Age 60 Battle vs ALPA
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Unionville, PA, USA
Age: 76
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age 60 Battle vs ALPA
www.apaad.org
August 17, 2005
RE: Revocation of ALPA Dues Check Off.
To say that we pilots are disgruntled with ALPA’s support of the Age 60 Rule would be somewhat of an understatement.
A good number ALPA pilots have approached me recently suggesting that resignation from ALPA would be a wise response to ALPA's position on the Age 60 rule. Many of these are very experienced individuals who have fought on behalf of their profession either as strikers at CAL, EAL, etc., or they are those who honored picket lines rather than take jobs, such as the Braniff pilots did.
To resign would, in effect, mean to go on strike against ALPA over its decadent and unethical position. I also know that it is difficult for many pilots to resign ALPA and "agency shop" contractual provisions would mean they would have to pay “germane expenses” anyway.
Therefore, the idea came up that, we should terminate our Dues Check Off (DCO) agreements with ALPA, thereby, delivering to the Association a meaningful message of discontent. Several FedEx pilots have informed me that they have already initiated the process. Current ranking MEC members at other airlines have told me that terminating DCO is a meaningful endeavor that causes increased administrative workload for ALPA.
Revoking DCO means that ALPA will have to send you a paper statement every month and you will need to write a check to them. Indications are that you may delay payment for several or many months before they threaten you with "Bad Standing," at which point you may catch up by sending in a check.
This is, in my opinion, an important inter-airline act of civil disobedience that is intended to get ALPA's attention.
It is up to each individual to make the decision for his-self based on ALPA's position on Age 60. If ALPA fails to respond, I expect to see resignations.
A number of pilots have informed me that they have also terminated their ALPA PAC contributions in protest over Age 60.
To revoke authorization of Dues Check Off: Send an email to:
[email protected]
Provide your name, airline, and ALPA number. State that you wish to revoke your authorization for Dues Check Off because of ALPA’s Age 60 Rule position! Let’s have some fun!
Gary L. Cottingham
Communications Director
Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination
Indianapolis, Indiana
317.513.0099 Sprint
317.498.6383 Verizon
[email protected]
www.apaad.org
August 17, 2005
RE: Revocation of ALPA Dues Check Off.
To say that we pilots are disgruntled with ALPA’s support of the Age 60 Rule would be somewhat of an understatement.
A good number ALPA pilots have approached me recently suggesting that resignation from ALPA would be a wise response to ALPA's position on the Age 60 rule. Many of these are very experienced individuals who have fought on behalf of their profession either as strikers at CAL, EAL, etc., or they are those who honored picket lines rather than take jobs, such as the Braniff pilots did.
To resign would, in effect, mean to go on strike against ALPA over its decadent and unethical position. I also know that it is difficult for many pilots to resign ALPA and "agency shop" contractual provisions would mean they would have to pay “germane expenses” anyway.
Therefore, the idea came up that, we should terminate our Dues Check Off (DCO) agreements with ALPA, thereby, delivering to the Association a meaningful message of discontent. Several FedEx pilots have informed me that they have already initiated the process. Current ranking MEC members at other airlines have told me that terminating DCO is a meaningful endeavor that causes increased administrative workload for ALPA.
Revoking DCO means that ALPA will have to send you a paper statement every month and you will need to write a check to them. Indications are that you may delay payment for several or many months before they threaten you with "Bad Standing," at which point you may catch up by sending in a check.
This is, in my opinion, an important inter-airline act of civil disobedience that is intended to get ALPA's attention.
It is up to each individual to make the decision for his-self based on ALPA's position on Age 60. If ALPA fails to respond, I expect to see resignations.
A number of pilots have informed me that they have also terminated their ALPA PAC contributions in protest over Age 60.
To revoke authorization of Dues Check Off: Send an email to:
[email protected]
Provide your name, airline, and ALPA number. State that you wish to revoke your authorization for Dues Check Off because of ALPA’s Age 60 Rule position! Let’s have some fun!
Gary L. Cottingham
Communications Director
Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination
Indianapolis, Indiana
317.513.0099 Sprint
317.498.6383 Verizon
[email protected]
www.apaad.org
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Canada
Age: 51
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always find this amusing..........change the age 60 rule..........isn't that what we complaing about the most to managment groups..........how they keep changing the goalposts mid game.............I don't care what age you are when you joined this career or how healthy you are............ya new the rule was 60 so take your fit ass on and find a new job..............
pitotman
pitotman
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty funny when you think that many of the large(r) American carriers a bankrupt (especially with fuel at the price it is )..... I wonder what stance ALPA will take when its members can't pay their dues as a result of the total bankruptcy of their employers ?! 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so funny when you look at it objectively.
What isthe common factor in all these financial woes?
On average, the industry has never produced a fair return on capital invested.
The suicidal and predatory price competition that has been going on for a while now.
Air fares have decreased dramatically and constantly, in real terms, ever since the inception of commercial aviation. The cost of living has not.
The fuel spike has caught most with not enough money to hedge, and not enough cash to wait it out.
To continue the the self-destructive behaviour, the airlines have only one avenue left, squeeze the employees.
Employees are subsidising unrealistic fares. In effect they are being encouraged to cut their fellow employees throats. One airline's employees being pitted against anothers to see who will work for less.
Perhaps I am wrong. I would be only too happy to be proven so.
What isthe common factor in all these financial woes?
On average, the industry has never produced a fair return on capital invested.
The suicidal and predatory price competition that has been going on for a while now.
Air fares have decreased dramatically and constantly, in real terms, ever since the inception of commercial aviation. The cost of living has not.
