Age60Rule.com

History - Analyses - Expose'

a non-profit educational and research resource

Policy Statement

Menus by subject area:

Current Events:

PPF Funded Petition for Exemptions

ICAO Developments

Woolsey DQAct Complaint & Docket

Age60Rule.com FOIA Requests

Legislative Actions

Other Archives:

History

Analyses

Expose'

A short list of documents available for viewing and downloading from the Expose' window:

1959-1984 The Reighard Files
1983 Golaszewski Flight Time Study
1984 Austin-Mohler Correspondence
1989 GAO Report
1990 OTA Study
1992 Consolidated Database Study

And more

= = = = END = = = =

 

*** UPDATE Dec 5, 2009 ***

Samuel D. Woolsey passed away unexpectedly last summer.  He worked hard and spent countless hours documenting the Age 60 Rule and for this reason we, his family, have kept this website up for the past 18 months.  However, the information will not be updated and the site will soon be taken down.  If there is information and/or documents that you want from this site, please save them now.  If you find this resource useful, without updates, please send me an email.

 

David Woolsey e-mail me

Sam’s son


Send comments, corrections, criticisms by e-mail to Update!

  NEW IN THIS REVISION

  NOTICE:  The "time frame" for document submissions in the SPC appeal in the DC appeals court have been delayed by 2 weeks. The initial SPC brief is now due on June 26. All subesquent filing dates as shown on the DC Court of Appeals Order of April 24 are similarly extended.

  NOTICE:  On June 25, Professor Turley will brief selected members of Congress, their staff, and media representatives on the [un]constitutionality of Public Law 110-135 (H.R. 4343). The briefing is by invitation only and will be in the Russel Senate Office Building, Room 253, noon to 2 P.M.   Announcement

  ADDS:  Professor also addressed a 6-page letter to House Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer explaining why a legislative solution to Pub. L. 110-135 is preferred.   Jump

  ADDS:  A letter from DOD suggesting another avenue of relief for age-displaced pilots who are also veterans.   Jump

  RETAINS:  Notice of Seniors and Veterans Charity Golf Tournament   Jump

  RETAINS:  SPC Update of June 1, 2008   Jump

  RETAINS:  CAP (Oksner v Blakey class action suit) Update of June 4, 2004   Jump

  RETAINS FYI:  Comments by Paul Rodgers, a former US Airways Pilot now flying for COPA Airlines (Panama)   Jump

Litigation Histories Now on a Separate Page
    
The Senior Pilots Coalition (SPC) Waiver requests and Appeal sequence is presented and kept up-to-date on a separate page:
Jump
     A litigation history for the Oksner v Blakey class action constitutional challenge to the age 60 rule is being prepared. Will appear shortly.

    CONTENTS BY SECTION:

    Previously Loaded Items
    
Recent Reader Views
  
A Brief Historical Review:
    
Playing Catch-Up
    
The Triggering Event
    
Initial FAA Response
    
Some Early History
    
Developing the ICAO Standard

      NEW IN THIS REVISION


  Turley letter on [un]constitutionality of Pub. L. 110-135
The risk expressed by Professor Turley here is that the punitive ALPA/Oberstar H.R. 4343 could backfire with a judicial prohibition of Congress' ability to enact retroactive and restrictive legislation generally, and more specifically, legislation that is directed against a uniquely identifiable person or group.
     Turley letter to Pelosi & Hoyer.
    [EdComment: If this doesn't get Congress' attention, nothing will.]
Return to Top


  DOD Letter on the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act
Responding to a direct request, DOD reveals yet another approach for challenging forced retirements under the "age 60 rule."
     DOD Letter on VEOA.
    [EdComment: For much too long, recognition that an overwhelming majority of forced-to-retire airline pilots are veterans was missing.]
Return to Top


Notice of Seniors and Veterans Charity Golf Tournament.
As the vast majority of pilots forced out of work by the Age 60 Rule are/were military veterans -- Viet Nam, Gulf War 1, Iraq, Afghanistan -- the SPC early-on enlisted the support of many of the veterans' organizations in their struggle. One result comes now to fruition: the 1st annual Seniors and Veterans Annual Golf Classic!
     Seniors & Veterans Golf Classic Information Brochure.
     Golf Classic Registration Form.
    [EdComment: If you ever a thought that this legal challenge would run out of steam because it would run out of money -- then Think Again! This effort is here for the long haul - and picking up powerful sponsors and co-sponsors along the way. Make no mistake about it, the "establishment" has its work cut out for it.]
Return to Top


  SPC Update of June 1, 2008.
As the date for the first of Petitioners' written briefs approaches (June 11) and a second national news briefing approaches (June 25), Lew Tetlow provides another Update for the SPC's petitioner pilots. Nother point made here is that the SPC did not place H.R. 4343 into contention in their proceedings - FAA/DOJ did that. Further, Lew makes the point that the SPC is not challenging the whole of H.R. 4343, only its unlawful portions.
     SPC Update of June 1.
    [EdComment: Lew is correct when he states that it was the DOJ (representing the FAA in court), not the SPC, that placed H.R. 4343 before the D.C. Circuit. It is because the FAA/DOJ placed the law into play, that SPC is obligated to respond. And if you have a problem with that, talk to ALPA, the FAA, or APAAD about it..]
Return to Top


  CAP (Oksner v Blakey class action suit) Update of June 4, 2004.
As the final filing dates for the CAP appeal approach, Micky Oksner presents an update for the named CAP petitioners.
     CAP Update of June 4.
    [EdComment: Recall that, unlike the SPC challenge, this is a class action suit, so any pilot that fits the class criteria is a potential beneficiary.]
Return to Top


  Comments by Paul Rodgers, a former US Airways Pilot now flying for COPA Airlines (Panama).
An amalgum of statements by Paul on flying for COPA in Panama. Not bad, at all!
     Rodgers' Comments.
An earlier recruitment letter from Barbara Freeman, U.S. COPA recruiter can be seen below.
    COPA Recruitment Letter
Return to Top

      PREVIOUSLY LOADED ITEMS

May 22 National Media Briefing on the SPC Challenge to Oberstar's H.R. 4343
    At 11:a.m. on May 22, the Senior Pilots Coalition held a phone-based national media breifing (with full Q&A) on the status of their legal challenge to Congressman Oberstar's deceptively titled "Fair Treatment for Experienced Piots Act," P.L. 110-135. According to the SPC, fewer than 60 of the 3.000 pilots forced out of their jobs by the FAA's Age 60 Rule and now stripped of their rights by H.R. 4343 have been re-hired by their airlines while others have been forced to find work with foreign carriers in such remore and often Third World places such as Kazakhstan, India, and Panama.
No fewer than 11 print and 9 telenews entities are reported to have participated.
    Press Release on the SPC Media Briefing:.
The hour-long briefing can be heard by accessing the:
    Senior Pilot Coalition's website,
Or directly through an:
    Audio Recording of the Briefing

Return to Top


SPC (Tetlow) Update of April 28.
    Here Lew Tetlow announces to the SPC members that the Appeals Court has scheduled briefs on the FAA's Motion to Dismiss. This is not, as Lew states, a denial of that motion. It announces, instead, the willingness of the Court to consider the constitutional challenges to H.R. 4343 raised by Professor Turley in his opposition to that motion. Make no mistake about it -- this is a major victory for Turley and the SPC.
     Tetlow Update of April 28.

