You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. If you're a working pilot, please join our free community and you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you don't want to register (or not a working pilot), you can still use the Google search box in the upper left of this screen to search all forum posts!
The FAA announced last year (2006) that controllers would get waivers from their present retirement age to age 61. As noted by the Federal Air Surgeon at a congressional hearing, those waivers would be based on health, a clean record and competency.
Such waivers not allowed pilots. At the same hearing, the Air Surgeon could not explain why not and got some serious grief from the Senators.
FAA OFFERS WAIVERS TO AGING CONTROLLERS
By William Glanz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Federal Aviation Administration is allowing some air traffic controllers to continue working beyond retirement age to guard against a wave of retirements that threatens to create a labor shortage.
A federal law in place since 1972 requires controllers hired before that date to step down when they reach 56. But a voluntary program that began April 8 lets them apply for waivers to continue working for up to five more years.
Allowing some to work beyond the mandatory retirement age is likely to renew a debate over whether it's safe to let aging controllers guide planes through the skiesThe FAA argues it is safe to let exceptional controllers remain in the work force.
"There's a strict application and assessment process based on safety. If an exceptional controller applies for a waiver, there's no good reason not to allow them to work past age 56 if they're still sharp and handle planes safely," FAA Administrator Marion Blakey said.
For many years, the FAA and the union agreed. During hearings in 1971, federal officials and air traffic controllers argued that stress associated with the job and evidence that controllers are less proficient in their 40s and 50s because motor skills decline made mandatory retirement at 56 prudent.
Federal officials have changed their minds since those hearings 34 years ago, and a new report published this month by a researcher at the FAA's Civil Aerospace Medical Institute in Oklahoma City calls prior research into question.
Previous studies done to support mandatory retirement at 56 "do not provide any evidence about ... what particular age, if any, controllers begin to lose proficiency. Overall, these studies are not persuasive in making the case that controllers lose proficiency with age," Dana Broach, research psychologist at the FAA, wrote in a study issued by the agency this month.
The FAA has support for its policy shift.
As people live longer, it makes sense to let controllers work longer, said Stuart Matthews, president of the Flight Safety Foundation, a nonprofit research group in Alexandria promoting air safety.
"I don't have any problem increasing the retirement age," he said.
Rep. John L. Mica, Florida Republican and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure aviation subcommittee, said mandatory retirement at 56 years old is an arcane rule.
"It's outdated and it's something that needed to be revised," he said.
Decisions to keep controllers beyond age 56 will rest with Ms. Blakey.
Controllers who volunteer to work after they reach 56 must have a clean record from the previous five years.
Originally the most ardent opponent of the Rule, ALPA, in a sudden and controversial move, reversed its position in 1979-80 because of the changing demographics and economic interests of its membership. When, in July 1979, J.J. O'Donnell, then President of ALPA, testified before the House Public Works and Transportation Committee, he forthrightly acknowledged, in response to a direct question on the reason for its change, that ALPA's new support for mandatory retirement was based entirely on economics, not safety. Mr. Anderson. I gather from your testimony before the Select Committee on Aging that some of your members do not want to see the age 60 rule ended. Do those who oppose ending the age 60 rules do so on the grounds of safety or economics? Capt. O'Donnell. I would be misleading [to say that] they do it on the basis of safety. . . .[i] t is is economics to those who object to the change in the regulation.[1][35]
I luv ya man, and I'm on your side, but with all due respect, the tactic of burying the issue in a voluminous cascade is just going backfire on here like it has elsewhere.
APAAD has been active in lobbying on Capitol Hill via events known as Blitz's, wherein dozens of pilots flood the Hill to visit congressional offices, etc.
Our next Blitz dates are March 6-8. We ask you to join us. Details will follow on this Forum and thread.
We also ask that you assist in contributing to the cause. Donations can be sent to our Lockbox at: APAAD
P.O. 635071
Cincinnatti, OH 45263-5071
All donations are used for payment of our hired lobbyists and PR firm, as well as general funds expended on the Blitz's (conference room rental, printing, etc).
You can sign up to be a member and receive APAAD updates and news by going to www.APAAD.org
And here's hoping you lose your medical well before you are ready to retire!
Jeesh, the "ME ME ME" attitude on both sides of this issue is really depressing.
At least you said "BOTH" sides. I just say play by the rules you knew going in. At the very least, the furloughees should come back before the rule changes.
