P Emens

FAA Administrator Blakey Age 60/65 Speech Part I (Part II will follow)

FINAL


Press Club, “Experience Counts”
Marion C. Blakey, Washington, D.C., January 30, 2007 (Willett)


As prepared for delivery



Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me. And I bring greetings from Secretary Peters. We’re delighted to have the National Press Club focus on transportation and aviation. You know, there’s a Latin phrase … carpe diem … that tells us to seize the day. It’s used a lot, and it’s really an admonition to make the most of the moment … to make sure that opportunity is not lost. But sometimes, it’s not all that easy.
First, a rough spot or two. When Alexander Graham Bell was trying to sell the telephone … the Postal Service and Western Union turned him down. The Swiss invented the digital watch … only to reject something that “didn’t have gears.” Texas Instruments and the Japanese, however, thought the digital watch just might catch on.
There are successes. On the low-tech end, a fellow by the name of Earle Dickson … a cotton buyer … had the idea to put little pieces of cotton on surgical tape. His employer … Johnson & Johnson … seized the day.
Aviation has had more than its share of those kind of moments. I’d have to say that the Wrights are at the top of that list. Going from bicycles to wings is a huge leap …and not just in technology. Certainly Burt Rutan would have to be considered someone who didn’t let the moment pass. He believed the timing was right … to show that the common man has a place in space. I was there in the Mojave when he did it with Space Ship One. At a significantly lower altitude, Vern Raburn and his Eclipse and Peter Maurer and his Diamond D believe it’s time to change point-to-point travel.
Today is another one of those “seize the moment” days … for commercial aviation … the U.S. Department of Transportation and the FAA. It’s time to close the book on Age 60. The retirement age for airline pilots needs to be raised. So, the FAA will propose a new rule … to allow pilots to fly until they are 65.
This has been a long time in the making. About a couple of months shy of 47 years, in fact. But who’s counting? Well, I can say with certainty that these days, everyone’s counting. And each one of them has my e-mail address.
More than most, though, this is an issue that requires context … so bear with me while I take you all back in history. Fact is that even in the 1950s, pilot retirement age was a bone of contention. When the airlines back in the day were forcing pilots to retire, the union took legal action. Arbitrators ruled for the pilots each time.
In what still is a matter of debate as to why the government made Age 60 the limit, American Airlines prevailed on the FAA for a rule. Perhaps it was the strike that occurred. Maybe it was just a move to get beyond the issue. The man in charge at American, C.R. Smith, wrote to Pete Quesada, the administrator at the time. He wrote, and I quote: “It appears obvious that there must be some suitable age for retirement.”
That was February 1959. Less than four months later … June 27 to be exact … the Federal Aviation Agency drew a new line in the sand and issued a proposed rule titled “Maximum Age Limitations for Pilots.” When you’re 60, your career as an airline pilot would be over.
In what today would be considered warp speed – less than nine months – it became the law of the land. The basis for the decision was safety … that the safety of air commerce was indeed in the public interest. That’s hard to argue. The FAA said that using older pilots is a safety concern. As people age, their skills degrade.
That’s the history. And that is why we’re here today. It’s now a different day and age. The issues of experience, harmonization … and let’s face it … equity … all have to be addressed.
Since I’ve come to the agency, one of my big areas of emphasis has been global harmonization. It’s a big sky … and unless it’s a seamless sky, we all lose. If you have rules that directly controvert that principle … especially a rule that becomes increasingly more difficult to defend … it’s time for a change.
Let me read a letter I received about two months ago from a pilot on the West Coast. I’m quoting here: “I assert that my skills and experience enhance aviation safety and thus serve the public interest. I have over 26,000 hours without violations and am an FAA-certified check airman on the Boeing 747-400. I hold an ATP, current gold seal flight instructor, flight engineer…. In addition, I have a first class medical certification with no limitations.”
I’ve got to tell you, on its face, he’s making the right point. This is a guy you want flying your plane. Yet, he’s about to time out in our system.
There are another two stories worth repeating. One in particular … you all know. When John Glenn joined a space shuttle crew at age 77, he proved that there’s a place in space for experience. And for those of you who remember the Sioux City crash in 1989, the United Captain … Alfred C. Haynes … saved 186 people that day. He flew a DC-10 that had lost hydraulics … using a throttle to make turns. Somewhat like taking the steering wheel off your car and trying to steer with the gas pedal. At the time, Captain Haynes was 59. I’m standing here today to tell you that it was a sad day when Captain Haynes turned 60. This rule drew a line in the sand … and aviation lost heroes like Captain Haynes because of it.
So ICAO’s move to allow a pilot under 65 to continue to fly was the right thing to do. The Joint Aviation Authorities in Europe already made the step, too. And in the interest of harmonization, it’s time for us to do so as well. The rule we intend to propose will be parallel to the ICAO standard – either pilot or co-pilot may fly up to age 65 as long as the other crewmember is under 60. It is our intent that this new rule will apply to pilots who have not yet reached 60 by the time the rule goes into effect.
Why the change? First, medically speaking, there are no scientific studies to say, “Don’t do this.” In fact, as we’d all agree, medical science is in the place where we’re all living longer and healthier. And that includes the cockpit.
Back in 1959, the average lifespan in the U.S. was 69 and a half. Today, it’s more than 77. And if there’s a group of employees in better shape than airline pilots … generally speaking … they’re not coming to mind right now … well, maybe the Bears and the Colts.
Plus, there’s the added protection of a medical exam every six months specifically tailored to aviation … conducted by a professional who’s specifically trained to address the kind of medical conditions that’d affect the ability to fly.
For the doubters among us, there’s also the check ride. Every six months, these folks are tested by a taskmaster who makes damn sure that the eyes are dotted and the tees are crossed. Our check airmen are the cream of the crop in the pilot community … and their job is to make sure that all pilots are up to the job. Given our safety record … we’re in one of the safest periods in history … I’d have to say that the pilots and those who check their performance are getting it done.