The fuel spike has caught most with not enough money to hedge, and not enough cash to wait it out.
To continue the the self-destructive behaviour, the airlines have only one avenue left, squeeze the employees.
Employees are subsidising unrealistic fares. In effect they are being encouraged to cut their fellow employees throats. One airline's employees being pitted against anothers to see who will work for less.
Perhaps I am wrong. I would be only too happy to be proven so.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Desert
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fox Hunter,
Stop thinking of just yourself. There are over 12,000 pilots in the U.S. out of work at the present time and you want to raise the retirement age! For what reason besides your own selfish gain would you want to raise the age?
Yes it is a discrimatory ruling but don't forget discrimantion is a good thing. After all we do have to get two medicals a year as well as do two check rides for our jobs. Is that discrimatory as well? You bet ya and it is a good thing. It keeps all the riff raft out of the cockpits.
You had your fun now make way for some other pilots and don't try to change the rules midstream, you knew the rules when you joined.
Stop thinking of just yourself. There are over 12,000 pilots in the U.S. out of work at the present time and you want to raise the retirement age! For what reason besides your own selfish gain would you want to raise the age?
Yes it is a discrimatory ruling but don't forget discrimantion is a good thing. After all we do have to get two medicals a year as well as do two check rides for our jobs. Is that discrimatory as well? You bet ya and it is a good thing. It keeps all the riff raft out of the cockpits.
You had your fun now make way for some other pilots and don't try to change the rules midstream, you knew the rules when you joined.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Unionville, PA, USA
Age: 76
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fox Hunter,
Stop thinking of just yourself. There are over 12,000 pilots in the U.S. out of work at the present time and you want to raise the retirement age! For what reason besides your own selfish gain would you want to raise the age?
Stop thinking of just yourself. There are over 12,000 pilots in the U.S. out of work at the present time and you want to raise the retirement age! For what reason besides your own selfish gain would you want to raise the age?
LHR Rain,
I've resisted replying to your previous rants but have risen to this one. My contract has been broken 3 times in the last 13 years by my employer, all to my detriment. Why should I not be entitled to work to 60, If I wish, to try and recoup what I had expected to earn.
Don't bother to reply unless you have an answer!
I've resisted replying to your previous rants but have risen to this one. My contract has been broken 3 times in the last 13 years by my employer, all to my detriment. Why should I not be entitled to work to 60, If I wish, to try and recoup what I had expected to earn.
Don't bother to reply unless you have an answer!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's just a matter of time before one of the big ALPA carriers goes bust in a big way and puts 8000 pilots on the street instantly. Many of these folks will suffer from broken pension plans, they will not be financially ready at age 60 to retire; especially not because in the USA social security pension payments don't kick in until age 62 at the earliest.
Most ICAO countries have already adopted the age 65 rule as a matter of practical reality.
As to age 60 policy: ALPA is a self centered, narrow minded flying club that remains out of step with a fast changing world.
Most ICAO countries have already adopted the age 65 rule as a matter of practical reality.
As to age 60 policy: ALPA is a self centered, narrow minded flying club that remains out of step with a fast changing world.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An individual should be allowed to work until he is no longer fit to do so. I don't see Doctors, Dentists, Attorneys or other professional employees having to stop at a fixed age, nor would they be very impressed if someone suggested it. Regardless of the 'whining' of others (particularly a certain eloquent Canadian on this thread), discrimination is not justifiable. It is worth mentioning that the same 'young' pilots who insultingly comment in the negative will be the same 'old' pilots arguing for this very issue when they get a bit older.... It is a transparant arguement from both groups,and neither has a 'moral' claim on the answer. The ONLY answer is that you should not force someone out of their career based solely on age. BTW, i'm a long way from retirement, but think that my Dad at age 59 should be able to continue on for a few more years yet....as he still competes in marathons every month..!!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Desert
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did those groups that "lost" their pensions give them up on their own accord? What I am saying is just because a pilot group or two gave up their pensions to "save" their airline does not mean we should raise the retirement age. Did you hear PAA, EAL or anyone other airline cry as much as the pilots do today?
Don't go comparing the U.S with the rest of the world. You and I both know that the Americans are leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world and if you start comparing the U.S to the rest of the world the U.S. is in a world of hurt and not just financially. The reason some of the world has raised their retirement age is because those countries don't pay their pilots anything. I.E Air NZ top pay for a B-747-400 captain is $100,000 a year! SAA is a little above that. Most if not all of the U.S widebody FOs make more than that even after all of the paycuts.
FBI has a retirement age of 55 as do the ATC controllers. The retirment age works. Again just because you were on furlough for a portion of your career don't ruin the whole industry. I am sure that you are doing fine now.
Don't go comparing the U.S with the rest of the world. You and I both know that the Americans are leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world and if you start comparing the U.S to the rest of the world the U.S. is in a world of hurt and not just financially. The reason some of the world has raised their retirement age is because those countries don't pay their pilots anything. I.E Air NZ top pay for a B-747-400 captain is $100,000 a year! SAA is a little above that. Most if not all of the U.S widebody FOs make more than that even after all of the paycuts.
FBI has a retirement age of 55 as do the ATC controllers. The retirment age works. Again just because you were on furlough for a portion of your career don't ruin the whole industry. I am sure that you are doing fine now.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Unionville, PA, USA
Age: 76
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did those groups that "lost" their pensions give them up on their own accord? What I am saying is just because a pilot group or two gave up their pensions to "save" their airline does not mean we should raise the retirement age
Don't go comparing the U.S with the rest of the world. You and I both know that the Americans are leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world and if you start comparing the U.S to the rest of the world the U.S. is in a world of hurt and not just financially.
