Return to Pilot Medical Solutions Home Page for FAA Medical Support.  Pilot Medical Solutions, Inc.®  |  800-699-4457

  Testimony | FAQ | Conditions | Medications | Evaluation | AME's | Contact

FAA Medical Support for Pilots and AME's

 

The "Age 60 Rule"

U.S. pilots can fly until 65
Bush signs bill raising retirement age, ends debate dating to 1950s


By Julie Johnsson
chicagotribune.com
Tribune staff reporter

December 14, 2007

Ending an airline industry controversy that has smoldered for a half-century, President Bush signed a bill Thursday that raises the retirement age for commercial pilots to 65 from 60, a standard observed by the rest of the world.

Pilots say the new law reflects the reality that today's 60-year-olds are physically fit enough to continue flying, and their experience shouldn't be taken out of the cockpit.

The new law doesn't come a day too soon for Southwest Airlines Captain Paul Emens, 59, who has spent more than a decade trying to persuade members of Congress to rewrite federal rules that require pilots to retire by their 60th birthdays.

"I have two very close friends who retire tomorrow," Emens said Thursday. "That makes me highly motivated: trying to save the jobs of people I know."

Emens' friends now will be allowed to work for five more years, provided they pass regular medical and piloting exams.

The new law doesn't allow pilots who've already turned 60 to reclaim their jobs or seniority, the all-important airline pecking order that establishes work assignments and compensation.

Pilots who've already retired would be allowed to resume their careers, provided they return as lowly new hires, assigned as co-pilots on a carrier's smallest aircraft.

"I'd have to go back as a junior first officer on a [Boeing] 737, which I haven't flown in 18 or 20 years," said Marty Noonan, a retired Continental pilot, who opted instead to head overseas to fly brand-new Boeing 777s for India's Jet Airways.

The president's action ends a dizzying week for proponents of the new pilot-retirement rules, which had stalled in Congress for months as part of a larger funding bill Bush had vowed to veto.

But once the pilot legislation was spun out as a separate bill, it sped through Congress. The House of Representatives passed it by a vote of 390-0 Tuesday, while the Senate unanimously approved identical language Wednesday evening.

It ends a debate that began in the late 1950s, when the federal government first mandated that pilots retire by age 60. Emens says his father, a captain for Pan Am, fought unsuccessfully to block its passage, contending it was age discrimination.

But the rhetoric has been especially heated this decade as an aviation downturn stalled promotions for younger pilots and upended retirement plans for those at the end of their careers.

The new law gives pilots who've lost much of their pensions to airline bankruptcies five more years to recapture lost income and will help airlines deal with a growing shortage of pilots, advocates say.

Older pilots who worked for carriers that scrapped their employee pension plans, such as United Airlines or US Airways, were hurt by the age 60 rule because the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the quasi-government agency that assumed control of the pension plans, has a rule that cuts retirement benefits for those who leave the workforce before age 65.

Kit Darby, a 23-year veteran of Chicago-based United Airlines, estimates he lost three-quarters of his retirement income and about $1 million in pay because he was forced to retire when he turned 60 in May.

"It's pretty tough to swallow, and it's totally arbitrary," he said.

But extending the working lives of older pilots could have financial consequences for their younger peers, especially those who've been unable to move into larger aircraft and higher-paying jobs during a recent slump as airlines shrank their aircraft fleets and canceled orders for new planes.

Darby, who's also an Atlanta-based consultant specializing in pilot hiring, estimates that about half of the roughly 3,000 airline pilots who turn 60 each year will remain in the workforce.

"It means five years of stagnation for those who expected to move on when older people retired," notes aviation consultant Robert Mann.

Others worry safety may be compromised since pilots in their 60s may find it tougher to battle fatigue or rebound from jet lag than younger colleagues.

"The reality is no one knows what would happen with large number of 65-year-old pilots in the cockpits of modern commercial airlines operating in today's demanding environment," wrote Captain Lloyd Hill, president of the Allied Pilots Association, in a letter urging Bush to veto the bill. His union, which represents pilots at American Airlines, opposed changing the retirement age.