P Emens

There’s a major equity angle to this issue as well. Under our current rules, we will have captains older than 60 carrying Americans on foreign carriers originating overseas … from countries such as Canada, Australia, Israel, Japan … about three dozen countries overall. They’ll be coming here … picking up Americans … and then flying them elsewhere. So you have to ask … It’s safe to fly with foreign pilots on our shores, but it’s not safe with our own?
It’s not as if we don’t have some experience with this, because in fact, we do. Back in 1995, when the agency brought small commuter operators up to the same standards as the majors to form “one level of safety,” we allowed about 200 pilots over the age of 60 to continue to fly … grandfathered in for about four years. There were no medical events … no safety events … nothing to show that group couldn’t fly above age 60.
And now, I’d like to turn to the most compelling reason. Like the pilot on the West Coast who wrote me the letter, the fact of the matter is that there’s a heckuva lot of experience behind those captain stripes, and we shouldn’t have to lose it as early as we do. I want our older captains to be around longer to help the younger pilots rising up through the ranks.
A pilot can learn a lot just by seeing how the experienced vet handles a situation that they may only have seen in simulation. Simulators are great for training, but there’s no substitute for real life … encountering all different weather systems, different mechanical or technical problems … that bring their own unique challenges … sometimes in combination. All of that leads to what I call “airmanship” … decision making … the pilot skills that make our system so good. When you think back over recent years, there have been very few accidents, but almost all of those that have occurred have turned on human decision-making.
So with all of this said, a procedural question arises, and I think it’s a fair one: why don’t you just put the new retirement age in place today … right now? After all, there are pilots out there every month who turn 60 but want to keep flying. The answer is simple. We can’t. And it wouldn’t be the right thing to do.
Except in very limited circumstances … such as an urgent safety issue … the Administrative Procedure Act governs … and it requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be issued before any final action can be taken. The public … the industry … individual pilots … need to have the opportunity to comment, and we have an obligation to listen and consider the data and opposing arguments before making a final decision.
This is how the rulemaking process works … deliberative … purposeful. And there are a lot more requirements to be met than in Pete Quesada’s day, so it takes time. When it’s something you want right away, it’s a hurdle. But when it’s something over which there’s honest debate … it’s one of the key ways the strength of our aviation system was built.
Now, there are some strong feelings out there about the retirement age, and it’s going to take time … and I want to particularly thank a number of people who have already put a great deal of time into these deliberations. You see, for help with this, I established an aviation rulemaking committee … we call it an ARC … made up of representatives of the airlines, pilot unions, a group representing pilots over 60 and the aero-medical community. I asked them to review the situation and make recommendations. And even though they could not come to consensus, they produced a thoughtful report that I found very helpful. I want to particularly thank the co-chairs, Captain Duane Woerth of ALPA, the Airline Pilots Association and Jim May of the Air Transport Association for their yeoman’s work.
And I must tell you, one reason for announcing our decision to move forward months in advance of the actual NPRM being published is I’m going to ask the ARC for a bit more help in collecting data so that we get the details of the proposed rule as close to right as possible. And in that regard, I’m grateful that the new head of ALPA, Captain John Prater, has agreed to step in as co-chair to finish the analysis. And shepherding this all along is Nick Sabatini, our Associate Administration for Aviation Safety … and a very FAA staff, a number of whom are here today.
Now, finally, let me touch briefly on another matter of global harmonization. Recently, the European Union proposed legislation that would put international flights into a European emissions trading scheme without the consent of their governments. Many countries around the world, including the U.S., view this unilateral approach as unworkable and unsustainable under international law.
It is directly counter to everything ICAO stands for. It goes against the efforts of ICAO to develop agreed international guidance for use in emissions trading. Through the European SESAR plan and our NextGen efforts, we’re seeking to dramatically improve the efficiency and environmental performance of our air traffic systems … taking advantage of proven technologies and practices such as RNP, ADS-B and RVSM. Unilateral moves weaken the foundation for collaboration … harmonization. Trying to impose a “one size fits all” solution on a complex issue in a global industry is a recipe for failure. Unilateral moves are a step back. Let me leave it at that.
In closing, with respect to Age 60, let me emphasize that the retirement issue strikes a real chord and elicits strong emotions on both sides. I read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this month that particularly struck me. I’m going to quote a pilot mentioned in the article:
“When I started,” he says, “the World War II guys were still flying.” He’s talking about the senior pilots in the 1960s. “They were chain smokers, drank hard liquor, never exercised. Now, almost no one does those things. Plus, we get random alcohol tests. We have to pass rigorous physicals twice a year from doctors who specialize in aviation.”
As I see it, he’s precisely on point. We’re moving forward because it’s a change whose time has come. The objections of the past don’t cut it anymore. This is the right thing to do. Experience counts, it’s an added margin of safety, and at the end of the day, that is what counts. Isn’t it?