The reason some of the world has raised their retirement age is because those countries don't pay their pilots anything. I.E Air NZ top pay for a B-747-400 captain is $100,000 a year! SAA is a little above that. Most if not all of the U.S widebody FOs make more than that even after all of the paycuts.
Again just because you were on furlough for a portion of your career don't ruin the whole industry. I am sure that you are doing fine now.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sandbox
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boys,Boys,
Please do not raise to the bait of lhr rain. He is a little twit who likes to make waves. He and I have had this discussion about pensions on another thread and he still is clueless. Just as much as he is entitled to his "little boy and his toy opinion," we are entitled to ignore his rantings. He has no clue about aviation in the states yet he continiously tells us how it is. He has no clue about how it feels to loose your pension after 20 years at a company, yet he presumes to tell us how it happened and how we should feel. Let him rant, and then ignore him. He is TOTALLY CLUELESS on this subject, ( most subjects for that matter) throws numbers out that meaningless, and has the advantage of having balls that are bigger than his brain. Just to proove my point look at his first post on this thread: If discrimination keeps rif raf out of the cockpit, than he would never be allowed on the airport property, let alone in the cockpit.
As I have told you before ler rain, you are the village idiot, and you proove me right time and time again.
Kiss off lhr man,
330 man
Please do not raise to the bait of lhr rain. He is a little twit who likes to make waves. He and I have had this discussion about pensions on another thread and he still is clueless. Just as much as he is entitled to his "little boy and his toy opinion," we are entitled to ignore his rantings. He has no clue about aviation in the states yet he continiously tells us how it is. He has no clue about how it feels to loose your pension after 20 years at a company, yet he presumes to tell us how it happened and how we should feel. Let him rant, and then ignore him. He is TOTALLY CLUELESS on this subject, ( most subjects for that matter) throws numbers out that meaningless, and has the advantage of having balls that are bigger than his brain. Just to proove my point look at his first post on this thread: If discrimination keeps rif raf out of the cockpit, than he would never be allowed on the airport property, let alone in the cockpit.
As I have told you before ler rain, you are the village idiot, and you proove me right time and time again.
Kiss off lhr man,
330 man
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Desert
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fox Hunter
If you are working outside of the US why do you care what the US does with its reitrement age?
If I am wrong on my slaraies quations from the worlds airlines please inlighten me. We both know that I am right. Try not to belittle someone just because you dont agree with him. Most if not all US widebody FOs make more than the worlds widebody captains and that is a fact!
Again you knew the retirement age when you joined, why do you want to change the rules now?
330 Man
You keep defending US Air while trying to deinagrate me. Keep trying. If you are correct in saying a judge "took" your pension why did not this same judge take Delta's, NW, CAL et al? United voted, yes they voted to give up their pension. You say US Air did not and I guess I have to beleive you at this time. But why did you not go on stirke like the NW Engineers and stand up for something. Put another way what did you as an individual or as a pilot group do to stop this atrocity from happening. I believe you did nothing! As you alluded to some people have balls and US Air has proved time and again they did not. Don't take your frustrations out on someone else and don't ruin the industry by raising the retirment age.
If you are working outside of the US why do you care what the US does with its reitrement age?
If I am wrong on my slaraies quations from the worlds airlines please inlighten me. We both know that I am right. Try not to belittle someone just because you dont agree with him. Most if not all US widebody FOs make more than the worlds widebody captains and that is a fact!
Again you knew the retirement age when you joined, why do you want to change the rules now?
330 Man
You keep defending US Air while trying to deinagrate me. Keep trying. If you are correct in saying a judge "took" your pension why did not this same judge take Delta's, NW, CAL et al? United voted, yes they voted to give up their pension. You say US Air did not and I guess I have to beleive you at this time. But why did you not go on stirke like the NW Engineers and stand up for something. Put another way what did you as an individual or as a pilot group do to stop this atrocity from happening. I believe you did nothing! As you alluded to some people have balls and US Air has proved time and again they did not. Don't take your frustrations out on someone else and don't ruin the industry by raising the retirment age.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHRRain, you are, (once again) choosing to ignore a salient point. When most of us on this thread signed up the retirement age WAS 65! It was arbitrarily changed, without good reason, to 60. All that we now ask is that it be returned to the terms and conditions that we originally signed up to. You have been told this many times before here on PPRuNe, why do you choose to ignore it?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Unionville, PA, USA
Age: 76
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Testimony of Robin Wilkening, MD, MPH
Regarding S. 65
Senate Subcommittee on Aviation
July 19, 2005
Senator Burns, Senator Rockefeller, and Distinguished Senators of the Aviation Subcommittee,
My name is Dr. Robin Wilkening. I am a Board certified Occupational Medicine physician with a Masters degree in Public Health. Occupational Medicine is the medical specialty that deals with all aspects of worker health and safety. Workplace safety, worker health, fitness for duty, health-related productivity, and workplace access are key elements of my training, expertise, and professional interest. My research paper on the Age 60 Rule was published in the journal Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine in March 2002. My conclusion, after an extensive review of the literature, was that requiring airline pilots to retire based solely on the age of 60 had no basis in medical fact, could not be supported by scientific literature, and was not consistent with flight safety data. The Age 60 Rule prohibits an entire class of workers from continuing gainful employment based on age alone, and as such constitutes age discrimination in the workplace.
