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:
