Updated January 5, 2004

Age60Rule.com FOIA Requests

Important Note:
Neither Woolsey nor Age60Rule.com advocate for or against either the age 60 rule or others' activities in its regard. Our advocacy is for honesty, accuracy, and full disclosure in the dialog concerning, and information disseminated about, the rule. In that endeavor, Woolsey -- as an individual and as Age60Rule.com -- employs FOIA requests to secure information that personal contact, enquiry, research, and just plain old "snooping" fail to provide. Details of some of these requests are provided, below.

Skip directly to:
     Senate Appropriations Committee Order
     FAA re: Senate Appropriations Committee Order
     FAA/CAMI contract number 95P30661
     FAA/CAMI contract # 95P35886
     FAA re: the 1991 Golaszewski-2 Study

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

Request to the Senate Appropriations Committee re: fy 2000 budget "order":
In 1999, during its deliberations on the FY2000 budget, the Senate's Committee on Appropriations ordered the FAA to produce an analysis of age vs accident risk. By its specified data classes and analytical methodology, this protocol was certain to produce the false and misleading appearance of an increase in risk beginning at age 60, thus support the FAA's "safety" rationale for the age 60 rule.

Because legislative branch entities are not subject to FOIA requests, my search for the origin and evolutioin of this deceptively flawed "order" could only be by "request." A copy of my Febreuary 17th plea to Senator Ted Stevens (R,AK), current Chair of this Committee, is presented here:

Feb. 17, 2003 Request to Sen. Ted Stevens
(.pdf file, 4 kb)

As of December 3, 2003, there's been no word from either the Senator or the Committee. Not even an acknowledgement of receipt of the request.

Top

FOIA request to FAA re: the Committee's FY2000 budget "order":
Since the study as "ordered" by the Committee was certain to produce the same false and misleading, yet dramatic appearance of an increase in risk for pilots over age 60 as had the 1983 Golaszewski study -- in essence resurrecting and revalidating under new authority that discredited study -- it would be a windfall for those who would falsely promote the age 60 rule as a "safty" device. Siezing the opportunity, FAA produced not only the one study as ordered, but six (yes, 6) different but similar analyses, contained in four separate, stand-alone Reports.

This FOIA request seeks to discover from the FAA the origin and evolution of the deceptively flawed protocol ordered by the Committee -- as well as the rationale underlying the FAA's overly enthusiastic response. View copies of the FOIA request and Appeal here:

FOIA request to FAA re: Appropriations Committee "order" in S.Rep. 106-55
(.pdf file, 12 kb)

Appeal from FAA's denial of fee waiver (re: S.Rep. 106-55)
(.pdf file, 76 kb)

Top

FOIA request to FAA re: 1995 FAA/CAMI contract number 95P30661:
Between 1995 and 1999, FAA funded an aging study conducted by researchers associated with the Palo Alto (Calif) VA center and Stanford University. The study used a mix of general aviation pilots operating a stationary, Frasca "simulator" to assess COGSCREEN-AE as a battery that taps skills relevant to flying. A review of this study appearing in the April 2000 issue of Aviation, Space and Enviornmental Medicine suggests that the study and its findings are relevant to the age 60 rule.

This FOIA request seeks to determine why or how the FAA might consider that its funding for this laboratory experiment with general aviation pilots in a single-pilot, low fidelity, generic training device might deliver data relevant to the age 60 rule's air carrier pilot population and operating environment. View copies of the FOIA request and fee waiver denial Appeal here:

FOIA request to FAA re: FAA/CAMI contract # 95P30661
(.pdf file, 12 kb)

Appeal from FAA's denial of fee waiver (re: contract 95P30661)
(.pdf file, 84 kb)

To place this FOIA query in perspective, understand that part 4 of the the massive Hilton Systems Age 60 Project (Experimental Evaluation of Pilot Performance, January 1993, CAMI Contract DTFA-02-90-90125) was conducted with air carrier credentialed and qualified pilots operating a full motion, digital imagery, high fidelity, air carrier (B-727) type simulator, flying air carrier mission profiles of increasing comlexity specifically designed to test performance in "new and novel circumstances." Yet, despite a finding that these pilots' simulator performance as measured in flight deviations was not correlated with age (pg. 4-7), the researchers masked these results by stressing a correlation with negative "subjective evaluations." Furthemore, FAA dismissed this performance result -- the specific objective of the overall study -- in its later public discussions by ignoring this entire portion on pilot performance in favor of its post hoc manipulted Consolidated Database Experiments. (See bottom paragraph, page 1 of letter, Woolsey to FAA/CAMI's Pam Della Rocco. (.pdf file, 216 kb)

Top

FOIA request to FAA re: 1995 FAA/CAMI contract # 95P35886:
At aboout the same time FAA funded the aging study with general aviation pilots and a low fidelity training device to evaluate COGSCREEN-AE as a battery that taps skills relevant to flying, FAA also contracted for a research plan (contract 95P35886) for a longitudional study to extend the Hilton Systems COGSCREEN-pilot performance evaluations using multiple pilot air carrier crews flying air carrier profiles in state-of-the art, glass cockpit, high fidelity simulators. The stated purpose was to "[identify] a set of predictor tests that would reliably measure specific skills and abilities important to pilot performance and which can be successfully validated against a highly relevant creiterion measure of piloting performance." The study was not pursued beyond delivery of the contracted-for research plan.

The object of this FOIA request is to discover the purpose and motivation of both the original plan, and the FAA's decision not to follow through. View copies of the FOIA request and Appeal here:

FOIA request to FAA re: FAA/CAMI contract # 95P35886
(.pdf file, 12 kb)

Appeal from FAA's denial of fee waiver (re: contract 95P35886)
(.pdf file, 84 kb)

Top

FOIA request FAA re: the 1991 Golaszewski-2 Study :
In about 1990, FAA commissioned the author of the discredited, rejected and publication-refused 1983 Golaszewski Flight Time Study to perform another evaluation of age vs risk for general aviation pilots. If possible, this study is even more severely flawed than the 1983 study - particularly so for pilots with 1st class medical certificates. My FOIA request was submitted in an effort to learn more about the initiation of this study (and an earlier version than the one actually disseminated by FAA) and the selection of Golaszewski as the researcher.

To my surprise, the reply addressed the correct contract number (DTFA01-90-Y-01023), but did not recognize the existence of this particular study, and indicated that FAA had paid $22.5 millions on that contract. My appeal was an effort to resolve these uncertainties. View copies of the FOIA request and Appeal here:

FOIA request to FAA re: DTFA01-90-Y-01023
(.pdf file, 4 kb)

Appeal from FAA's denial of fee waiver (re: DTFA01-90-Y-01023)
(.pdf file, 8 kb)

Although the appeal was submitted to FAA more than two years ago -- March 29, 2001 -- the only reply I've received is one that says that, unless extraordinary circumastsnces apply, these appeals are processed in turn.

Return to Top

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

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

Top

= = = = END = = = =