I am not alone in my opinion that the Age 60 Rule cannot be justified. One year ago the Civil Aviation Subcommittee of the Aviation Safety Committee of the Aerospace Medical Association (ASMA) - recognized as the international leader for excellence in aerospace medicine - published its findings regarding the Age 60 Rule. Following an extensive and scholarly examination of the literature, this panel of aviation medicine and safety experts concluded, "there is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based on age alone," and noted that "the decision to use 60 years of age as an upper limit for commercial air transport operations was arbitrary." In addition, the Civil Aviation Medical Association (CAMA), the pre-eminent professional body representing Aviation Medical Examiners, "...supports the concept that pilots operating under FAR Part 121 should not be forced to retire from piloting duties based solely upon attaining age 60." In February 2005, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) cited the results of its survey of member nations wherein 83% of the 112 respondents indicated that "an age limit above 60 years would be appropriate for airline pilots" (with 72 states favoring an upper age limit of 65 and six desiring no upper age limit at all). ICAO highlighted the opinion of their Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel that, as the Aerospace Medical Association stated, "...there is insufficient medical evidence to support a restriction based on age alone." In proposing the current rule change to allow pilots up to age 65 to fly in multi-crew operations, ICAO specifically mentioned research performed in the United States by Baker and Li showing the safety of over-60 pilots, and cited a recent ICAO survey documenting more than 15,000 "older pilot years" of accident-free flying worldwide. The ICAO "Age 65 Rule" is expected to take effect on November 23, 2006.
Acknowledgment of the safety of over-60 pilots is not limited to the medical community. In the Letter of Understanding between ALPA and Air Canada Regional, Inc., ALPA President Duane Woerth endorsed Canadian ALPA member pilots flying up to the age of 65. And although the Letter stated "there are current Federal Aviation Administration restrictions for Captains over the age of 60 to fly into the United States of America," strikingly absent was any mention of the FAA's Age 60 Rule being a safety regulation. Likewise notably absent was any language suggesting even the slightest concern that these airline pilots up to age 65 – now represented by ALPA – constituted an undue safety risk.
It is by now well known and widely accepted that the Age 60 Rule was never meant to be a safety regulation. Far from being related in any way to safety, it was instead a bit of backroom economic favoritism designed to benefit the management of one particular airline and, by extension, the management of all airlines. In FAA Administrator Quesada's own words, written in April 1959 to the President of the University of Notre Dame, "there exists at present no sound scientific evidence that airline piloting or any other aeronautical activity becomes critically unsafe at any given age." When in August 1959 then-ALPA President Clarence Sayen, an ardent opponent of the Age 60 Rule, demanded that the FAA produce scientific evidence, Administrator Quesada did not - because he could not - offer any evidence that airline pilots over age 60 were less safe than their younger counterparts. Instead, the FAA offered up a bibliography of 41 publications dealing with aging, none of which addressed airline-piloting capabilities. Since that time there have been numerous studies dealing with the subject of aging both in general populations and in groups of pilots. In their recent exhaustive review, ASMA aviation research experts thoroughly analyzed a huge body of literature and reported three findings: 1) Performance on measures of most – but not all – cognitive functions decline with advancing age; 2) Performance of a group may not predict the performance of any specific individual; and 3) Observed “declines” in laboratory test performance are not necessarily predictive of cockpit performance. Based on their thorough study of the literature of aging as related to piloting, ASMA experts concluded: “On review of the existing evidence, the Aerospace Medical Association concludes there is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based on age alone.”
Laboratory studies on effects of aging are worthy academic exercises that increase our general fund of knowledge. However, the results of these tests, as ASMA noted, are not necessarily predictive of cockpit performance. Flight safety is the true outcome of interest, and we are indeed fortunate to have a body of flight safety data detailing the performance of pilots in various age groups. When performed according to rigorous scientific standards and analyzed using proper statistical technique, flight safety studies show that pilots over age 60 are as safe as their younger colleagues. It is important to review these results.
1. 1994: Kay EJ, et al. Age 60 Study, Part III, Consolidated Database Experiments Final Report, DOT/FAA/AM-94/22, Office of Aviation Medicine, Washington DC 20591, October 1994.
The analysis provided no support for the hypothesis that the pilots of scheduled air carriers had increased accident rates as they neared the age of 60.
For pilots with Class II medical certificates, the accident rate for the age group 60-64 did not differ from that of the age group 55-59. For pilots with Class III medical certificates, the accident rate for the age group 60-64 did not differ from that of age group 55-59. Additionally, for Class III pilots with more than 500 total flight hours and more than 50 recent flight hours the accident rate for the age groups 60-64 and 65-69 did not differ from that of age group 55-59.
In a further arm of the study, accident rates were examined year-by-year, rather than in 5-year groups, for pilots aged 50-69. Between age 63 and age 69, there was an apparent, though not statistically significant, linear trend that was described by the author as "a hint, and a hint only, of an increase in accident rate for Class III pilots older than 63 years of age."
2. 1999: Rebok GW, Grabowski JG, and Baker SP, et al. Pilot age and performance as factors in aviation crashes. Presented before the American Psychological Association meeting, Boston, MA 1999.
Dr. George Rebok demonstrated that in general aviation crashes involving pilots aged 40-63, the percentage of accidents caused by pilot error was smallest in the age group 56-63.
4. 1999: The Chicago Tribune July 11.
Statistics compiled by the FAA for air carrier accidents/incidents involving air transport (airline) pilots from January 1, 1990 to June 11, 1999 were evaluated by Northwestern University professor Ian Savage. This cohort, including pilots age 20 to over 60, was notable for its inclusion of airline pilots working for commuter airlines who were over 60 years of age during this period. These pilots were exempt from the Age 60 Rule between 1995 and December 1999. The data showed no statistically significant difference in incident rate between any age group. The safety of this over-60 pilot group is all the more notable because these pilots - confined to commuter operations - were exposed to much greater flight risk than were their younger counterparts flying in safer, large jet operations.