Return to Top


New COPA Airlines (Panamanian) Employment Opportunity.
     Barbara Freeman, US Recruiter for COPA Airlines announces new interview dates and classes.
    New COPA Employment Notice.
Return to Top


SPC Update of Feb. 11, 2008.
     Published 10 days before the FAA moved to dismiss its appeal, Tetlow informs of a new emploument opportunity (747-400s) and discusses continuing efforts to correct the injustices of H.R. 4343 legislatively.
    SPC Update of 02-11.
Return to Top


The SPC Expands on its coming legal challnge to H.R. 4343 -- Adds a memorandum by Professor Turley in explanation.
    As announced earlier (SPC Update of 12/12, below) this is an expanded challenge that will seek to overturn all or parts of H.R. 4343 on Constitutional grounds.
    Professor Turley will also lead this new effort which will be open to all pilots, whether previously aligned with SPC, APAAD, SWAPA, another, or none.
    The Update also advises that the existing SPC petition to the FAA for waivers (currently on appeal) will continue.
    SPC Update of January 5, 2008.

    This more recent Update reemphasizes that the coming litigation is open to all -- not just the adversely affected pilots -- and urges all to participate. Adds the memorandum by Professor Turley.
    SPC Update of January 12, 2008.
    Memorandum by Jonathan Turley.

    Gene Carswell, lead plaintiff in the Carswell v ALPA, US Airways Group, AFL/CIO suit previously endorsed this proposed litigation, and also urges others to join.
    Carswell Endorsement.

Return to Top


President signs H.R. 4343
    On Thursday, December 13, 2007, the President signed H.R. 4343, the "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act," which raises the mandatory retirement age from 60 years to 65 years for pilots serving on commercial passenger flights within the United States, and for captains in internationl operations where another required crew member is under 60 -- i.e., 65/60.
    The law also denies retroactivity for pilots turning 60 before the law's effective date (December 13, 2007), as well as access to any employment law forum -- contract, grievance, court -- in which a challenge to this denial could be pursued.
    H.R. 4343 as signed.
    [EdComment: As I said before, the onerous no-return and immumity language of H.R. 4343's Section (e) will lead -- is leading to -- recriminations and lawsuits that are likely to continue for years.]
Return to Top


Comment by Atty. Bothwell, attorney of record in Oksner v Blakey.
    Noting that the immunity included in H.R. 4343 denies any/all challenges brought under employment laws or regulations only (i.e., protecting carriers and unions from challenge and/or suit, but not the government), Bothwell opines that as the Oksner suit is not brought under employment law, but seeks damages from the government and certain past and present FAA officials on Constitutional and other grounds, it will not be affected by H.R. 4343.
    Oksner Update.
Return to Top


The SPC is preparing to challenge H.R. 4343 on Constitutional grounds.
    Unlike th SPC's previous requests for waivers, this is a new challenge that will seek to overturn part or all of H.R. 4343 on Constitutional grounds. Professor Turley will lead this new effort which will be open to all pilots, whether previously aligned with SPC, APAAD, SWAPA, another, or none.
    Latest SPC Update.
Return to Top


Senator McCain on ALPA and 65/60 Legislation.
    A correspondent relates this exchange in a New Hampshire campaign event:

    Last Friday I had the opportunity to partake in a Town Hall Meeting in New Hampshire with Senator McCain. Sen. McCain spoke at length about veterans' issues; so in the Q&A portion I asked about the Age 60 issues as it pertains to the denial of veterans' rights. His answer was honest and to the point. It was repeated three times. The age change will not happen until ALPA is willing to let it happen. In the final analysis that may or may not be the end result, but it was [Senator McCain's] honest opinion and reflects [ALPA's] financial power within the Congress.

    [EdComment: "He repeated it three times." If there is anyone out there that still doubts ALPA's power in the Congress, their head(s) are either in the sand -- or outer space. No sooner did the "pro-change" forces (APAAD, SWAPA, S'West) join with ALPA in the ARC panel to support "prospective only," than ALPA turned and bit them in their collective "rears" -- or was that the original plan?

In any event, view a most onerous part of the ALPA/Overstar handiwork in the next entry, below. Accompaied by three of ALPA's public claims of authorship.
]
Return to Top


The ALPA/Oberstar Disenfranchising and Immunizing Language.
    It is common knowledge that the language disenfranchising pilots forced to retire after ICAO's November 23, 2006 and the effective date of legislation overturning the FAA's age 60 rule, and immunizes all those who join in that scheme was inserted into Rep. Oberstar's H.R. 2881 (as well as in other pending legislation) at the behest of ALPA. And is now being championed by APAAD activists.

    Here is some of the most onerous and restrictive of that language:

[Oberstar's H.R. 2881] (e) Applicability-
  (1) NONRETROACTIVITY - No person who has attained 60 years of age before the date of enactment of this section may serve as a pilot for an air carrier engaged in covered operations unless--
      (A) such person is in the employment of that air carrier in such operations on such date of enactment as a required flight deck crew member; or
      (B) such person is newly hired by an air carrier as a pilot on or after such date of enactment without credit for prior seniority or prior longevity for benefits or other terms related to length of service prior to the date of rehire under any labor agreement or employment policies of the air carrier.

  (2) PROTECTION FOR NONCOMPLIANCE - An action taken in conformance with this section, taken in conformance with a regulation issued to carry out this section, or taken prior to the date of enactment of this section in conformance with section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect before such date of enactment), may not serve as a basis for liability or relief in a proceeding before any court or agency of the United States or of any State or locality.

    Oberstar's Paragraph (e) to download and print.
     All of H.R. 2881's Section 301 "Age Standards for Pilots".
    ALPA's May 7, 2007 "conditions" for embracing change.
    ALPA's News Release of May 24, 2007."
    Another ALPA boast.

    After passage of Section 301 as stand-alone H.R. 4343, Oberstar's spokesperson confirmed that "In order to get this bill done, we needed the airlines' support and the support of the airlines allies in Congress [that is: ALPA]." (Roll Call, Dec. 17, 2007, p. 12, last paragraph.)
    Roll Call, Dec. 17, 2007 - p. 12.

    [EdComment: As congress is mired in gridlock and winter recess approaches, information reaching this reporter boasts that active APAAD members are aggressively -- frantically, as some begin to see themselves "timing out" -- lobbying political and veterans groups to press Oberstar for legislative movement on 65-60, but without disclosing the disenfraching and immunizing language in his all other available Bills. ]
Return to Top


In a 1989 Hearing, Senate Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Aviation:
    After military spokespersons, including the Commanding General of the Military Air Transport Command, testified in a Senate hearing that, in 1989, the commercial airlines' hiring of military trained pilots was then draining the military of pilots to the extent that it threatened to compromise national security, ALPA president Henry Duffy said NO to ANY relief on the age 60 rule. ALPA was not willing, even in the interest of national defense, even to consider a limited program with a small number of pilots to fly past 60 even for a couple of years.

    "Senator McCain: ... General Cassidy, Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Transportation in MAC, testified before the Committee on which Senator Exxon and I serve as saying the shortage of pilots is a war-stopper. A war-stopper, I might remind you, means that we cannot fight because of our lack of military pilots. . . .

    "I know that amongst the members of ALPA this subject of extension of age is a very controversial subject . . .

    "Just explore with me . . . some kind of a 'test pilot' program, taking a number of pilots that would be interested in remaining a couple of years . . .

    "Would you be willing to at least explore something like that with me . . . ?

    "Mr. Duffy: ... As I told you when we discussed this before, it is my feeling and the feeling of our Air medical Office that when we opened this question the additional physical requirements that are going to have to come with it, starting at age 55, or whatever - at age 50 - and the inaccuracy of the predictive nature of the tests, are going to expose pilots to being eliminated prior to age 60 . . . ."

[Hearings: Pilot Supply and Training, Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 101st Cong, 1st Sess. S.Hrg. 101-307, August 3, 1989, at 49-50. See also the testimony of Karen Kessling (pp 7-9) and the exchanges btween Senator Ford, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Hoff (VP Flight, American Airlines - pp 46-49).]

Even in the face of a declared threat to the national security, the entire Senate panel accepted Duffy's refusal without a whimper! And on what basis? That added medical requirements MIGHT disqualify SOME of the union's medically unfit pilots UNDER 60.

    [EdComment:In almost two decades of research, I've seen nothing that even remotely suggests a motive other than protecting and promoting the unhindered career progression of its younger pilots to justify the unwavering national ALPA policy of 60 as the upper age limit for airline pilots. And as this exchange shows, no waiver and no compromise, even when challenged on the basis of military readiness and national defense.

The fly in today's ointment, however, is an ICAO unintimidated by either ALPA or the FAA. And ICAO's Article 33 that requires that the U.S. accept carriers and pilots into our airspace and airports from all over the world if they meet ICAO's standards -- not ours.
]
Return to Top


ALPA's 65/60 language in the final TTHUD Conference Report.
    Here is the "age 65" disenfranchising and immunizing language in the final House-Senate conference report for the Treasury, Transportation & HUD Bill (H.R. 3074 TTHUD Conference Bills) as released Nov. 15.
  I note two important changes in this final conference version.
  •   H.R. 3074 immediately overturns the current rule by legislative fiat. Implementation does NOT require the FAA to do a rulemaking. See paragraph (d).
  •   A paragraph on safety (h) is added. This paragraph includes the requirement for an FAA evaluation of training and line checks @ 24 months from passage, in addition to those required by ICAO in the ICAO revision.
    Age 65/60 language in the TTHUD final Conference Report.
    [EdComment: Every iteration of this "prospective only" language becomes ever more exclusionaly, mean spirited, and protective of the powerful, well finaced and vested interests -- ALPA, APA, "status quo" companies, and the FAA, itself.]
Return to Top


SPC Update of Nov. 11 and Roll Call Ad.
    The SPC/PPF Update of 11/07, and Veterans' Day Flyer renders the issue as bold veterans issue!
    SPC/PPF UPDATE OF 11/07.
    SPC/PPF Veterans' Day Flyer.
    [EdComment: Playing off the Veterans' Day theme these are among the SPC/PPF's most vocal challenges. Conversely, APAAD and other supposedly "pro-change" groups are surprisingly quiet.]
Return to Top


October SPC/PPF Update
     Congress is deadlocked on funding (re-authorization) Bills for DOT and FAA. Continuing resolutions - with no resolution - are the order. And the FAA continues to stonewall on waivers. If you are about to "time out," you should get your waiver request in motion.
    SPC/PPF Update of 10/03.
    Second SPC/PPF Rollcall ad of 9/14.
    [EdComment: A recent article in the NYTimes reports that the historic practice of resolving differences in Senate and House Bills through "conferencing" is dead. What this means to "age 60" is that earlier statements of hope to strip "prospective only" language from those Bills in conference is also dead. In my view - those "hopes" were non-starters to begin with.]
    NYTimes Article of 09/26/07
Return to Top


ALPA (FedEX MEC) Claims Success in Oberstar Bill
    Line-by-line, point-by-point, the FedEx MEC's Communication Director, Brad Mahoney, reports on ALPA's success in securing each and every one of their "protectionist" goals in the Oberstar Re-authorization Bill. H.R. 2881. Actually, reports Mahoney, Oberstar was even more generous than ALPA had ordered.
    FedEx MEC Report of Oct. 4th.
    [EdComment: Such success is not particularly surprising - given ALPA's generous PAC contributions..]
    A 2007 report on ALPA's PAC contributions..
Return to Top


COPA Airlines 737 Captain Recruiting Notice
    Barbara Freeman, the US recruiter for COPA Airlines, gives contact information, interview dates, and training dates for 737 Captain new-hires. And a pitch for COPA as an employer.
    737 Captain Recruiting Notice.
    COPA Airlines: Our Company
    [EdComment: As I've said before, I don't want to become an employment bureau - but when info on "60-plus" flying comes my way, I'll pass it along..]
Return to Top


SPC/PPF Update
    ALPA's "protectionist" language -- no return and full amensty -- is in both the Senate (Rockefeller's Transportation reauthorization) and the House (Oberstar's FAA reauthorization). SPC President Lew Tetlow provides an update on progress and prospects for age change legisation.
    SPC/PPF Update of 09/23.
    [EdComment: As I see it -- it's a battle of wills between the FAA who wants Congress to mandate change (with or without return) and ALPA who wants no-return and legal protection on the one hand, and those seeking waivers, return, and damages -- through the courts, if necessary -- on the other. It will be a fascinating struggle to watch.]
RETURN to TOP


COPA Airlines Hiring Info
    COPA Airlines started as a domestic carrier in Panama. It is now a strictly international carrier. And apparently expanding. I'm told that the following recently appeared on the SWAPA website.
    COPA Hiring Comment.
    Link to COPA Homepage
    [EdComment: But news of employment opportunities are too valuable to be left in the dark..]
RETURN to TOP


MPL License Info
    The Multi-Crew Pilot License (MPL) is sanctioned by ICAO, but it is not an ICAO license. ICAO does not issue licenses. Minimal ICAO approved criteria for the new MPL are 18 years old and 240 hours total time, most of which may be in a simulator. The only authority granted is to fly as a co-pilot in a multi-crew aircraft. To my knowledge, the FAA has not adopted such a program, but must recognize MPL licenses properly issued by other ICAO member States.
    What is MPL? Reprinted from a recent PPF Newsletter.
    ICAO FAQ statement on the MPL.
    ICAO FAQ on acceptance of "foreign" licenses.
    ICAO Journal No. 3, 2007 --- NOTE: MPL info starts on Journal p. 15.
    [EdComment: Is this the "under 60" back-up for the aged, failling, and unsafe "over 60" captain?]
RETURN to TOP


FAA-to-Hayes on it's 65/60 Time-Line -- and Waivers.
    This is a series of e-mail messages providing a "guestimate" of the FAA's time-line for enactment of 65/60. Created in response to a request by Representative Hayes - sponsor of H.R. 1125.
    (FAA) Gilligan to (Rep) Hayes.
    [EdComment: The FAA's foot-dragging is as obvious as the final statement is illuminating.]
RETURN to TOP


Stevens' Amendment
    On September 12, the Senate approved a provision sponsored by Senator Sevens (R-AK) to allow pilots of U.S. registered carriers to fly until age 65, as do pilots of foreign registered carriers under the recently adopted ICAO Standards.
    Sen. Stevens' Amendment.
    Stevens' Press Release.
    [EdComment: This amendment was lifted in whole from Section 301 of the House FAA reauthorization Bill sponsored by Rep. Oberstar. Included in both are the protectionist provisions demanded by ALPA -- no return for pilots "timed out" by the present rule and total amnesty for union, companies, and government for their conduct and actions.]
See ALPA Demands & Oberstar credit.
Return to Top


Pilot Siegel Letter
    Another "over 60" pilot currently flying in foreign operations offers his view and advice.
    Miami based Bill Siegel.
    [EdComment: Of interest here is Capt. Siegel's identification of a "pilot job search" website.]
Return to Top


APAAD Waiver Request
    APAAD has now joined the chorus of requesters for waivers in advance of any change in the rule.
    APAAD waiver request.
    [EdComment: At an early APAAD estimate of 200 pilots/month being "timed out" by the present rule, we are now up to something like 2000 pilots recently out of work..]
Return to Top


Oksner v Blakey Filings
    The first order of business is to oppose the government's motion to dismiss the complaint. The second is to file an amended complaint to more sharply define the issues. The third presents the 6 exhibits offered in support.
    Opposition to Dismiss.
    Amended Complaint.
    Supporting Exhibits.
    [EdComment: My understanding is that the initial hearing on these motions will be held on October 16th. We'll keep you posted as the information comes to us.]
Return to Top


ExPat Letters
    Two recently retired US pilots, are now new-hires with two different Indian carriers -- Jet Airways and SpiceJet. In letters to friends back home -- and somehow crossing my desk -- both are upbeat about their situations and about ExPat flying in general. Both give their OK to republish here - together with their e-mail contacts.
    Marty Noonan at Jet Airways. Marty can be reached at marty_noonan@charter.net
    Lee Nelson at SpiceJet. Lee at nelsonbombay@aol.com
    [EdComment: Both letters speak of a 'DGCA issue' -- India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) concern that the US ATP is not valid at age 60 and above, even for operations in Indian registered aircraft. I understand that the FAA is in the process -- or has already -- given assurances that the licenses continue to be valid. Actually, as I understand it, the US age-60 rule is an operational restriction, not a limit on the license..]
Return to Top


FedEx MEC Report
    Continuing the recent ALPA tactical about-face on Age 60, FedEx's MEC explains the whys and hows -- and goals.
    FedEx MEC Report.
    [EdComment: Looming large in ALPA's new position is a long list of "must have" protectionist provisions. Credit is given to Representative Oberstar for including these provisions in his H.R.2881.]
Jump to View Sec. 301 of H.R. 2881, or:
Return to Stevens' Amendment
Return to Top

Decision in the Canadian challenge before the Human Rights Tribunal
     Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rendered its decision in the FLY PAST 60 challenge on Aug. 17. The Fly Past 60 coalition reports that the Tribunal now accepts the ICAO Standard [one pilot to 65] as the "normal" retirement age for airline pilots in Canada. And more:
Link to Canadian Fly Past 60 home-page. Check "Last Update."
Return to Top

Age60Rule.com letter to Senator Rockefeller suggesting 4 changes to Sect. 706 of his S.1300:
    This letter suggests four changes to Section 706 of S.1300, Senator Rockefeller's Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007. Three of the proposed changes address the "crew pairing" requirement in the new ICAO Standard. The last addresses the injury suffered by U.S. pilots forced into retirement between the effective dates of the ICAO rule change and that of this Bill, as well those of all other current Bills -- be they in the House or Senate.
Age60Rule.com letter to Sen. Rockefeller.
Sect. 706 of S. 1300.   [Note subsection (c).]
Sect. 301, H.R. 2881.
    [EdComment: Unfortunately, due to the promotional aspirations of younger pilots and those hoping to hang on as they near that fatal birthdate while FAA dithers, the need for a speedy enactment dominates in the public rhetoric and national press, while the far more compelling, huge, and long-lasting costs and complexities of crew pairing restrictions where not needed - in wholly domestic operations - are ignored. Representative Oberstar's Bill, H.R.2881, is the exception. But it, too, can benefit from adjustments.] Return to Top

Copy of International Brotherhood of Teamsters submission to the ARC Panel:
    The International Brotherhood of Teamsters Letter to the ARC dated November 9, 2006 appears as Appendix 24 in the ARC Panel's official Report to the FAA. Submitted by the "Pro-Change" Working Group.
IBT submission to the ARC Panel. A must-read!
    [EdComment: This IBT report is among the best -- if not the best -- essay on the origin and 47-year history of the FAA's rule, covering, as it does so well, the actions and motives of the principal players, as well as the evidence and argument offered in support. It is a "must read" for anyone interested in the subject.
    But note: The S.65 amd H.R.65 referenced in this IBT report refer to bills introduced in the 2006 (109th) Congress, not the current 110th Congress of 2007. And came before the FAA's declaration of a 2-year process for it to act, and "no waivers" in the interim.
]
Return to Top

Initial filing in the DC Circuit Court in Adams v DOT, FAA (SPC supported appeal from FAA's denial of waivers):
    This is but one part of Professor Turley's initial filing on behalf of the SPC supported action. Identifies the issues that he will raise in the petitioners' briefs.
initial Adams v DOT, FAA filing.
    [EdComment: Professor Turley's yet to come "Points and Authorities," setting forth the arguments he is to present, will prove to be most interesting.]
Return to Top

U.S. Pilot Flies into Miami on 61st Birthday:
    Lead attorney in Oksner v Blakey advises that former Southwest pilot Steve Jackson, of Sugarland, Texas, now flying for Panama's Copa Airlines, landed legally at Miami Internationial Airport on Sunday, July 22, his 61st birthday.
Bothwell/Oksner Press Release.
    [EdComment: Although Jackson turned 60 and retired before the ICAO effective date of November 23, 2006, this represents the best that "prospective only" and "no waivers" can get you.]
Return to Top

Oksner v Blakey update :
    Lead attorney in Oksner v Blakey reviews the public commentary being generated both by this suit and the ICAO harmonization issue generally.
Extract from The Bothwell Letter, Vol. IX, No. 1, July 15, 2007.
    [EdComment: Republished with permission of the author.]
Return to Top

Southern Air Inc. Requests Exemptions:
    On March 7, 2007, David Thiel, VP, OPS, requested exemptions from the current age-60 rule for Southern Air Inc, anticipating that five of its pilots would be forced into retirement before the FAA would/could complete the ICAO harmonization process.
Southern Air Inc. Exemption Request.
    [EdComment: Copy provided by Mr. Thiel, with permission to republish.]
Return to Top

Rep. Hastings' letter to Administrator Blakey :
    OnJune 28, Rep. Hastings and 15 additional co-signers urged Administrator Blakey to issue 1-year waivers to pilots currently turning age 60, and to adjust the FAA's age policy "to be consistent with the November 23, 2006 ICAO Treaty."
Rep. Hastings' and 15 co-signers' letter to Administrator Blakey.
    [EdComment: The information passed to me indicates that additional Congressmen are signing-on to this letter, and that more of a similar nature is yet to come.
    Together with Speaker Pelosi's earlier request for an individual waiver, this adds considerable pressure for adopting November 23, 2006 as the "effective date" for a new upper age limit.
]
Return to Top

Section 301 of H.R.2881: House Reappropriations Bill :
    On June 28, Rep. Oberstar introduced H.R.2881 to reauthorize appropriations for the FAA. Included is Section 301 titled "Age Standards for Pilots."
Sect. 301, H.R.2881.
    [EdComment: Congressman Obrstar's FAA reauthorization Bill is the only one that recognizes and addresses the costly and complex crew pairing issue.
    On the other hand, a legitimate question is who drafted subsections (e) and (h) -- Oberstar's staff or ALPA's legal team?
]
See immediately below, OR
Return to Stevens' Amendment
Return to Top

ALPA Now Officially Confronts Reality:
    Sensing that change is inevitable, ALPA national now officially abandons "safety" for "self-protection." Among its priorities:
  •  Prevent retroactivity for anyone and everyone turning 60 before the effective date of the change, "except active flight deck crewmembers" (e.g., former pilots now S/Os).
  •  No liability for carriers and/or unions: Expressly bars access to any federal, state, and/or local court or agency for any action for relief or liability, including any preemptive actions taken before the change(e.g., waivers, court challenges, EEOC complaints, etc.).
  •  Protect pension benefits
  •  Oppose additional age-related diagnostic medical tests
  •  Oppose greater access to pilot medical records
  •  Require 6-month medicals for pilots age 60+.
  •  Oppose "one pilot under 60" for domestic operations, and after data acquired, urge removal of requirement for all (international) operations.
  •  Pilot may retire prior to age 65 without penalty.
ALPA's May '07 Age 60 Resolutions.
Return to Top

Sect. 706 of S. 1300: Senate Reappropriations Bill:
    On May 3d, Sen. Rockefeller introduced Senate Bill 1300 (S1300) to reauthorize appropriations for the FAA for fiscal years 2008-2011. Sect. 706 of that Bill, presented here, is titled "Modification of FAA's Age-60 Standard."
Sect. 706 of S. 1300..
    [EdComment: Notice that paragraph (c) of this section is identical to that of Section 2 (c) of Inhofe's S. 65. Both deprive all pilots of their recourse to the time-tested and proven protections of grievance, arbitration, and, eventually, the courts if they reach age 60 before the effective date of any legislatively directed change in the upper age limit.]
Return to Top

Senior Pilots Coalition Update:
    The most recent Update (June 29) describing the Senior Pilots Coalition goals and activities.
SPC Update of June 29, 2007..
    [EdComment: You may wish to contrast this with APAAD's most recent Update, immediately below.]
Return to Top

APAAD Update:
    On June 14, APAAD sends an upbeat Update to the groups' membership. The major points are that Inhofe's S. 65 language has been included in the Senate version of the FAA Reauthorization Bill (Sect. 706 of S. 1300 -- see above), increasing numbers of co-sponsors (House and Senate), credits to individual activists, and, of course, criticism of ALPA's battlefield conversion.
APAAD Update of June 7, 2007.
    [EdComment: This update also recognizes that "When 200 pilots are losing their jobs monthly, "when" is a key concept." Given that, I find it difficult to understand APAAD's acceptance of the Sect. 706 (c) "Applicability" language barring the pilots' recourse to grievance, arbitration, and the courts if they reach age 60 before a congressionally mandated "effective date" (1600 pilots through July -- and growing) and are forced out of their jobs by the current rule.
    Understand -- eliminating this "Applicability" language does not guarantee that pilots forced out in the interim will get their jobs back. The language
does guarantee, however, that if opposed by either union OR employer, they can not even try!]
Return to Top

House Speaker Pelosi Letter:
    On June 5th, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a personal letter to FAA Administrator Marion Blakey requested an Age 60 Rule exemption on behalf of Capt. Donald Persky. In her letter, Speaker Pelosi notes Capt. Persky's excellent health, cognitive abilities, and his 20,000 hour accident/incident/violation-free flight record. Speaker Pelosi also urges the FAA to "rectify [its] policy of mandatory retirment," and asks that Capt. Persky's exemption "include command and second in command privileges for domestic as well as international flights."
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's exemption request.
    [EdComment: This is a really high powered recognition of the political imperative for the U.S. to grant the same privileges to U.S. pilots that it does to pilots of foreign carriers. The Speaker's personal request for Capt. Persky's waiver directly recognizes the inequity visited on the hundreds of U.S. pilots forced out of their jobs by the FAA's (and Congress') slow response to the long-heralded ICAO rule change!]
Return to Top

US Airways pilot initiates a class action suit against US Air, ALPA, and AFL/CIO:
    Gene Carswell, a US Airways pilot and long-time, active opponent of the age 60 rule recently initiated yet another class action suit to press for change. Although Carswell's initial filing (see below) was pro se (by himself), the pleading was prepared and will be prosecuted by an experienced discrimination attorney, Rosemary Dettling. (
Bio)
Announcement by Gene Carswell. (With link to his new website, www.age60classaction.com)
Carswell pro se Pleading.
    [EdComment: This is the third in a series of legal actions, each pursuing the same essential ends, but through slightly different means -- prompt repeal of the current age 60 rule, prompt adoption of no less than parity with the new ICAO rule, at no later date than the effective date of that rule, affirmative support by employers, and non-discriminatory representation by the unions. And damages for the injuries incurred through the continuing opposition.
    The narrow structure of this suit -- targeting Carswell's own employer and bargaining agent -- seems as if it could be adopted and adapted by pilots at other unsupportive carriers as well. It could also suggest to the less supportive carriers and unions that continued opposition to change, to parity, and timeliness might not be in their best intrests.
]
Return to 01-05-08 SPC/Carswell Announcemets
Return to Top

