Blakey, says that the available safety data and latest medical research are insufficient for the agency to begin the steps necessary to change the age 60 rule. Thus the FAA's official position is that, in spite of numerous scientific studies, it has insufficient evidence to prove that an airline pilot would be as safe or safer if allowed to fly beyond age 60 and therefore all airline pilots must be grounded on their 60th birthday. What a pitiful distortion of logic that the FAA uses to deprive otherwise qualified persons their right to perform in their lifelong career. If the Federal government wants a law that denies an otherwise qualified person to practice in their profession, then that government must prove that there are enough scientific reasons for such a law to exist. It is the federal government’s burden to prove that all airline pilots suffer an unacceptable decline in their ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public. This proof is something that Congress has repeatedly directed the FAA to come up with for over 20 years but the FAA has failed produce such proof. That proof simply dose not exist.

Andy

OV1D (Klako), the report by the FAA proving a correlation between accident rates and older commercial pilots that I've posted links for you on another site was written in 2003. Either you've failed to read it or you've failed to comprehend it.
Here it is for those that care to read it: http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/m...ia/age60_3.pdf
See page 24's graph.

The report also discusses many of the 'scientific' reports that you speak of, and points out the flaws in their data collection and analysis.

Andy

Just to bring home the point, read this: http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/m...ia/age60_3.pdf
Written in 2003. There's also an independent CBO report out there.