5. 2000: Broach D, et al. OAM AAM-00-A-HRR-520. Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI), Human Resources Research Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. A series of four reports.
Continued
Report One was a bibliography.
Report Two reanalyzed the Chicago Tribune data but specifically excluded those pilots aged 60 and older from analysis. CAMI reported no statistically significant differences in the accident/incident rates by age group. It is particularly notable that the proportion of 50-59 year old air transport pilots involved in accidents or incidents was significantly lower than the proportion for the 40-49 year old group.
Report Three evaluated pilots age 23-63 with an Air Transport rating and a Class I medical certificate (that is, pilots who were rated and medically certified to be airline captains) who flew between 1988 and 1997. This study was conducted at the request of the United States Senate to compare the flight safety of pilots age 60-63 with the flight safety of younger pilots. Study author Dana Broach: "No significant difference was found between accident rates for pilots in the 55-59 and 60-63 year old age groups." This finding is all the more noteworthy because, as in the Chicago Tribune cohort above, the over-60 pilots in this study group were flying in less-safe commuter operations only.
Report Four expanded the Report Three study cohort to include pilots with a Commercial rating and a Class II medical certificate, creating an impure study population composed of pilots who had an Air Transport rating and Class I medical certificates and pilots who did not. In this mixed group, there was a statistically significant increase in the accident rate for pilots age 60-63. The inappropriate combination of these two pilot groups into a single cohort was criticized in the aviation medical literature and casts serious doubt on the veracity of the findings.
6. 2001: Baker SP, Lamb MW, Grabowski G, Rebok G, Li G. Characteristics of general aviation crashes involving mature male and female pilots. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 2001;72:447-52.
This research group at the Center for Injury Research and Policy, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health reported their analysis of the causes of general aviation crashes. Older pilots made fewer errors: among males age 55-63, 26% of crashes were without obvious pilot error whereas among males age 40-49 only 7% were without obvious pilot error.
7. 2002: Miura Y, Shoji M, Fukumoto M, Yasue K, Tsukui I, Hosoya T. A 10-year retrospective review of airline transport pilots aged 60-63 in Japan. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 2002 May;73(5):485-7.
Investigators from the Japan Aeromedical Research Center in Tokyo reported the results of their experience with pilots over age 60. During the study period these pilots underwent standard medical examinations and were engaged first in non-scheduled flying (1991-1996) and then scheduled flying (1996-2000). These pilots were not involved in any of the 323 accidents reported by the Japan Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission. The investigators\' conclusions: "aged pilots who are deemed medically qualified by the official notice criteria are flying safety without mishap incidence." Japan has since raised its upper age limit to 65.
8. 2002: Li G, Baker SP, Lamb MW, Grabowski JG, Rebok GW. Human factors in aviation crashes involving older pilots. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 2002 Feb;73(2):134-8.
In a study of human factors in aviation crashes involving older pilots, these researchers studied a cohort of 3306 pilots who were 45-54 years old in 1987 and flew commuter aircraft or air taxis. This group was followed longitudinally until 1997. Comparisons of crash circumstances and human factors were made between pilots age 40-49 and 50-63. Neither crash circumstances nor the prevalence and patterns of pilot errors changed significantly as age increased from the 40s to the early 60s.
9. 2003: Li G, Baker SP, Grabowski JG, Qiang Y, McCarthy ML, Rebok GW. Age, flight experience, and risk of crash involvement in a cohort of professional pilots. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2003 May 15;157(10)
74-80.
In a further study of the above cohort, the researchers determined that those pilots with 5,000-9,999 hours of total flight time at the beginning of the study period had a 57% lower risk of a crash than their less experienced counterparts. There was no association between pilot age and crash risk, which the researchers noted "may reflect a strong \'healthy worker effect\' stemming from the rigorous medical standards and periodic physical examinations required for professional pilots."
The Age 60 Rule was never designed to be a safety regulation, and was not promulgated in response to any demonstrated safety need for the restriction of pilots over age 60. An exhaustive review of the medical literature regarding aging has failed to show any evidence that would prudently bar airline pilots over age 60 from the cockpit. All published flight performance studies, when conducted according to the highest scientific standards and evaluated using appropriate analytical technique, and show that pilots flying until age 63 are as safe as their younger colleagues. The international experience with older pilots amply demonstrates the safety of pilots flying until age 65.
Requiring airline pilots to retire based solely on the age of 60 has no basis in medical fact, cannot be supported by scientific literature, and is not consistent with flight safety data. The Age 60 Rule prohibits an entire class of workers from continuing gainful employment based on age alone, and as such constitutes age discrimination in the workplace.
Robin Wilkening MD MPH
[email protected]
Regarding S. 65
Senate Subcommittee on Aviation
July 19, 2005
Senator Burns, Senator Rockefeller, and Distinguished Senators of the Aviation Subcommittee,
My name is Dr. Robin Wilkening. I am a Board certified Occupational Medicine physician with a Masters degree in Public Health. Occupational Medicine is the medical specialty that deals with all aspects of worker health and safety. Workplace safety, worker health, fitness for duty, health-related productivity, and workplace access are key elements of my training, expertise, and professional interest. My research paper on the Age 60 Rule was published in the journal Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine in March 2002. My conclusion, after an extensive review of the literature, was that requiring airline pilots to retire based solely on the age of 60 had no basis in medical fact, could not be supported by scientific literature, and was not consistent with flight safety data. The Age 60 Rule prohibits an entire class of workers from continuing gainful employment based on age alone, and as such constitutes age discrimination in the workplace.
