"[the FAA] Age 60 aviation rule committee is stacked in favor of maintaining the current retirement age....8 of the panel’s 14 voting members oppose any change." Whole article is here http://www.ainonline.com/Issues/11_0...6_Age60_10.htm

 

Imagine that... the FAA defending a policy that they'll eventually have to give in on. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, the FAA's bureucratic arrogance is disgusting.

 

We shall see!!

ICAO's view;


older pilots do not present any particular risk to flight safety. Neither is the Secretariat aware of scientific research that dictates the maintenance of the current upper age limit. On the contrary, studies conducted in Japan (1990) and United States (1993) both gave indication that pilots’ retirement age could safely be increased by several years, and a very recent study of 165 commuter aircraft accidents in the United States between 1983 and 1997 points to no notable differences between the age groups except that the percentage of crashes involving pilot error decreased somewhat with age, being lowest for pilots between 58 and 63. The over-all conclusion was that neither the prevalence nor the pattern of aircraft accidents change significantly as age increases from the 40s to the SOs and early 60s. In another recent study in the United States, a cohort of more than 3 300 commuter and air taxi pilots, who were between 45 and 54 years old in 1987, were followed for eleven years. No age-related increase in crash risk was shown, but the risk of crash decreased by half among pilots with more than 5 000 flying hours at baseline. In Japan, in a study of its 60-63 year-old airline pilots, it was found that none had been involved in an accident during the ten-year study period (1992- 2001) while during the same period 323 accidents including twenty-seven airline accidents had been reported to the authorities. The purpose of simulator checks, line flying checks and regulatory health examinations is to contain the risk of pilot ‘failure’ during the period of validity of the rating or medical certificate; it appears from available evidence that such checks do ensure adequate protection of flight safety for those aged under 60 years. The Secretariat knows of no reason to believe that they will fail to do so for those aged 60 to 64 years. Moreover, there is still today, as stated by AsMA, insufficient medical evidence to support any restrictions based on age alone. In the JAA countries, the upper age limit of 60 has been maintained for pilots in single-crew operations, but since 1 July 1999, the JAA regulations have allowed airline pilots to continue flying until age 65 with limitation to multi-crew operations and with the proviso that no other member of the flight crew is older than 59. However, the Secretariat is aware that this proviso was not based on medical grounds but rather the result of a compromise between the different parties. Although recommended by IATA, the Secretariat does not consider this proviso safety relevant for the following reason: For the individual pilot engaged in multi-crew operations, it is today generally accepted that a medical incapacitation risk of one percent per annum (“The 1% Rule”) is fully compatible with the desired flight safety level for airline operations. This risk level corresponds to one medical incapacitation per 100 years or approximately one million hours. Male pilots from Scandinavia, United Kingdom and NorthAmerica are lilely to approach this risk level when they are around 65, female pilots three to four years later. The risk of two older pilots becoming medically incapacitated at the same time, during the same one-hour flight, is thus one per trillion hours (1 trillion — 1012 or one million x one million), a risk so low that it can safely he disregarded.

 

No big deal. I still have over ten years to go. I expect by then the rule will change. I would not mind if it changed today but the longer it takes the better for me and guys like me.

 

Others have said that age 60 is just an arbitrary number. I have to agree. HOWEVER, if 60 is an arbitrary number...so is 65. If one wants to take away the "age discrimination" issue/argument then it follows that there should be NO upper limit. I don't support that, but when making arguments here it should be serious debate.

That being said, the issue is not entirely "age discrimination." While we all have our personal takes on this, watching the fur fly over who is the "greedy" one ONLY TAKES AWAY from the ultimate question of: IS IT SAFE? All of us need to put aside the pettiness and discuss this as the professionals we profess to be.

From what I gather, the age 60 rule went into effect in 1959. At who's behest did this happen? Who pushed to get this rule put into effect? If the stories I heard are accurate, ALPA opposed the 60 rule before it became law. Is that the case?

 

Answer to your first two questions: Congress and Eisenhower.
Answer to your third question: Yes.


http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...story/POL8.htm

The approaching introduction of jet airliners and a series of midair collisions spurred passage of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. This legislation transferred CAA's functions to a new independent body, the Federal Aviation Agency, which had broader authority to combat aviation hazards. The Act took safety rulemaking from CAB and entrusted it to the new FAA. It also gave FAA sole responsibility for developing and maintaining a common civil-military system of air navigation and air traffic control, a responsibility CAA had shared with others.

The scope of the Federal Aviation Act owed much to the leadership of Elwood "Pete" Quesada, an Air Force general who had served as President Dwight Eisenhower's principal advisor on civil aeronautics. After becoming the first administrator of the agency he had helped to create, Quesada mounted a vigorous campaign for improved airline safety.

 

ALPA opposed age 60 for around the first 20 years.

 

As an infrequent poster on this site, but a frequent visitor to the USA from the other side of the pond, perhaps I might be allowed to mention an imminent ICAO legislative change, which seems to have received very little publicity or comment within the aviation community in the USA?

A new ICAO age provision (Amendment 167 to Annex 1) will become effective on 23 Nov 2006 and will allow ATPL holders to act as P-i-C of aircraft (engaged in international commercial air transport) up to age 65, provided that the other pilot is younger than age 60.

Thus, in three weeks time, 65 becomes the new age limit for most European P-i-C’s.

In anticipation of this change, and as a result of other recent European legislation on Age Discrimination, the UK’s major airlines, and the UK CAA, have had to alter their retirement ages and licence holding ages.

In my airline, as a result of these legislative changes, the retirement age changed, overnight, from age 55 to age 65, on 01 Oct 2006.

Even the French have had to fall into line on this one!

So what....you may say....what relevance does this have to the FAA or the USA?

Well, consider this.

ICAO have published guidelines to ICAO Contracting States, stating that whilst any State may impose a lower maximum age limit than that specified by ICAO for their own nationals should they wish to do so, that State may not prevent an aircraft operated by an age 60+ foreign national from operating in its airspace.

So, whilst there has been much heated debate in the USA about whether or not to raise the FAA mandated retirement age from age 60 to age 65, the impact of the ICAO decision and the USA’s treaty obligations appear to have been overlooked.

I can’t imagine those US pilots who currently have to retire (from the left seat) at age 60 will be overly happy to know that European pilots are still flying in US airspace, as P-i-C, up to age 65, so this issue would seem set to ruffle some feathers.

Perhaps this will give all sides in the US the way out they need to raise the current FAA retiring age?

 

General Quesada retired from the FAA and was appointed to the BOD of American.


CR Smith's request to General Quesada,

http://www.age60rule.com/docs/smith_quesada.pdf

 

After looking at some of the history behind this age 60 rule, it appears THE causal event seems to be this letter C.R. Smith (AA) sent to then FAA Quesada. Am I correct to surmise that Smith's concerns were that training to fly complex jets was just too costly when it came to training "the old guys"?