Earlier ALPA Movement Toward Realiy:
Observing the train moving out of the station, ALPA seeks to gain influence by getting aboard.
Earlier ALPA National Press Release.
    Other Earlier ALPA documents (for comparison).
ALPA 2007 ALPA FAST READ!
    [EdComment: One dramatic revelation in ALL of these documents is ALPA's loss of interest in safety. Indicative of that is ALPA's opposition to additional age-related medical tests for pilots and protection of pilot medical records.
    In a much earlier (2005) CQ WEEKLY article, for example, staff writer Kathryn Wolfe quotes an ALPA spokesman as saying
[ALPA's] support for the rule is rooted in its concern for safety. The specific issues identified by the ALPA spokesperson at that time were:
  •  whether pilots older than 60 present greater medical risks
  •  mental and motor skills decline as people age
  •  enough to make a pilot potentially dangerous.
Not so today, it seems. Not for the public's -- their passenger's -- safety, that is.]
Return to Top

Senior Pilots Coalition Update
On March 29, the Senior Pilots Coalition (SPC) filed three legal actions against Administrator Blakey and the FAA.
1.  A Writ of Mandamus to require the FAA to respond to the many petitions for waivers to fly past 59. Heard in the D.C. Dist. Court, Writ granted. FAA stated that it would deny all petitions. SPC preparing to appeal on behalf of their member/petitioners in the D.C. Court of Appeals.
2.  A motion for an Injunction to compel FAA to cease enforcing the age 60 rule as unconstitutional. Hearing held and motion denied.
  SPC has secured new counsel, Professor Jonathan Turley (Bio) of the George Washington University School of Law. Professor Turley moved to have the prior action vacated and it was granted. Will re-file at a later date.
3.  I have no information on the status of the suit against Blakey and the FAA for damages.

For more information on the Senior Pilots Coalition, and the status of these actions, visit them at::
Senior Pilots Coalition Website

Return to Top

Attorney Ray Fay letter:
    At PPF president Bert Yetman's request, attorney Ray Fay expressed his views on the several fronts in the current age-60 proceedings -- legislative, regulatory, and legal. This letter provides an additional perspective, and possible additional avenues for action, for those pilots reaching age 60 before a rule change becomes effective.
Attorney Ray Fay letter to Yetman.
    [EdComment: Mr. Fay has extensive experience, dating back to the late 1970s, litigating on "Age 60" issues.
    IMPORTANT NOTE: Page 2 of Mr. Fay's letter provides specific guidance on both individual and collective actions the "caught in the middle" pilots can and should take, now. This mirrors that of Cort dePeyster, just added.
    WARNING! On page 3, Mr. Fay notes that if Congress enacts the exclusionary/protective language of Sect. (e) (now Subsect. (c)), those exclusions/protections become
"the law of the land, and nothing can be done about it."]
Return to Top

Air Canada pilots' FLY PAST 60 Coalition Human Rights challenge:
    Canada has no national age limit for commercial pilots. The contract between Air Canada and its pilots' union, however, mandates retirement at age 60. A group of present and former Air Canada pilots have filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to have this contract provision found in violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Lengthy hearings were held from January - March 2007. A desision is expected before July. The Fly Past 60 Coalition presents a fabulous and informative website. Visit it NOW:
Canadian pilots' Fly Past 60 Coalition home-page.
    Once at their website, move to the Update page and scroll down to the Tuesday, Feb. 13 update. Appearing there is a discussion (and link to an ICAO FAQ webpage) regarding augmented crews and a new ICAO license for such flight - the Multi-Crew Pilot License (MPL). This is a new one on me!
Return to Top

A Class Action Suit against Blakey and other FAA officials over Age 60:
    On April 26th, Attorney Tony Bothwell filed a new Class Action lawsuit, Oksner v Blakey, naming Administrator Blakey, the present and former Federal Air Surgeons, the Director of Flight Standards, and 100 additional unnamed defendants, alleging that they, through their enforcement of the age 60 rule, have violated and are violating the plaintiffs' right to equal protection of the laws under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, and their rights under the ADEA, and seeking damages from each defendant therefor.
Bothwell News Release.
Oksner v Blakey Class Action complaint.
Return to Top

Woolsey (Age60Rule.com) Amicus brief in support of Butler et al. v FAA:
    In 2002, the PPF organized and funded a petition for exemptions from the age 60 rule. The petition was so powerfully presented that the FAA argued that it was not a petition for exemptions, but rather for rulemaking. So affirmed by the DC Circuit, PPF petitioned the SC for a writ of certoriari. I prepared and filed this brief in support of that petition for the writ.
Woolsey (Age60Rule.com) Amicus brief..
    Additional information regarding this earlier petition for exemptions, including the "petition," itself, can be accessed by selecting "PPF Funded Petition for Exemptions" under "Current Events" in the panel at left.
RETURN TO CONTENTS

Reader Views:

    Letters and documents relevant to these issues are too numerous to appear here, so I've placed them on a separate"Developing Views" page.
Reader Views on "2 years, no waivers, and no legal recourse."
    Comments from all sides of the issue are welcome. Additional letters will be added as they are submitted.
RETURN TO CONTENTS

Playing Catch-Up:

On Jan. 30, 2007 FAA Announced its intent to harmonize "age 60" with ICAO -- One Pilot to 65:
    More than 2 years after ICAO formally proposed its new Standard, more than 10 months after ICAO formally adopted
one pilot to 65, and more than 2 months after the ICAO rule became effective and the first foreign over-60 pilot landed legally in the U.S. -- Administrator Blakey announced that the time was now and it was the right thing to do, so -- sometime in the uncertain future -- the FAA would issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to harmonize the FAA's upper age limit with ICAO's. Administrator Blakey stated separately, however, that the process could take another 2 years, and no waivers would be issued in the interim.
Blakey Statement of Jan 30, 2007.

SENATE BILL S-65:
    On January 4th, 2007, Senators Inhofe, Stevens, Lieberman, and Fiengold introduced a new Bill to compel the FAA to embrace the new ICAO Standard. I attach a draft of Inhofe's floor statement, together with a copy of the Bill as introduced:
Inhofe Floor Statement.
Senate Bill.
Inhofe et al letter to Blakey of Feb. 28, 2007.

HOUSE BILL-1125:
    I'm informed that a bipartisan group of House members has introduced H.R. 1125 as a House companion to S.65. I'm told the language is the same as S.65.
RETURN TO CONTENTS

The Triggering Events

On November 28, 2006, virtually unnoticed despite a near half-century of unyielding US opposition, commercial aviation, worldwide, moved into a new era.