However, both the FAA and international regulators have dismissed safety issues, determining there's no statistical proof older pilots pose a greater risk than younger, less-experienced peers.

"There's no safety issue; there never has been," said Denny Holman, 57, who's a Boeing 777 captain for United Airlines and an advocate of later retirement. "I take two physicals a year. Every nine months, I go back to our training center and take check rides. At any point, an air carrier inspector can jump on my airplane and observe me flying."

The move to rewrite pilot retirement rules gained momentum in November 2006, when the U.S. government first allowed overseas carriers to fly into the U.S. with pilots over the age of 60 at the controls. This created a politically untenable situation, since foreign pilots or Americans flying for international carriers were granted a right denied to pilots flying for U.S. airlines.

Citing that discrepancy, both the Federal Aviation Administration and the nation's largest pilots union, the Air Line Pilots Association, eventually supported changing the retirement age. But with FAA officials warning it could take years to rewrite the regulations already on the books, activists such as Emens turned to Congress for relief.

"I know these guys who had to retire, I know their families are in trouble," Emens said, explaining why he took on this cause. "And I think about it night and day. My only negative is that we couldn't get it done sooner and save the careers of pilots who lost their jobs. That's the only negative."

----------

jjohnsson @tribune.com

 

AGE 60 Debated

There are many who are passionate about the mandatory retirement of airline pilots.  The majority of pilots and aerospace physicians believe that an arbitrary number was chosen without substantial evidence correlating age to safety. 

Pilot Medical Solutions position is that the mandatory retirement of pilots at age 60 is related more to politics rather than safety or medical evidence. USA Today published an article which articulates the facts in this debate.  USA TODAY Article

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and the Allied Pilots Association (APA) have long supported the "age 60 rule".  Their position is detailed in statements made by ALPA President Duane Woerth.

 

STATEMENT OF
CAPTAIN DUANE E. WOERTH
PRESIDENT
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION
 

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE ON THE "AGE 60 RULE"

MARCH 13, 2001


Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Duane Woerth, President of the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). ALPA represents the professional interests of 59,000 pilots who fly for 49 airlines in the United States and Canada. I appreciate the invitation to appear before the Committee today to present ALPA’s views on S. 361, a bill to relax the FAA regulation known as the Age 60 Rule, and impose a new mandatory retirement age of 65. My testimony today on this legislation is essentially the same as that which I submitted to the Committee last July on an identical bill. Nothing has changed in the past nine months to warrant a change in the Rule or ALPA’s position. ALPA supports the Age 60 Rule, and opposes S. 361.

The Age 60 Rule is based on two fundamental principles of medical science that are indisputable. First, the risks of incapacitation and unacceptable decrements in performance increase with age. Second, medical science has not developed a regimen of reliable tests that can be administered effectively to identify those aging pilots who are, or will become, incapacitated, or whose performance will decline to an unacceptable level. The issues surrounding the regulation have been studied as thoroughly as any aeromedical matter affecting pilots, and after two decades of comprehensive studies and exhaustive review, these two principles are still valid as the underlying basis for the Rule. As a matter of fact, the FAA, as recently as December 13, 2000, after a comprehensive review, reaffirmed that medical science has not yet advanced to the point to adequately screen out those over-60 pilots whose on-the-job performance will in fact become inadequate and potentially unsafe due to the normal processes of aging.

In late 1979, the House of Representatives rejected a proposal to relax the Rule, and directed the National Institutes of Health to conduct a study to determine if there was sufficient medical evidence to support it. In August of 1981, the National Institute of Aging Review Panel on the Experienced Pilots Study that was responsible for reviewing the study and submitting a report to Congress concluded:

"The Panel attaches no special medical significance to age 60 as a mandatory age for retirement of airline pilots. It finds, however, that age-related changes in health and performance influence adversely the ability of increasing numbers of individuals to perform as pilots with the highest level of safety and, consequently, endanger the safety of the aviation system as a whole. Moreover, the Panel could not identify the existence of a medical or performance appraisal system that can single out those pilots who would pose the greatest hazard because of early or impending deterioration in health or performance."