Oh, I'm sure you will get your wish on that point.
BTW, I really DO hope you make it to retirement safely and healthy. I was just pointing out that using the "ME" card won't get you anywhere with the other side, or the politicians.
Monday, 12 June 2006
Congress of the United States of America
Re: SB/HR-65
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives,
I strongly support this legislation that would permit pilots flying for our own U.S. airlines to fly until the age of 65, consistent with current regulations for pilots in other countries. That is, the world International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard is age 65. It makes eminently good sense for us to follow that standard, particularly since we have heretofore been leaders in the fields of both aviation and medicine.
I am uniquely qualified to speak to the medical, health, and related performance issues during the aging process. My experience includes medical training at the Harvard Medical School and residency training at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. I am currently an endowed Professor of Medicine with specialization in Geriatrics and Health Policy. I am also Head of the Hartford/Jahnigen Center of Excellence in Geriatric Medicine and the Division of Health Care Policy Research. I have been studying aging and functional health for over 25 years. I frequently travel nationally and internationally because of my expertise on issues of aging and functional performance. In fact, I have probably met some of you in past testimony before Senate and House Committees regarding health care issues for older Americans.
I cannot believe that we as a nation are still stuck on age 60 for retirement of pilots. Research has shown that chronological age in that range is not an independent marker of performance. There is no medical basis for continuing this blatant age discrimination. In fact, all medical, safety, and performance criteria argue for lifting the age limit from 60 to the normal retirement age of 65.
But I also understand that our antiquated age 60 FAA regulation is ossified in the ancient political history of collusion between General Elwood Quesada (former Director of the FAA, who was later invited to sit on the board of American Airlines) and C.R. Smith (former Chairman of American Airlines). This was curmudgeonly corporate collusion at its worst (without benefit of scientific review) that dated to 1960, nearly half a century ago. Surely we can do better than that now.
Since then, medical professionals worldwide (and flight surgeons in particular) have noted:
(1) The increased lifespan, health and vitality of the population at large, especially among commercial airline pilots;
(2) That physiological age is a far better indication of health and performance than chronological age; and
(3) That there is a markedly better statistical future health profile among pilots in particular than the general population at large.
Commercial airline pilots are medically evaluated three times per year (twice a year in mandated FAA physicals and once a year in company physicals). They also undergo performance evaluations three times a year (during proficiency training and proficiency checks in their company’s flight training simulators and during annual line flight checks in their company aircraft). These are certainly excellent standards to maintain regardless of age to verify the continued high quality of our U.S. pilots who fly you and I, our families, staff, and constituents. I have great faith in that system.
I also have great faith in harnessing the enormously valuable experience of these wise and healthy aviators…to the benefit of their companies, this country and its citizens. The safety data is incontrovertible: the older and more experienced commercial airline pilot is the safest of all pilots on the planet. That grey at the temple and those steely eyes are what give me confidence when the chips are down.
Finally, I have great faith in your wisdom to allow them to fly to age 65 by acting favorably with the “right stuff” to pass this long overdue legislation.
I also note the political win-win of a grand-slam bill that is revenue positive with the IRS, Social Security and the PBGC…and which is strongly backed by the AARP. The political calculus is easy.
I would be happy to respond in detail to any questions you may have, so please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
10 bucks says there isn't one person on this forum who has ever used the word curmudgeonly in a logical sentence before.
"That grey at the temple and those steely eyes are what give me confidence when the chips are down."
That's pretty funny snizzle.
Just two questions Doc, if "there is no medical basis for continuing this blatant age discrimination", then why must a pilot over 60 require an under 60 First Officer. Also, isn't 65 still blatant age discrimination or is this more political calculus?
I cannot believe that we as a nation are still stuck on age 60 for retirement of pilots... In fact, all medical, safety, and performance criteria argue for lifting the age limit from 60 to the normal retirement age of 65.
Isn't 55 the NORMAL retirement age??? Or at least the age everyone should want to be retired at. What is this 65 crap. I don't know anyone who has worked until 65! Life is too short. There is no need to work your entire life. Enjoy yourself. Life is too short. Especially at this older end of your life. You should take the money you have saved your entire life and travel the world. Do everything you've ever wanted to do!
Why would anyone want to be working at 65... I just can't wrap my head around it!
Similar Threads
Controllers Get Waivers to 61
Not Safety, Economic
Linear Mode