ProfessorJoeVee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...ays_Flight_548

British European Airways Flight 548British European Airways Flight 548

On June 18, 1972, British European Airways Flight 548 (callsign BEALINE 548), a Hawker-Siddeley Trident 1C operated by British European Airways (BEA), crashed two minutes after takeoff from Heathrow Airport, killing all 118 passengers and crew on board. The crash occurred close to the town of Staines, near London, United Kingdom, and was the worst air accident to have occurred on British soil until the Lockerbie disaster of 1988.

Accident Synopsis

The aircraft, registered as G-ARPI and known familiarly as "Papa India", was on a scheduled flight from London to Brussels under the command of Captain Stanley Key, one of BEA's most senior captains. 22-year-old Second Officer J.W. Keighley sat in the right-hand seat, while the slightly more experienced 24-year-old Second Officer S. Ticehurst acted as monitoring pilot. During the climb-out from Heathrow, while the aircraft was flown at the correct speed for the configuration, the leading-edge lift-augmentation droop was prematurely retracted. This led to a series of stalls. The condition was not rectified by the pilots despite the operation of the stick pusher, and the aircraft entered a deep stall from which there was no possibility of recovery. The aircraft rapidly descended with a high, nose-up attitude, until striking the ground close to the A30 near the King George VI Reservoir on the outskirts of Staines. There was no fire on impact, which was unusual for the flat descent crash the plane committed.
This aircraft has previously been involved in an accident when its tail was torn off by an Airspeed Ambassador which crashed at Heathrow on 3 July 1968.

Investigation

The question facing the Air Accidents Investigation Branch was the underlying cause of the crash. Although the immediate cause of the stall was easily determined, detailed examination of the wreckage and flight recorder revealed no evidence of any mechanical or structural failure. Investigators soon discovered, however, that human factors likely played a major role. At the time of the accident, BEA was involved in a labour dispute with the British Air Line Pilots Association. Approximately one hour before the flight, the vehemently anti-union Captain Key had entered into a heated argument with another captain about the desirability of strike action. Both of Key's subordinate officers on the flight were present during the confrontation. Also, among the wreckage of Papa India, investigators found a crew table on which the following offensive graffiti directed at the captain had been scribbled:

• KEY MUST GO
• YEAH BUT WHERE?
• BOAC?
• ANYWHERE WILL DO!
• WHEN KEY DIES, WHO WILL BE GOD'S NEXT REPRESENTATIVE IN BEA?
• DOWN WITH KEYLINE MANAGEMENT

A handwriting examiner testified at the inquiry that neither S/O Ticehurst or S/O Keighley were responsible for the graffiti. It is not known if Captain Key saw it on the day of the accident.

Autopsy

Post-mortems of the accident victims showed that all on board had died from injuries received in the accident. However, the autopsy of Captain Key also revealed undiagnosed coronary artery disease, including evidence of a small healed and possibly silent heart attack. More telling, a recent tear was found in the inner lining of the left descending coronary artery. Two cardiologists who examined the Captain's remains testified that the tear probably occurred during or after his outburst in the flight crew room. The cardiologists were not agreed as to the level of incapacitation likely experienced by Captain Key in the minutes and seconds preceding his death, but both felt that the Captain would have been distracted to some extent by the developing cardiac event.
The AAIB also examined a number of crew interaction aspects which it found wanting, including Captain Key's forbidding personality and S/O Keighley's previously documented lack of initiative in simulated emergency situations. The Board also examined how BEA's training schedule for new staff had been disrupted by the labour dispute, leaving inexperienced pilots like S/O Keighley unable to undertake the more complicated but less critical duties of monitoring pilot and in effect forcing them into the role of first officer long before they were ready for that position.
The main questions remained, however: who moved the droop retraction lever, and why was action not taken to correct the error? Furthermore, did the crew override the automatic stall warning system because prior experience with false activations led them to believe it was unreliable, or did a medical emergency in the cockpit distract the crew from its duties?
The AAIB ultimately could not determine a probable cause for the accident. Based on evidence presented during the inquiry, the Board made a series of recommendations with respect to operation of the Trident, crew training, cockpit resource management, cockpit voice recorders, and effective medical examinations. The Board's findings were confirmed by a judicial inquiry under Mr Justice Lane. Load control measures were also taken. Prior to the accident, the cabin of the aircraft was divided into 3 sections, A B C. Section B was immediately in the middle of the aircraft over the wing area. When the load sheet was worked out the middle section of the aircraft, section B was not considered as important. It was more important to trim the aircraft by balancing section A and section C. The incident made loading the aircraft stricter by making sure that section B was also taken into account for the aircraft to be in trim for take-off.

P Emens

APAAD (Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination)

www.apaad.org

Founded in 1998 as diverse group whose goal is amendment of the Age 60 Rule. Members include pilots from most major airlines, to include United, American, Southwest, Northwest, JetBlue, Air Tran, Horizon and Delta.

APAAD had a member seated on the FAA's Age 60 ARC and 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

See you in DC!

******************
Other websites/orgnaizations
Professional Pilots Federation (PPF) www.ppf.org

www.age60rule.com
www.flypast60.com

P Emens

UPDATE 1 February 2007

We have won a great victory – FAA Administrator Blakey announced that the FAA will begin an NPRM process to change our retirement age from 60 to the ICAO world standard of 65. Is our job over? Can we call take a break? Absolutely not!

As expected the FAA proposal for an NPRM contains numerous provisions that are unacceptable to APAAD so we must continue our efforts to press Congress for legislation to address our key concerns: timing, and he prospective nature of the proposed rule. Here are a few key points on why we still need legislation:

1. The NPRM process is not being expedited. FAA Administrator Blakey spoke of the process taking 18-24 months. This means that up to 5000+ pilots will lose their jobs while the bureaucracy slogs through its NPRM process.
2. Once retired, there is no provision for a return to the flight line. The FAA went far beyond legislation’s intent to preclude pilots from returning with grandfathered seniority rights. The FAA tightened the restriction, precluding pilots from coming back to a Part 121 airline under any capacity – not as new hire co pilots at the bottom of a list; not as new hire Captains at a start-up carrier. Pilots caught in the gap would in a sort of professional purgatory. The legislation would provide the liability protection our companies and unions want, prevent previously retired pilots from any new claim of seniority or employment status yet allow 60-65 year old pilots to continue to fly in Part 121.
3. Waivers/exemptions were denied.While the NPRM process is shaking out, no waivers or exemptions will be issued. Every one of those 5000+ pilots will lose his or her job.
4. The Age 60 ARC would be reconstituted. The same oppositional block of four ALPA members and one APA member would remain; the same five ‘no’ votes on the original ARC. These were the members who refused to entertain any compromises or even discuss ways to implement a rule change. Their presence makes an ARC likely to be long and unproductive.

How can the FAA can tell us we are safe, laud the value of experience in the cockpit and express concern over a future pilot shortage – and then allow 5000+ of us to be dumped on the scrap heap while the NPRM paper shuffle (hopefully) runs to its final end (many months down the road)?

It does not matter if you are affected or not. Even if you think you may slip by, it is imperative to save as many or our brother and sister pilots as we can.

To that end we will work with Congress to pass the legislation needed to the process; work with the FAA to ensure a fair process with reasonable outcomes; and we will take our story to the public, enlisting its help.

There will be a Blitz in Washington March 6-8.

Come to DC. Contribute funds. This is not over yet.

P Emens

PRESS RELEASE


The Civil Aviation Medical Association (CAMA) contacted its flight physician membership in 2000 concerning their views on the FAA age-60 Rule as it pertains to certification of commercial airline pilots in the United States. This information was summarized and presented to the Board of Trustees for their evaluation and decision as to the stand the Civil Aviation Medical Association should take on the subject. The January 2001 consensus of CAMA is that retirement for an individual operating as a pilot under FAR Part 121 should not be made mandatory solely on attaining age 60. In the experience of this group of physicians it is felt that if the pilot passes the FAA appropriate physical examination requirements (placed on all pilots regardless of age) the age 60 limitation placed on airline pilots is unjust and unfounded

The Civil Aviation Medical Association supports the concept that pilots operating under FAR Part 121 should not be forced to retire from piloting duties based solely on attaining age 60.

ryane946

I hope controllers sue the hell out of the FAA!!! Why should a pilot be allowed to fly until he is 65, but a controllers must retire at 56! That is BS. Total BS. Any air traffic controllers out there, this is your opportunity. The FAA is currently soft on age limits, so I would write them, ask them, sue them... Do whatever you need to! I really hope you guys can take charge and lead an effort raise controller retirement age. Let me know if I (we) can be of any help for you!

CactusCrew

Controllers still have a government pension. I doubt they will be lining up to change anything ...

But who knows ...

jsled

1. The NPRM process is not being expedited. FAA Administrator Blakey spoke of the process taking 18-24 months. This means that up to 5000+ pilots will lose their jobs while the bureaucracy slogs through its NPRM process.>>>


slog on baby!!! another 5000 sounds good to me!!

2. Once retired, there is no provision for a return to the flight line. The FAA went far beyond legislation’s intent to preclude pilots from returning with grandfathered seniority rights. >>>

As it should be. Can you imagine the cost to the airlines to "give back" the 400 capt seat and bump everybody down? Good for the FAA

3. Waivers/exemptions were denied.While the NPRM process is shaking out, no waivers or exemptions will be issued. Every one of those 5000+ pilots will lose his or her job.>>>

and the furloughees will come back as they retire. right on


4. The Age 60 ARC would be reconstituted. The same oppositional block of four ALPA members and one APA member would remain; the same five ‘no’ votes on the original ARC. These were the members who refused to entertain any compromises or even discuss ways to implement a rule change. Their presence makes an ARC likely to be long and unproductive.>>>

The longer the better. Must make sure to get it right.

Roberto

It is not a FAA rule. It is a law. Maximum Retention Age: 5 USC 8335(a) and 5 USC 8425(a) require mandatory separation at age 56 in a career controller position.

Talk to congress.

Blakey said
…why not for FAA controllers? …because it's the law of the land that they retire at 56… but I will tell you, if there is a move on Congress's part to raise the age for controllers; I think we would be happy to work with them on it.