aussiefly
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2006
- Posts
- 384
This is what Andy sent me and I basically sent an abridged version of this.
Dear Sir
I have a great deal of concern over S. 65, To Amend Age Restriction of Pilots. I have looked at many safety studies and have seen a direct correlation between accident rates and age among professional pilots. A pilot in his/her 20s is prone to accidents due to lack of experience. That moderates from a decreasing trend to a flat trend until the mid-50s, where the accident rate begins increasing again. The graph is U shaped, and the pilots in the 56-59 age group reach an accident rate nearly identical to those of the 30-33 age group. I urge you to read the FAA report that I have included a link to: (http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_3.pdf). Please note the graph on page 24.
As we age, our physical and cognitive abilities decrease. It is hard for us to look at ourselves in the mirror and admit it, but it is an indisputable scientific fact. Some of us age more gracefully than others, but as we mature, we all experience decreasing physical and cognitive abilities. Pilots are not immune to this fact, and the data from the FAA report (cited above) is indicative that the lines between increased experience and decreasing abilities crosses, on average, at the age of 55. In fact, I would speculate that pilot sick leave takes a large upward turn starting at age 55, an indication that the physical and cognitive demands of the job start taking their toll around that age.
Some will argue that we should simply increase our testing standards to eliminate those pilots no longer fit to fly. However, according to testimony by the Federal Air Surgeon, tests for physical and cognitive abilities are not readily available at a reasonable cost.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that we are living longer, healthier lives and it makes sense to increase the retirement age of pilots. But are we really? While the quantity of life (average lifespan) has increased, has the quality of life in our seniors improved? I would argue that the average lifespan has increased due to medical advances which prolong life, but fail to address the quality of life. We have seen statistics where the percentage of smokers has steadily decreased over the last forty years. But match that up with our obesity rate over the last forty years. The negative health effects of obesity are much less apparent to the naked eye, effects that strike viciously with no warning.
I have heard some say that the age 60 rule is discriminatory. The age 60 rule was recommended to the FAA by a medical board back in the 1950s. They based their decision on scientific reports available to them at that time. Upon review of the FAA’s 2003 report, it appears that they should have chosen age 55 as a safer retirement age. Unless there is a greater reason to change the age rule than safety, I would suggest that if any change were made, it should be changed to 55. At least there is scientific data to justify that retirement age.
Is there a pressing need to change the current retirement age, in effect lowering our safety standards? There is no current shortage of pilots; in fact, many major airlines (American, United, Delta, Northwest, US Airways) have pilots laid off; the number is in excess of 7500. That is more than ten percent of the professional pilot population. So there is certainly no shortage of highly qualified pilots available. Do we really need to rush forth and change a system that is not broken?
I have read that S. 65 has been attached to the DOT’s appropriations bill, as section 114. This provision was not included in The appropriations bill is now on the Senate calendar under general order number 535. I urge you to remove section 114 from the appropriations bill.
Dear Sir
I have a great deal of concern over S. 65, To Amend Age Restriction of Pilots. I have looked at many safety studies and have seen a direct correlation between accident rates and age among professional pilots. A pilot in his/her 20s is prone to accidents due to lack of experience. That moderates from a decreasing trend to a flat trend until the mid-50s, where the accident rate begins increasing again. The graph is U shaped, and the pilots in the 56-59 age group reach an accident rate nearly identical to those of the 30-33 age group. I urge you to read the FAA report that I have included a link to: (http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_3.pdf). Please note the graph on page 24.
As we age, our physical and cognitive abilities decrease. It is hard for us to look at ourselves in the mirror and admit it, but it is an indisputable scientific fact. Some of us age more gracefully than others, but as we mature, we all experience decreasing physical and cognitive abilities. Pilots are not immune to this fact, and the data from the FAA report (cited above) is indicative that the lines between increased experience and decreasing abilities crosses, on average, at the age of 55. In fact, I would speculate that pilot sick leave takes a large upward turn starting at age 55, an indication that the physical and cognitive demands of the job start taking their toll around that age.
Some will argue that we should simply increase our testing standards to eliminate those pilots no longer fit to fly. However, according to testimony by the Federal Air Surgeon, tests for physical and cognitive abilities are not readily available at a reasonable cost.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that we are living longer, healthier lives and it makes sense to increase the retirement age of pilots. But are we really? While the quantity of life (average lifespan) has increased, has the quality of life in our seniors improved? I would argue that the average lifespan has increased due to medical advances which prolong life, but fail to address the quality of life. We have seen statistics where the percentage of smokers has steadily decreased over the last forty years. But match that up with our obesity rate over the last forty years. The negative health effects of obesity are much less apparent to the naked eye, effects that strike viciously with no warning.
I have heard some say that the age 60 rule is discriminatory. The age 60 rule was recommended to the FAA by a medical board back in the 1950s. They based their decision on scientific reports available to them at that time. Upon review of the FAA’s 2003 report, it appears that they should have chosen age 55 as a safer retirement age. Unless there is a greater reason to change the age rule than safety, I would suggest that if any change were made, it should be changed to 55. At least there is scientific data to justify that retirement age.
Is there a pressing need to change the current retirement age, in effect lowering our safety standards? There is no current shortage of pilots; in fact, many major airlines (American, United, Delta, Northwest, US Airways) have pilots laid off; the number is in excess of 7500. That is more than ten percent of the professional pilot population. So there is certainly no shortage of highly qualified pilots available. Do we really need to rush forth and change a system that is not broken?
I have read that S. 65 has been attached to the DOT’s appropriations bill, as section 114. This provision was not included in The appropriations bill is now on the Senate calendar under general order number 535. I urge you to remove section 114 from the appropriations bill.