Following completion of the NIA review, the Rule was contested in Federal Court and reconsidered by the FAA. In 1989, in response to a directive by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the FAA reviewed the evidence and reaffirmed its support of the Rule. In the decision, the FAA’s Director of Flight Standards stated:

"Based upon all of the studies discussed, we conclude that an older pilot’s edge in experience does not offset the undetected physical infirmities associated with the aging process. Notwithstanding that most pilots who are approaching or have passed age 60 report that their health is excellent and they do not experience any physical or cognitive limitations which would prevent them from continuing their flying career, the research of aging indicates that there is often a sharp decline in physical and cognitive performance after age 60. There is substantial scientific evidence which indicates that the greater experience of the pilots who have reached or passed age 60 does not outweigh the increased risk of incapacitation or skill deterioration which accompanies seniority."

Since 1994, the FAA itself has sponsored at least five studies on issues related to the Rule. The most comprehensive consideration of the Rule by the FAA occurred between 1993 and 1995. In late 1990, the FAA had initiated a statistical study on the relationship between pilot age and accident rates. Following the release of the so-called Hilton Study in March, 1993, the FAA convened a public meeting in September to solicit comments on the study and the Age 60 Rule in general. Two years later, in December of 1995, the FAA concluded an exhaustive rulemaking proceeding, commonly known as the "One Level of Safety" review, in which the safety regulations governing the commuter airlines (Part 135) were harmonized with the major carrier regulations (Part 121). One component of that review and subsequent order was a reaffirmation of the Age 60 Rule and the application of it to the commuter airlines. Recognizing that this change might pose a hardship for some commuter pilots and operators, the FAA granted a four-year phase-in of the new rule. At the time of the order, the FAA estimated that there were approximately 8,000 pilots in the commuter category, and of those, approximately 200 were over 60 years of age. The grace period expired on December 20, 1999, at which time those pilots who were over 60 years of age were required to retire. During this same time frame (1993-1995), and again just last year, the FAA considered and denied a petition for rulemaking to repeal the Rule that was filed by a group of pilots, both active and retired, who have been fighting it for years.

As mentioned above, just last December, after an exhaustive review of the scientific literature on this issue, the FAA determined that it was again compelled to deny pilot requests for exemption from the Rule on the grounds that there was still no reliable scientific test to identify those over-60 pilots who posed potential safety risks. The FAA reiterated the fact that that there was little dispute over the principle that, as people age, they experience more illnesses and disorders, and suffer more cognitive decline, the onset of which is usually insidious and sometimes overlooked by co-workers, family and friends. Often the individuals themselves are not aware of age-related decline in memory, language, spatial orientation and judgment from previously attained intellectual levels. As the FAA noted, medical science is currently unable to identify these defects in memory, cognitive capacity and adaptive behavior, and many dementing diseases can be confirmed or denied with certainty only after death. Given the difficulty in identifying and measuring these declines, FAA concluded that it is an unacceptable risk to the public safety to allow pilots to fly until failure; therefore, some age must be selected at which mandatory retirement is indicated. Others would choose a different age; however, age 60 is within the age range during which the FAA and the medical community have found that sharp increases in disease and morbidity occur, and it has served well as a regulatory limit since 1959.

Let me conclude my statement by saying that ALPA regards the Age 60 Rule as an extremely important safety regulation that should not be overturned without the full support and confidence of the FAA -- the agency that the Congress has charged with promulgating and enforcing such regulations. Unfortunately, many challenges to the Rule over the years have not been based on safety grounds, and I applaud the FAA for resisting those petitioners and their arguments until the case can be made that safety will not be diminished. As I have stated in the past, our members are often reminded that the FAA is not mandated to ensure that airline pilots enjoy a long and productive career. Rather, its mandate is to insure the highest degree of safety in air transportation. The justification for the Rule is not now and never has been to enhance the careers of pilots who want to move up the seniority list faster and it should not be changed for the sake of those who want to continue flying longer. To repeat, the Age 60 Rule is a safety regulation and should not be changed or repealed unless and until the FAA, not ALPA or any other pilot organization, is convinced, based on sufficient and conclusive evidence, that such action would not have a negative effect on safety. In ALPA’s view, that case has never been made.

