Note:
The Age60Rule.com (Woolsey) archives were made available for the preparation of the Butler et al petition for exemptions. As a result, certain writings and other analyses by Woolsey were incorporated into their petition. Neither Woolsey nor Age60Rule.com are participants in the petition, however.
Butler et al Petition
In early 2002, the Professional Pilots Federation began to organize and fund a new petition for exemptions from the Age 60 Rule. The petition was filed on behalf of 10 named pilots and their employers on June 10, 2002, received by FAA on June 13. BUTLER et al PETITION. (.pdf 180 Kb.)
The Butler petition challenges the safety rationale for the FAA's 40-plus year refusal to grant a single exemption from its age 60 rule. The essential argument is that, contrary to the FAA's past assertions, the underlying rule is not now, and has never been a device in the interest of safety, thus exemptions from the rule will not compromise safety. Petitioners allege that the FAA enacted and has maintained the rule--together with its unwritten policy of "no exemptions, ever"--for the past 40-plus years as a labor management tool, and for other administrative and corporate interests.
A short amendment correcting the date of submission and other errata was submited on November 18. 1st Amendment dtd. Nov. 18, 2002 (.pdf 12 Kb.) A second amendment was submitted on June 13, 2003, the one-year anniversary of its original filing. This amendment reminded the FAA of the year-long delay, reported a change in address for Bothwell, and alleged other deficiencies in FAA's response. 2nd AMENDMENT to Petition, June 13, 2003 (.pdf 16 Kb.)
Because of the extensive delay by FAA, several of the petitioners had already reached, and others were approaching age 60. If all petitioners were to age past 60, leaving non still employed, FAA could possibly "reject" the petitions without "denying" them, arguing that they were now moot. To preclude this possibility, Bothwell submitted yet a 3rd Amendment on August 20, 2003, adding two pilots still under age 60--thus still viable petitioners. 3rd AMENDMENT to Petition, (.pdf 12 Kb.).
On October 6, 2003, sixteen months after it had been filed, FAA denied all the requested exemptions. The FAA justified its denials with 4 basic assertions 1) the long (40-plus year) history of prior judicial affirmations validated the reasonableness of the rule; 2) petitioners claims of dishonesty and bad faith had been previously examined by several courts and found insufficient to overturn agency judgment; 3) the petition was really a challenge to the rule, itself, and not for exemptions; and 4) the petitioners provided no "individualized" data for themselves on which to base the exemption sought. FAA Denial of Exemption dtd. Oct 6, 2003 (.pdf 40 Kb.)
LINK TO FAA DOCKET:
The entire FAA docket is at:FAA-2002-12501.
Note: By going there, however, you will leave the Age60Rule.com website, with the FAA's docket (links to all 6782 documents) opening into a new "window" on your computer.
Petitioners promptly filed notice of intent to appeal. Notice of intent. (.pdf 108 Kb.) Their initial Brief was filed in the court on March 10, 2004: Petitioners' Initial Brief. (.pdf 60 Kb.)
[Note: When I locate a copy of the FAA's Reply Brief, it will be noted and loaded here.]Petitioners had the last say with their Reply Brief. (.pdf 164 Kb.)
On September 24, the DC Circuit 3-judge panel denied the petition for review of the FAA's "Order" without oral argument. Denial. (.pdf 96 Kb.) Petitioners requested a re-hearing, or re-hearing en banc Request for Re-Hearing. (.pdf 184 Kb.) But were again denied, and the prior ruling affirmed. Second DC Circuit Denial. (.pdf 8 Kb.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Note: This is the end of the current update - Additional commentary will be loaded later.
MEDIA COMMENTS ON PPF PETITION:
Aviation Week & Space Technology
Report by John Croft, Transportation Editor - August 5, 2002 - p. 42
TIME (Sept. 30, 2002)
Is 60 Too Old? Commentary by Sally B. Donnelley
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The PPF petition incorporates a letter that this Webmaster (Woolsey) addressed to the president of the Aerospace Medical Association. This letter criticizes the Association for having allowed an FAA presentation of excerpts from a severely flawed FAA/CAMI study of pilot age and accident rates at its 2001 annual convention. Both the original study and the FAA presentation to the AsMA convention presented brazenly false and misleading "statistical proofs" that pilots over age 60 are less safe than those under that age. These representations were made despite the fact that the fundamental flaws underlying the data and statistical methodology that led to these false and misleading conclusions have been recognized -- even at the FAA -- and exposed, explained, and criticized for decades. The Woolsey letter (with many of its references -- also in .pdf format) can be viewed at:
WOOLSEY LETTER TO AsMA
(html version with links to footnotes and some of the attachments)
WOOLSEY LETTER(.pdf version, no links)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
COMMENTS/CRITICISMS Send corrections, questions, criticisms, and/or suggestions regarding this website to your Webmaster: S. Woolsey |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
= = = = END = = = =