May 11, 2001
Congressman Jim Gibbons
100 Cannon House Office
Building
Washington, DC 20515
RE: HR 448
Dear Congressman Gibbons:
I would like to offer my continued encouragement and support of your efforts regarding HR 448. Repeal of the Age 60 Rule is long overdue, particularly in this time of burgeoning air travel and shortage of experienced pilots that ALPA has acknowledged. I have often read the standard, time-worn, and inaccurate comments routinely put forth by ALPA and APA in defense of the Age 60 Rule and find them particularly disingenuous in light of what we know about the unethical origin of the Rule, the demonstrated safety record of older airline pilots, and the efforts, over the past four decades, to delay appropriate study of older airline pilots.
As you well know, and as valid documents verify, the Age 60 Rule was never intended to be a safety regulation. It was born of the unethical coupling of the CEO of American Airlines and the first Administrator of the FAA to further economic - not safety - goals. And it did just that, allowing American to fire its older pilots in favor of hiring younger pilots who were cheaper to train, and providing a nice post-retirement job for the Administrator.
Interestingly, the Air Line Pilots Association vigorously attacked the Age 60 Rule during the first twenty years of its existence. Between the years 1959-1979 ALPA was committed to the rights of all pilots to remain employed, and repeatedly challenged the FAA in court. These efforts failed, of course, not because they were without merit, but rather because of the carefully crafted position of the Rule under the governance of Section 601 of the Federal Aviation Administration Act.
When ALPA demographics changed in the 1970's with the introduction of young pilots as flight engineers, ALPA's official position changed to reflect the younger pilots' ambition to move swiftly to the left-hand seat. Whereas once ALPA had championed the rights of all pilots to fly, they now reversed their course and advocated for forced retirement of pilots at age 60, a decision based on economics and not safety.
As you well know, the medical literature is replete with studies showing the exceptional health and longevity of airline pilots worldwide compared to general populations. It is well documented that the risk to passengers of airline pilot incapacitation is negligible. There are valid and readily available mechanisms in use today to document the flying skills and cognitive abilities of pilots of all ages, though these are absolutely denied to pilots age 60 and older because of the Age 60 Rule. Medical testing programs, routinely used to return arguably unhealthy younger pilots to flying status, are absolutely denied the healthy pilot age 60 or older because of the Age 60 Rule.
In addition, the FAA's own studies show the excellent safety record of older pilots. In 1993 the FAA's Hilton Study showed not even the slightest hint of increased accident risk as a pilot approached age 60 and recommended that the age could be increased to 63. In 2000 FAA researchers determined that among pilots with an Air Transport Pilot rating and a Class 1 medical certificate there was no difference in accident rate among any pilot age group. The pilots aged 60-63 were as safe as any younger age group.
The Age 60 Rule is not a safety standard. It is age discrimination in commercial aviation.
It is time for the United States to follow the lead of forward thinking nations around the world who have broken through the arbitrary age 60 barrier. Your efforts in this regard are entirely appropriate.
Sincerely,
Robin Wilkening, MD, MPH
410-499-5618
web designs by RESCO Solutions
©2000 RESCO
Solutions. All rights reserve