Thank you for the opportunity to present ALPA’s view on this critical air safety issue.

 


END AGE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AIRLINE PILOTS

To:
Sen. Ron Wyden
Sen. Gordon Smith

July 18, 2005

Soapbox Alert

End Age Discrimination Against Airline Pilots
Support Bills S. 65 and H.R. 65



I am a commercial airline pilot with over 38 years of flying experience both in the military and commercial aviation. Thousands of Airline pilots like me in the United States are being forced out of their profession simply because of an out-dated law. Congress is now considering legislation, which would correct this injustice. These bills would raise the arbitrary, yet mandatory; Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) retirement age of commercial airline pilots to reflect the age when Social Security benefits can begin. Rep. Jim Gibbons(R) re-introduced the bill, H.R. 65 to reform the FAA’s age 60-retirement rule as one of his first legislative initiatives in the 109th Congress. There is a similar bill originating in the Senate, S. 65. “Our nation has thousands of experienced, skilled and capable pilots. Unfortunately, the most experienced can not fly for a commercial airline because once they turn 60, they are forced to retire,” said Gibbons. “The age 60 rule imposed by the FAA has no basis in science, yet it is still on the books. It is time to rescind this outdated regulation, and allow our best experienced pilots to do their jobs.”
I can tell you that the vast majority of airline pilots take much better physical care of themselves as compared to other professions. They must stay fit and healthy, to just to keep their profession. Just look around the airport terminal, you rarely ever see a pilot that looks out of shape. Every six months airline captains are required to take pilot proficiency tests and physical exams that are very grueling. The pilot proficiency check in the simulator is much more intense and comprehensive than anyone outside of the airline industry can imagine. The older more experienced pilots do better on the proficiency checks than the less experienced pilots. These tests weed out any pilot lacking the highest levels of skill, proficiency, and cognitive or motor sharpness. If a pilot doesn't have it all together, it will be evident and he/she will surely face the loss of his/her career. Pilot physical examinations are administered by FAA certified medical examiners and the results of the examination along with an electro-cardiogram (EKG) must all be reviewed by the FAA medical center. If a pilot’s blood pressure is high or hearing is less than perfect, then the pilot’s career is likely over.
Do not be fooled on wrong perceptions as that is what prevented a similar bill from passing the in the Senate last time. It is just too easy to say no, just on perceived safety. Permitting a pilot to fly past age 60 is not a safety issue. This is becoming clearer every day that there is no hard proof or statistical data to show that pilots over age 60 have any more accidents than younger pilots. The FAA has for the past 40 years opposed statistical arguments vigorously and they have used the "common knowledge" argument, which says that every sensible person knows that as people get older, particularly after age 60, there is a decline in cognitive functions and reaction times. Therefore, the FAA says, there is an increased risk with these older pilots, however slight, and over the years that increased risk argument has always been unfairly used with judges and jurors who also are of course passengers on commercial airline flights.
I would like to cite just a few of the numerous reports supporting a ban on the arbitrary age 60 mandatory retirement law, including:
1. A report published by Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002 Mar; 73(3): 194-202

Subject: The age 60 rule: Age discrimination in commercial aviation.

By: Wilkening R
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
 

CONCLUSION: There appears to be no medical, scientific, or safety justification for the Age 60 Rule. As such, perpetuation of the Age 60 Rule, where age alone is used as the single criterion of older pilot fitness, represents age discrimination in commercial aviation.


2. A prominent study of age and airline pilots, the Hilton Study. The study “supports the conclusion that an age 60 limit for pilots is not defensible…” and found “no hint of an increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers as they neared their 60th birthday.” The report concluded that the age for airline pilots could safely be raised.


3. Dr. Susan Baker, of Johns Hopkins University, wrote: “…there is no scientific evidence to support the Age 60 Rule. From 1991 until 1993, I served on a panel of experts appointed by the FAA to oversee the FAA-sponsored research by Hilton Systems. This research, at a cost of well over a million dollars, found no basis for the Age 60 Rule and recommended that the age limit be increased…I would rather fly with my life in the hands of a 64 year old captain than with a 29 year old pilot flying as captain.”