I am not alone in my opinion that the Age 60 Rule cannot be justified. One year ago the Civil Aviation Subcommittee of the Aviation Safety Committee of the Aerospace Medical Association (ASMA) - recognized as the international leader for excellence in aerospace medicine - published its findings regarding the Age 60 Rule. Following an extensive and scholarly examination of the literature, this panel of aviation medicine and safety experts concluded, "there is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based on age alone," and noted that "the decision to use 60 years of age as an upper limit for commercial air transport operations was arbitrary." In addition, the Civil Aviation Medical Association (CAMA), the pre-eminent professional body representing Aviation Medical Examiners, "...supports the concept that pilots operating under FAR Part 121 should not be forced to retire from piloting duties based solely upon attaining age 60." In February 2005, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) cited the results of its survey of member nations wherein 83% of the 112 respondents indicated that "an age limit above 60 years would be appropriate for airline pilots" (with 72 states favoring an upper age limit of 65 and six desiring no upper age limit at all). ICAO highlighted the opinion of their Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel that, as the Aerospace Medical Association stated, "...there is insufficient medical evidence to support a restriction based on age alone." In proposing the current rule change to allow pilots up to age 65 to fly in multi-crew operations, ICAO specifically mentioned research performed in the United States by Baker and Li showing the safety of over-60 pilots, and cited a recent ICAO survey documenting more than 15,000 "older pilot years" of accident-free flying worldwide. The ICAO "Age 65 Rule" is expected to take effect on November 23, 2006.
Acknowledgment of the safety of over-60 pilots is not limited to the medical community. In the Letter of Understanding between ALPA and Air Canada Regional, Inc., ALPA President Duane Woerth endorsed Canadian ALPA member pilots flying up to the age of 65. And although the Letter stated "there are current Federal Aviation Administration restrictions for Captains over the age of 60 to fly into the United States of America," strikingly absent was any mention of the FAA's Age 60 Rule being a safety regulation. Likewise notably absent was any language suggesting even the slightest concern that these airline pilots up to age 65 – now represented by ALPA – constituted an undue safety risk.
It is by now well known and widely accepted that the Age 60 Rule was never meant to be a safety regulation. Far from being related in any way to safety, it was instead a bit of backroom economic favoritism designed to benefit the management of one particular airline and, by extension, the management of all airlines. In FAA Administrator Quesada's own words, written in April 1959 to the President of the University of Notre Dame, "there exists at present no sound scientific evidence that airline piloting or any other aeronautical activity becomes critically unsafe at any given age." When in August 1959 then-ALPA President Clarence Sayen, an ardent opponent of the Age 60 Rule, demanded that the FAA produce scientific evidence, Administrator Quesada did not - because he could not - offer any evidence that airline pilots over age 60 were less safe than their younger counterparts. Instead, the FAA offered up a bibliography of 41 publications dealing with aging, none of which addressed airline-piloting capabilities. Since that time there have been numerous studies dealing with the subject of aging both in general populations and in groups of pilots. In their recent exhaustive review, ASMA aviation research experts thoroughly analyzed a huge body of literature and reported three findings: 1) Performance on measures of most – but not all – cognitive functions decline with advancing age; 2) Performance of a group may not predict the performance of any specific individual; and 3) Observed “declines” in laboratory test performance are not necessarily predictive of cockpit performance. Based on their thorough study of the literature of aging as related to piloting, ASMA experts concluded: “On review of the existing evidence, the Aerospace Medical Association concludes there is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based on age alone.”
Laboratory studies on effects of aging are worthy academic exercises that increase our general fund of knowledge. However, the results of these tests, as ASMA noted, are not necessarily predictive of cockpit performance. Flight safety is the true outcome of interest, and we are indeed fortunate to have a body of flight safety data detailing the performance of pilots in various age groups. When performed according to rigorous scientific standards and analyzed using proper statistical technique, flight safety studies show that pilots over age 60 are as safe as their younger colleagues. It is important to review these results.
1. 1994: Kay EJ, et al. Age 60 Study, Part III, Consolidated Database Experiments Final Report, DOT/FAA/AM-94/22, Office of Aviation Medicine, Washington DC 20591, October 1994.
The analysis provided no support for the hypothesis that the pilots of scheduled air carriers had increased accident rates as they neared the age of 60.
For pilots with Class II medical certificates, the accident rate for the age group 60-64 did not differ from that of the age group 55-59. For pilots with Class III medical certificates, the accident rate for the age group 60-64 did not differ from that of age group 55-59. Additionally, for Class III pilots with more than 500 total flight hours and more than 50 recent flight hours the accident rate for the age groups 60-64 and 65-69 did not differ from that of age group 55-59.
In a further arm of the study, accident rates were examined year-by-year, rather than in 5-year groups, for pilots aged 50-69. Between age 63 and age 69, there was an apparent, though not statistically significant, linear trend that was described by the author as "a hint, and a hint only, of an increase in accident rate for Class III pilots older than 63 years of age."
2. 1999: Rebok GW, Grabowski JG, and Baker SP, et al. Pilot age and performance as factors in aviation crashes. Presented before the American Psychological Association meeting, Boston, MA 1999.
Dr. George Rebok demonstrated that in general aviation crashes involving pilots aged 40-63, the percentage of accidents caused by pilot error was smallest in the age group 56-63.
4. 1999: The Chicago Tribune July 11.