    On November 28, 2006, virtually unnoticed , El Al flight 001 landed at New York's John F. Kennedy airport with a 61 year old pilot, Capt. Dorion Cohen-Nov in command -- the first over-60 pilot, ever, to legally operate a commercial airliner in the U.S. Later that evening, 61 year old Capt. Cohen-Nov commanded El Al's flight 008 on its return to Tel Aviv, together with another 61 year old pilot as reserve cruise-captain -- but with America's (and the world's) safety assured by the much younger, pregnant female co-pilot actually at the controls.
    [Ed. Comment: From a world perspective this was no big deal, as 85% of the rest of the international aviation community was already there. It was a huge shift for the US, however, -- indeed, a tremendous setback -- because the FAA had spent the past near half-century (and ALPA & APA the past quarter century) arguing that safety could only be assured with "age-60" as the upper age limit. During this entire time, the FAA had prohibited America's pilots -- both captains and co-pilots -- from flying past their 60th birthday, world-wide, and similarly aged pilots of foreign carriers from flying into the US as pilots-in-command.]

The ICAO Vote.

    On March 10, 2006, following some 17 years of deliberations and debate, the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO's) governing Council, responding to the recommendiaton of its Air Navigation Commission, adopted, by a vote of 27-4-4, age 65 as a new upper age limit for air carrier pilots-in-command (PICs).
    This new Standard was to become effective on November 23, 2006, and provided that the older pilot: 1) could operate as PIC in multi-pilot crews only; 2) the co-pilot must be under age 60; and 3) the older pilot's medical certificate must have been issued within the preceeding 6 months.
    The effect of this new Standard would be that each of ICAO's 189 member States - including the US - irrespective of their own national rules and regulations, would have to accept these older pilots of foreign registered carriers into their airspace and airports as pilots-in-command.
    [Ed. Comment: It was under this new Standard that 61 year old Capt. Cohen-Nov and his crews of El Al flights 001 and 008 operated on November 28th.]

    Following this vote of March 10, and bowing to its obligations under ICAO's Article 33, the FAA advised that it would allow - and, as noted above, has already allowed - properly licensed pilots of foreign carriers to operate into the US as PIC, by now up to and including age 64.
    [Scroll down this large ICAO FAQ sheet to the item "Age Limit for Flight Crew " for Article 33's operative language, and an explanation of the obligation it imposes upon the US.]

    The new ICAO Standard came into effect on November 23rd, as scheduled, and on November 28, as noted above, the first of many 60-and-up PICs yet to come landed at New York's Kenedy airport, ushering in this new era in commercial aviation.
RETURN TO CONTENTS

Initial FAA Response.

     Six Months After the ICAO Vote: On September 12, 2006, six months following the ICAO vote, FAA commissioned an "advisory study group" to recommend whether it should adopt, and what actions would be necessary were it to adopt, this ICAO Standard into its own regulatory scheme. The group's recommendation was to be delivered w/in 60 days (i.e., by mid-November), just before the ICAO Standard was to come into effect.
ARC Charter.
ARC Tasking Order.
    The public comments submitted to the ARC docket (the more than 5750 of them) can be viewed by going to the DOT-DMS website and typing the numbers "26139" into the search box, then clicking on "search."
    [Ed. Comment : The final ARC panel split 6-4 against change. The cohesion and domination of ALPA, APA, and American Airlines in the "anti" group is clear (see : Report, p. 17), and suggests to this reporter the specific intent of the FAA when appointing the panel's members.]
(Unconfirmed) Retain Age-60 Position Paper. (6 pages .pdf format.)
(Confirmed) Pro-ICAO Standard Presentation. (31 PowerPoint slides in .pdf format. A HUGE 19MB file!)
ARC Panel Report ( (36 pages, .pdf format.)
    Note: Pages 18-21 of the report (pp. 23-26 of the .pdf file) reveal a better than 7-3 majority (72%) among the 5575 public comments favored change, virtually all for adoption of the ICAO standard.
    [Ed. Comment : From these numbers, it is clear that the ALPA, APA, and AA "anti" group were voting self- (not public-) interest. For shame!]
RETURN TO CONTENTS

    Some early History:

    Following the 1959 adoption by the US of its rule restricting both captains and co-pilots of US air carriers to age 59, ICAO debated the issue for another 12 years before deciding in 1972 to follow suit - but only for pilots-in-command (PICs) - and not to become effective until 1978, a delay of 18 years.

    In 1989 - some 11 years after the ICAO Standard had become effective - Chile, arguing that the rule was outdated, inefficient, and widely ignored, petitioned ICAO's governing body on an urgent basis to investigate the rule's validity and, if warranted, consider deleting it altogether. [Agenda Item 7, Assembly - 27th Session, August 15, 1989.]
Proposal by Chile   (6 pages.)
    The project was assigned to ICAO's Air Navigation Commission (ANC) as ANC Task No. MED-7101.
The ANC's first review   (5 pages. Requests a survey.)
Survey questions   (4 pages.)
Survey results and analysis   (8 of 20 pages. Remainder unavailable.)

    At the same time, the Flight Crew Licensing Committee of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) was entertaining a suggestion by the United Kingdom that in multi-pilot crews, one pilot should be allowed to fly to age 65. The UK supported this proposal with data on existing accident and incident experience, and by reference to simulator and epidemiological studies that demonstrated a safety record meeting or bettering the target of less than one fatal accident in 10m flights, with medical causes contributing less than 1 in 100m flights. [FCL Sub-Group on Medical Certification, Second Meeting, Paris, September 14, 1990. Copy on request.]

    In 1991, the Japanese Ministry of Transport allowed mdically qualified airline pilots to fly in nonscheduled operations to age 63. In 1966, the allowance was extended to scheduled operations. In 2000, a 3-year evaluation of these older pilots was published, concluding that aged pilots deemed medically qualified could do so safely.
[Miura, Y, et al. Three-year evaluation of elderly flight crew over 60 to 63 years old in Japan Aviat Space Environ Med 2000; 71:312-314.]

    In May of 1994, following a broad and searching review of the subject, the Industrial Relations Court of Australia, New South Wales District, held decisevily that less than 60 years old was not a necessary qualification as a Qantas airline pilot. [Christie v Qantas No. NI. 879 of 1994, Wilcox, C.J. Copy on request.] In his decision, Judge Wilcox observed:
    Given the amount of time and effort that has been expended in America examining the justification of [its] Age 60 rule, it is remarkable to say so; but it seems to me that none of the cited studies supports any conclusion about the relationship between that rule and aircraft safety.

    Also in 1994, the UK unilaterally adopted its proposal of one-pilot-to-65 rule. Immediately thereafter, the Flight Crew Licensing office of the UK/CAA (equivalent to our FAA) requested, on behalf of the affected pilots, age-waivers from all ICAO member States to or over which British registered carriers operated. The results (as updated in 2000) may be viewed here.
    [Ed. Comment : This in stark contrast to the FAA's decades long efforts to freeze the age limit for all. For example, in 1996, the FAA acted to extend its age 60 rule to pilots of regional carriers not previously covered (aircraft with 10-30 passenger seats), to become effective in 1999. (60 Fed. Reg. 65832 (Dec. 20, 1995)]

    In October of 1994, the ICAO Air Navigation Commission conducted a review of the medical basis for the rule, member State regulatory changes being considered and in progress, and the results of an earlier survey [State Letter AN 5/16-90/72, not available at this time]. This review that indicated that there was no clear medical basis for the rule, no accident record that wwould support it, and a majority of the responding States (31 of 57, or 53%) preferred a limit above age 60, with 65 the clear preference. (Ref. para. 4.3, p. 5.) Nevertheless, the ANC agreed with the Secretariat than no change was advisable at that time (1994).
October 1994 Report and Medical Assessment. .