4. Dr. Stacy Vereen of the Civil Aviation Medical Association wrote that the association “supports the concept that pilots operating under FAR Part 121 [airline pilots] should not be forced to retire from piloting duties based solely on attaining age 60.”


5. A scholarly treatise by Dr. Robin Wilkening. The publication Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine ran her paper one year ago. It remains the single best and most comprehensive document pertaining to the Age 60 Rule. It does, by the way, conclude that the Age 60 Rule is blatant age discrimination.


6. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 2002, pp. 194-202.
Report No.: R0340302. “The Age 60 Rule remains a most contentious and politically sensitive topic, with challenges to the Rule currently mounted in both legislative and legal arenas. Methods: An extensive review of the medical literature was accomplished using MEDLINE. Pertinent Federal Regulations were examined. Legal proceedings and public domain documents were noted. Letters and personal communication were solicited where necessary information could not be ascertained by other means. Results: The Age 60 Rule was not based on any scientific data showing that airline pilots aged 60 and older were any less safe than younger pilots, and there is evidence to indicate that the choice of age 60 was actually based on economic rather than safety considerations. Airline pilots consistently exceed general population norms for longevity, physical health, and mental abilities. Fear of an adverse pilot health event causing a crash in standard multi-crew operations is not justified. For decades, airline pilots under age 60 have been granted the means to demonstrate their fitness for flying by taking medical, cognitive, and performance evaluations that are denied to airline pi1ots when they reach age 60. Actual flight experience demonstrates that older pilots are as safe as younger pilots. International aviation experience indicates that abolishing the Age 60 Rule will not compromise aviation safety. Conclusion: There appears to be no medical, scientific, or safety justification for the Age 60 Rule. As such, perpetuation of the Age 60 Rule, where age alone is used as the single criterion of older pilot fitness, represents age discrimination in commercial aviation.”


7. After 2-plus years of study, the Aerospace Medical Association's Civil Aviation Safety Subcommittee found last year (2004) that there is insufficient medical evidence and/or accident record to support airline pilot restrictions based on age alone, published in the Association's scientific journal Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 75, No.8, August 2004. The Subcommittee thus suggests that the Association abandon its 20-plus year prior policy of support, and recommends that the FAA abandon the Age 60 Rule altogether, change the cutoff criteria, or raise the age limit. Note: This was one of the sources cited by ICAO in justifying it increase of the age limit for airline pilots.


We continue to find increasing evidence that this age 60 issue for pilots is certainly not one of safety. Safety is an exaggerated smokescreen that opponents of amending the rule use to subvert the truth. Opponents of a change have routinely waived the red flag of ‘safety’ in order to score debate points. Who, after all, can be against safety? Interestingly, the FAA grants exemptions for pilots who have had head injuries, seizures, alcohol and drug dependency, heart attacks and bypass surgery. All of these can be and are forgiven after cognitive testing but NEVER has there been an exemption for the simple fact of being one day older than 59 that magic age of 60 that somehow means a seasoned pilot no is longer fit to perform in a lifelong skill.


The rest of the world does not see piloting an airliner past the age of 60 as a safety issue. Most of the world is moving to a retirement age of 65 for airline pilots. Japan and the Netherlands, to name but two, have done extensive studies which showed raising an airline pilot’s age is not a risk. Countries such as Japan, Australia, those of the Joint Aviation Authority in Europe...all have risen their pilots’ retirement age. Some 45 nations now allow their airline pilots to fly past the age of 60. Some of these pilots do so in United States airspace.


The EEOC has essentially stamped out age discrimination in commercial aviation – with the exception of the airline industry. Pilots over the age of 60, including those of the FAA, can fly high performance jets (many of which are of higher performance levels than are airliners) in the same airspace, as do our country’s airline pilots. We however, while performing the same job, are age-restricted.


The International Civil Aeronautics Association (ICAO) is in the final stages of raising its maximum age limit for captains to 65 “normalizing" its age 60 rule with that of the Europeans EEOC. The ICAO action is based on global experience (data compiled from 63 States) with older pilots, totaling 25,500 pilot-years, and the expressed wish of 93 States.