Statistics compiled by the FAA for air carrier accidents/incidents involving air transport (airline) pilots from January 1, 1990 to June 11, 1999 were evaluated by Northwestern University professor Ian Savage. This cohort, including pilots age 20 to over 60, was notable for its inclusion of airline pilots working for commuter airlines who were over 60 years of age during this period. These pilots were exempt from the Age 60 Rule between 1995 and December 1999. The data showed no statistically significant difference in incident rate between any age group. The safety of this over-60 pilot group is all the more notable because these pilots - confined to commuter operations - were exposed to much greater flight risk than were their younger counterparts flying in safer, large jet operations.
5. 2000: Broach D, et al. OAM AAM-00-A-HRR-520. Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI), Human Resources Research Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. A series of four reports.
Continued
Report One was a bibliography.
Report Two reanalyzed the Chicago Tribune data but specifically excluded those pilots aged 60 and older from analysis. CAMI reported no statistically significant differences in the accident/incident rates by age group. It is particularly notable that the proportion of 50-59 year old air transport pilots involved in accidents or incidents was significantly lower than the proportion for the 40-49 year old group.
Report Three evaluated pilots age 23-63 with an Air Transport rating and a Class I medical certificate (that is, pilots who were rated and medically certified to be airline captains) who flew between 1988 and 1997. This study was conducted at the request of the United States Senate to compare the flight safety of pilots age 60-63 with the flight safety of younger pilots. Study author Dana Broach: "No significant difference was found between accident rates for pilots in the 55-59 and 60-63 year old age groups." This finding is all the more noteworthy because, as in the Chicago Tribune cohort above, the over-60 pilots in this study group were flying in less-safe commuter operations only.
Report Four expanded the Report Three study cohort to include pilots with a Commercial rating and a Class II medical certificate, creating an impure study population composed of pilots who had an Air Transport rating and Class I medical certificates and pilots who did not. In this mixed group, there was a statistically significant increase in the accident rate for pilots age 60-63. The inappropriate combination of these two pilot groups into a single cohort was criticized in the aviation medical literature and casts serious doubt on the veracity of the findings.
6. 2001: Baker SP, Lamb MW, Grabowski G, Rebok G, Li G. Characteristics of general aviation crashes involving mature male and female pilots. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 2001;72:447-52.
This research group at the Center for Injury Research and Policy, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health reported their analysis of the causes of general aviation crashes. Older pilots made fewer errors: among males age 55-63, 26% of crashes were without obvious pilot error whereas among males age 40-49 only 7% were without obvious pilot error.
7. 2002: Miura Y, Shoji M, Fukumoto M, Yasue K, Tsukui I, Hosoya T. A 10-year retrospective review of airline transport pilots aged 60-63 in Japan. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 2002 May;73(5):485-7.
Investigators from the Japan Aeromedical Research Center in Tokyo reported the results of their experience with pilots over age 60. During the study period these pilots underwent standard medical examinations and were engaged first in non-scheduled flying (1991-1996) and then scheduled flying (1996-2000). These pilots were not involved in any of the 323 accidents reported by the Japan Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission. The investigators\' conclusions: "aged pilots who are deemed medically qualified by the official notice criteria are flying safety without mishap incidence." Japan has since raised its upper age limit to 65.
8. 2002: Li G, Baker SP, Lamb MW, Grabowski JG, Rebok GW. Human factors in aviation crashes involving older pilots. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 2002 Feb;73(2):134-8.
In a study of human factors in aviation crashes involving older pilots, these researchers studied a cohort of 3306 pilots who were 45-54 years old in 1987 and flew commuter aircraft or air taxis. This group was followed longitudinally until 1997. Comparisons of crash circumstances and human factors were made between pilots age 40-49 and 50-63. Neither crash circumstances nor the prevalence and patterns of pilot errors changed significantly as age increased from the 40s to the early 60s.
9. 2003: Li G, Baker SP, Grabowski JG, Qiang Y, McCarthy ML, Rebok GW. Age, flight experience, and risk of crash involvement in a cohort of professional pilots. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2003 May 15;157(10)
74-80.In a further study of the above cohort, the researchers determined that those pilots with 5,000-9,999 hours of total flight time at the beginning of the study period had a 57% lower risk of a crash than their less experienced counterparts. There was no association between pilot age and crash risk, which the researchers noted "may reflect a strong \'healthy worker effect\' stemming from the rigorous medical standards and periodic physical examinations required for professional pilots."
The Age 60 Rule was never designed to be a safety regulation, and was not promulgated in response to any demonstrated safety need for the restriction of pilots over age 60. An exhaustive review of the medical literature regarding aging has failed to show any evidence that would prudently bar airline pilots over age 60 from the cockpit. All published flight performance studies, when conducted according to the highest scientific standards and evaluated using appropriate analytical technique, and show that pilots flying until age 63 are as safe as their younger colleagues. The international experience with older pilots amply demonstrates the safety of pilots flying until age 65.
Requiring airline pilots to retire based solely on the age of 60 has no basis in medical fact, cannot be supported by scientific literature, and is not consistent with flight safety data. The Age 60 Rule prohibits an entire class of workers from continuing gainful employment based on age alone, and as such constitutes age discrimination in the workplace.
Robin Wilkening MD MPH
[email protected]
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think LHR Rain must just enjoy winding people up with his obstinate defence of the indefensible; it gets him noticed, poor thing!
Meanwhile, back here on Planet Earth, I find myself faced with 'end of contract' at age 58, which is fair enough. I am not asking some court to suddenly overturn what I signed up to many moons ago.