    The following month (November, 1994), the ANC met again on this (and other business). The minutes of this meeting reveal a wide-ranging discussion of the issue, concluding with a request that another State Letter be sent soliciting the views of the member Stats.
Minutes of ANC meeting of 10 November, 1994.
State Letter of 10 March, 1995.

    The reuslts of the survey conducted pursuant to this 1995 State Letter were tabulated, reviewed, and summarized in early 1996.
1996 ICAO Survey and Results .

    Based on this later survey, the ANC noted that two thirds of the member States then operated with a de facto legal age limit of 63-65 years, and a clear majority would probably accept an age above 60. The Commission noted that the Secretriat then believed that increasing the upper age limit might be warranted. Nevertheless, the Commission again recommended taking no action until the European Union's Joint Aviation Authority (JAA) acted on its pending upper age proposal, but requested that the processes be closely monitored.

    Beginning in 1991, Israel's El-Al began allowing pilots to fly as cruise captains until age 65, then as PIC in 1997. As had the UK's CAA, El-Al sought waivers for its pilots from other ICAO member States into and over which it operated.
    The El-Al summary (originally sought in 1995, updated in 2000) reveals a 70% approval rate for PICs age 60 and over.

    In 1996, JAA did follow the UK example by adopting the rule of one pilot to 65 in multi-pilot crews, to become effective in 1999. [Currently: JAR-FCL 1.060]
RETURN TO CONTENTS

    ICAO Action Leading To the New Standard.

    In 2003, recognizing the breadth of the evolving international trend, and its obligation to report thereon (see 1996 survey and results, above), the Air Navigation Commission again revisited the upper age limit issue.
Oct. 28, 2003 Minutes of ANC panel leading to the State Letter . (pages 5-9 of 9 pages.)
    And a new survey via a 7-point questionaire was iniated with another State Letter:
2003 ICAO State Letter and Questionaire . (4 pages.)
    The data sought were the various States' existing age regulations, their actual practices, experiences with older pilots (if any), and their upper age limit regulatory preferences.

    The results of this survey were reviewed, tabulated, graphed, analyzed, and discussed on November 24, 2004.
ANC Review of Responses . (Nov. 24, 2004, 3 pages.)
Results Tabulated and Graphed. (18 pages.)
Age Preferences Graphed . (3 pages.)
Analysis and Secretariat's Comments . (10 pages.)
    Of 74 States responding, 63 (85%) reported a then current age limit above 60 (the most common 65), and 72 of 105 commenting States (83%) considered age 65 the most appropriate limit. As a result of this review, the ANC recommended that a revised upper age limit of sixty-five be adopted for 1) PICs in multi-pilot crews only; 2) where the second pilot was under 60; and 3) all pilots over 60 were to undergo a physical exam every six months, to become effective November 23, 2006.
    [Ed.Comment: The Secretariat's Comments appearing at pp. 2-3 and 8-10 present a rather frank and unflattering dismisal of all aspects of the US' (FAA's) near half century promotion of age-60 as a ecessary upper age limit in the interest of safety.
The ANC's Proposed Language . (2 pages.)

    The proposal advanced on November 24th was considered, debated, and acted upon two weeks later.
Minutes of December Meeting . (See pages 2-5 of this 7 page document.)
The earlier proposal (language and date of effctiviy) was accepted, with the proviso of a longer term examination be undertalen of alternate assessment varibles. A final survey via a new State Letter was requested.
    [Ed.Comment: As reflected in these pages, the strongest opposition, by far, was mounted by IFALPA. Action items appear at para. 22, pg. 5.

    The new State Letter, requesting comments on the proposed rule (including proposed language and effective date) was issued on February 25, 2005.
State Letter of 25 February, 2005 . (7 pages.)

    This second round of State responses was received, the State preferences tabulated, and State responses summarized later that year.
Final Review and Recommendation. (January, 2006, 2 pages.)
State Preferences, Tabulated. (2 pages.)
State Replies and Secretariat's Comments. (11 pages.)
    The decision was to pursue the one-pilot-to-65 rule, to become effective on November 23, 2006 as initially proposed, but to review of the rule 5 years after the date of applicability.
    [Ed.Comment:
The Secretariat's Comments appearing on pp. 9-10 continue its earlier rather frank and uncompromising rebuttal of the US' (as well as the French and IFALPA's) objections.
• The 5-year post-rule review was adopted largely in response to IFALPA's earlier strenuous objections. (See above.) And,
• The Secretariat favorably noted (p. 11) the Aerospace Medical Association's recent abandonment of its prior support of a medical basis for age 60.

AsMA Report . (23 pages w/ 9 pages of references, citing 88 source documents. See p. 14 for AsMA position statement.)

    The Air Navigation Commission's proposed amendment to the upper age limit was presented to the full Council on February 23, 2006. This was the same language as had been proposed in 2004.
Invitation to Adopt . (5 pages.)
    On March 14, the Council formally adopted the new upper age limit by a vote of 27-4-4, to become effective November 23, 2006.
Council Vote to Adopt . (2 pages. The vote on the upper age limit is reported in para. 2.)
    [Ed.Comment : I am advised that the US, France, Pakistan, and Columbia voted against the change, with the four abstentions being by Canada, Mozambique, Cameroon, and China.]
RETURN TO CONTENTS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Continuing ---

Air Carrier Incident Rates (per 1000 pilots)
Involving Air Carrier Pilots: 1990-1999

Under Construction

FAA statistics show that air carrier pilots aged 60 and over have a superior safety record as compared to other pilot age groups within either Part 121 or Part 135.
[As reported in Chicago Tribune, July 11, 1999.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The following links to Age 60 Rule special interest groups are provided:

Information opposed to mandatory age 60 retirements is found at:
PPF - Professional Pilots Federation
APAAD - Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination

Information supporting the Age 60 Rule is avialable at:
ALPA - Air Line Pilots Association
FAA - Federal Aviation Administration

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Documents identified with a .pdf suffix are Adobe Acrobat™ images. Acrobat Reader™ is available free from ADOBE.

Files with a .sit suffix have been compressed to improve download time. They may be opened with Aladdin's Expander™. Both MAC and PC versions are available free from ALADDIN.

Send your criticisms, questions and/or suggestons to the Age60Rule.com owner, operator, manager, and misspeller:
S. Woolsey

Return to Top

= = = = = = END = = = = = =