The AARP wrote “AARP is pleased to express support for your legislation…AARP has long opposed the…arbitrary rule requiring pilots to retire at age 60…there is no evidence that pilots over age 60 perform worse than younger pilots. Indeed…lengthy experience is a good predictor of pilot competency.” The AARP’s policy manual specifically mentions the Age 60 Rule as needing amendment.


The age of retirement takes on added importance today as the pilots of US Airways face abrogation of their pension plans. This is also true of United Airlines’ pilots and possibly even those of American and Delta. All other pilots face pension shortfalls.


James Owens, a professor of finance at Georgia State University’s College of Business said, “This has implications for all the major airlines. These are brutal times and circumstances, but they are the ones we play in.


Why do pilots like me desire to work past age 60? The main reason is professional pride and their desire to continue to be productive. One other important reason, not considered before the current downturn in the airline industry, is that at least a pilot’s retirement benefits could be better protected after decades of effort. Those whose pilot pension plans are being reduced or at risk of total failure would benefit because flying longer would allow them to rebuild shattered or depleted retirement plans. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (DBGC) will only pay $28,000 to an airline pilot if his plan is abrogated as opposed to about $45,000 for other employees. This is because the payout is based on working to the age of 65, which airline pilots now cannot do. Pilots want to work in their profession and are not asking for handouts.


Various airline managers and politicians have stated their support for amending the rule. Amending the Age 60 rule would not be a financial burden for airlines. Retiring senior pilots are replaced by other senior pilots, who are also at the top of their capped (usually at 12 years) pay scale. Further, the retirement of a single pilot triggers a ‘cascade’ of training as a host of other pilots of lower seniority change their seat positions or equipment types – an extremely expensive proposition.


Southwest Airlines chairman Herb Kelleher: “…Southwest Airlines strongly endorses modification of the current, mandatory age 60 retirement rule in order to permit Commercial Airline Pilots to fly beyond 60…”


Former Midway Airlines chairmen and former FAA Administrator David Hinson: “With respect to the age 60 rule, we agree with you that it should be extended. We have said as much at every opportunity to do so.”
Senator John McCain: “There are men and women who are arbitrarily deprived of employment with no other criteria except an arbitrary age limit. I’m not sure that’s good for America…”


Senator Ron Wyden: “I think it ought to be possible to find some way to allow capable pilots to continue flying beyond their 60th birthday.”


The following quote is from the Organization of Black Airline Pilots (OBAP) is noteworthy: “The Age 60 Rule is unfairly and unlawfully discriminatory, and if a federal agency is able to establish and continue a rule or practice that discriminates in contradiction of federal non-discrimination laws respecting age, similar and unlawful practices may arise or expand…I trust you will move in favor of safety for the public, and age discrimination for U.S. pilots, and not be persuaded to succumb to the political pressure the major unions…are sure to direct at you.”


I see the age 60 rule as nothing more than age discrimination. The age 60 rule has been perpetuated by big union politics for over 40 years but the reality of the situation now must be considered and attitudes must be changed. This may be the last chance that an obvious wrong can be corrected. Professional airline pilots are fighting for their careers, their future and their ability to earn a living in a chosen profession. At the very least, they wish to work to the limits of the DBGC (age 65) and the Social Security fund distribution age. The rule is age discrimination, purely and simply. If the record shows that more experienced pilots have a better safety record than do younger less experienced pilots (and it does), why should they be treated differently than other Americans?


Please support H.R.65 and S.65, to rise the retirement age for pilots to age 65 and allow our country’s most experienced and safest pilots to continue in their profession.
 

SEE ALSO:

Allied Pilots Association Position

Aerospace Medical Association Position Statement


Call 800-699-4457 for FAA Medical Support

FAA Medical Certification and Aviation Medicine Support for pilots and aviation medical examiners.

PROFESSIONAL PILOTS   |  CONDITIONS   |   NEWS   |   MEDICATIONS   |   AME's
Home  |  Contact Us  |  Testimony  |  Frequently Asked Questions  |  Evaluations

Copyright © 1995-2008 Pilot Medical Solutions, Incorporated. All rights reserved.  Privacy Statement