On the other hand, I really would prefer some sort of level playing field so that I could get out there and peddle my wrinkly, grey-haired, semi-hateful, old self in the market place, hoping to sell my 15,000 hours of experience and proven work record to someone else who might otherwise go for one of these junior geniuses with a Bachelor of Arts in Underwater Basket-weaving, a frozen ATPL and 932 hours, including 143 in a Cessna Citation II.
I mean, if you had some airplane that you absolutely, positively wanted to see get to its destination, what would you rather count on, old age and cunning, or youth and quick reflexes? That argument was settled long ago!
Times have changed in terms of the market for pilots, so that I wish the authorities would just knock off this nonsense of age discrimination and take passing a Class I medical as evidence that some old crock of 58-65 is not going to slump over the controls 'just like that!' It made sense back when we had a lot more pilots than seats, but not in today's market.
I wonder if people like LHR Rain have some sneaking fear that grandfathers could get their jobs absent this artificial restriction in the marketplace?
Or perhaps this fellow lost his girlfriend to some old guy once when she jumped out of his clapped-out Ford Sierra at a set of traffic lights, into a BMW M3 never to be seen again. 'Shazza, come back! All is forgiven!' Get over it, fellah! Order in a take-away pizza and go back to playing 'Grand Theft Auto.'
Meanwhile, back here on Planet Earth, I find myself faced with 'end of contract' at age 58, which is fair enough. I am not asking some court to suddenly overturn what I signed up to many moons ago.
On the other hand, I really would prefer some sort of level playing field so that I could get out there and peddle my wrinkly, grey-haired, semi-hateful, old self in the market place, hoping to sell my 15,000 hours of experience and proven work record to someone else who might otherwise go for one of these junior geniuses with a Bachelor of Arts in Underwater Basket-weaving, a frozen ATPL and 932 hours, including 143 in a Cessna Citation II.
I mean, if you had some airplane that you absolutely, positively wanted to see get to its destination, what would you rather count on, old age and cunning, or youth and quick reflexes? That argument was settled long ago!
Times have changed in terms of the market for pilots, so that I wish the authorities would just knock off this nonsense of age discrimination and take passing a Class I medical as evidence that some old crock of 58-65 is not going to slump over the controls 'just like that!' It made sense back when we had a lot more pilots than seats, but not in today's market.
I wonder if people like LHR Rain have some sneaking fear that grandfathers could get their jobs absent this artificial restriction in the marketplace?
Or perhaps this fellow lost his girlfriend to some old guy once when she jumped out of his clapped-out Ford Sierra at a set of traffic lights, into a BMW M3 never to be seen again. 'Shazza, come back! All is forgiven!' Get over it, fellah! Order in a take-away pizza and go back to playing 'Grand Theft Auto.'
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Desert
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The retirement age was changed in 1959 so I don't think that there are too many pilots that are still flying today that the rule change affected.
Since you disparaged young pilots I think it is time to do the same to the oldies. You have had your fun and now it is time to make way for some young blood. The retirement home is calling and your name is on it.
sorry I never had a girlfriend go after an old geezer like yourself. If you were a rich pilot (which by judging by your posts to keep working you obviously are not) maybe a pretty young thing would go after your rinkled body but I serioulsy doubt it.
Since you disparaged young pilots I think it is time to do the same to the oldies. You have had your fun and now it is time to make way for some young blood. The retirement home is calling and your name is on it.
sorry I never had a girlfriend go after an old geezer like yourself. If you were a rich pilot (which by judging by your posts to keep working you obviously are not) maybe a pretty young thing would go after your rinkled body but I serioulsy doubt it.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I were a rich man, deedle-deedle-dee...
Hey, if I were a 'rich pilot' do you think I would be sat here engaging in badinage with the spelling-impaired? When it comes to 'rinkles' my aged bod might have a few but then so does my brain! LHR Rain's would seem to be as smooth as a baby's arse.
Look, it used to be that people were often barred from work for being too old, too gay, too fat, too female or whatever. One of the last vestiges of that mindset is this age bar for pilots. When it was brought in the major airlines had a limited number of seats and a lot of potential pilots, so that it made a kind of sense, whether it was fair or not. Nowadays it makes very little sense, plus it completely fails contemporary tests of fairness.
Many unfair practices from the same period as this age legislation have been revoked so that it stands out as an exception. It is not that we are seeking an exception but that we are seeking to have an exceptional case of discrimination corrected.
Why I might want to continue working is my own business. It can be amusing to speculate about that but so what? I might enjoy coming up with some imaginary construct for the mindset of this joker, such as that he's just some little loser who lost his Shazza to a rich, old guy, but that's just a side-joke, just as it is very much beside the point to jeer at people who wish to continue working in their chosen profession wíthout bothering to think about the point under discussion.
Look, it used to be that people were often barred from work for being too old, too gay, too fat, too female or whatever. One of the last vestiges of that mindset is this age bar for pilots. When it was brought in the major airlines had a limited number of seats and a lot of potential pilots, so that it made a kind of sense, whether it was fair or not. Nowadays it makes very little sense, plus it completely fails contemporary tests of fairness.
Many unfair practices from the same period as this age legislation have been revoked so that it stands out as an exception. It is not that we are seeking an exception but that we are seeking to have an exceptional case of discrimination corrected.
Why I might want to continue working is my own business. It can be amusing to speculate about that but so what? I might enjoy coming up with some imaginary construct for the mindset of this joker, such as that he's just some little loser who lost his Shazza to a rich, old guy, but that's just a side-joke, just as it is very much beside the point to jeer at people who wish to continue working in their chosen profession wíthout bothering to think about the point under discussion.