The Federal Aviation Administration, along with the Air Line Pilots Association and the politicians whose pockets they line, state that the Age 60 Rule is a necessary safety standard. The truth is, if the issue was really safety there wouldn’t be an Age 60 Rule. Time and again over-60 pilots have been shown to be as safe as or safer than their younger colleagues. The Age 60 Rule has never really been about safety.
The Age 60 Rule’s conception followed the unethical professional coupling of the CEO of American Airlines, C. R. Smith, and the first Administrator of the FAA, retired Lieutenant General Elwood Quesada, resulting in an economic windfall for the airline and a sweet post-retirement job for the Administrator. Even then the FAA knew "it was not yet possible to establish a retirement age for civil airline pilots based on scientifically determined facts."
Sudden incapacitation due to cardiovascular disease was the stated reason, though not the real reason, that the actual age of 60 was chosen. Forty years ago, when ALPA still championed the rights of all pilots to remain employed, former ALPA president Clarence Sayen challenged FAA Administrator Elwood Quesada to justify his hasty decision to enact the Rule. Quesada responded with 41 highly questionable articles culled from the medical archives of the 1950’s, the majority of these having been published decades earlier. In addition to being astonishingly outdated, these articles described characteristics of the general population and not of airline pilots They are clearly not the "fundamental, indisputable principles of medical science" that current ALPA president, Duane Woerth, has stated. The original justification for the Rule implied, incorrectly, that the health characteristics of the general population of white males in the United States applied also to the population of air carrier pilots. Wrong then and wrong now! Airline pilots are still healthier and live longer than their counterparts in the general population the world over.
Moreover, concern over pilot incapacitation causing a crash is simply unjustified. IATA data and simulator data show that the risk of incapacitation due to cardiovascular disease is only 1 event in more than 20 million flight hours. The calculated probability of a crash occurring as a result of incapacitation is 1 event in every 8.3 billion flight hours, or, stated another way, 1 episode every 400 years.8 Furthermore, it is well established that in-flight incapacitation is a far lesser threat to safety than are mishaps due to inexperienced pilot error.
The truth is, 40 years of medical scrutiny show no justification for the Age 60 Rule based on the fear that an airline pilot will become incapacitated, regardless of age.
The Age 60 Rule: Age Discrimination in Commercial Aviation
age 60 chronology
The Age 60 Rule’s conception followed the unethical professional coupling of the CEO of American Airlines, C. R. Smith, and the first Administrator of the FAA, retired Lieutenant General Elwood Quesada, resulting in an economic windfall for the airline and a sweet post-retirement job for the Administrator. Even then the FAA knew "it was not yet possible to establish a retirement age for civil airline pilots based on scientifically determined facts."
Sudden incapacitation due to cardiovascular disease was the stated reason, though not the real reason, that the actual age of 60 was chosen. Forty years ago, when ALPA still championed the rights of all pilots to remain employed, former ALPA president Clarence Sayen challenged FAA Administrator Elwood Quesada to justify his hasty decision to enact the Rule. Quesada responded with 41 highly questionable articles culled from the medical archives of the 1950’s, the majority of these having been published decades earlier. In addition to being astonishingly outdated, these articles described characteristics of the general population and not of airline pilots They are clearly not the "fundamental, indisputable principles of medical science" that current ALPA president, Duane Woerth, has stated. The original justification for the Rule implied, incorrectly, that the health characteristics of the general population of white males in the United States applied also to the population of air carrier pilots. Wrong then and wrong now! Airline pilots are still healthier and live longer than their counterparts in the general population the world over.
Moreover, concern over pilot incapacitation causing a crash is simply unjustified. IATA data and simulator data show that the risk of incapacitation due to cardiovascular disease is only 1 event in more than 20 million flight hours. The calculated probability of a crash occurring as a result of incapacitation is 1 event in every 8.3 billion flight hours, or, stated another way, 1 episode every 400 years.8 Furthermore, it is well established that in-flight incapacitation is a far lesser threat to safety than are mishaps due to inexperienced pilot error.
The truth is, 40 years of medical scrutiny show no justification for the Age 60 Rule based on the fear that an airline pilot will become incapacitated, regardless of age.
The Age 60 Rule: Age Discrimination in Commercial Aviation
age 60 chronology
