President Bush recently signed into law a bill raising the commercial pilots mandatory retirement age from 60 to 65. The legislation is known as the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act. “Finally, some fairness for our most experienced pilots,” said Rep. John Mica (R – Fla.), the ranking minority member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. A cosponsor of the legislation, Mica said, “With enactment of this law, we’ve changed a half-century-old age discrimination rule that has left skilled veteran pilots at a disadvantage to international competitors.”

Captain Charles Heid, who retired in 2005 after a career flying for United Airlines, is not convinced of the new act’s fairness hailed by Rep. Mica:

“On December 13, President Bush signed into law legislation that raised the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots from 60 to 65. At the airline from which I am now retired, there is a pilot, born 11 December 1947, who must retire. Another pilot born 13 December 1947 will be allowed to work until he turns 65.

“The pilot born 11 December will receive his pension from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation at a reduced rate because he will be considered to have retired early. The pilot born 13 December can work until he is 65 and get the maximum benefit.

“The name of this legislation is the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act. You can’t say our lawmakers don’t have a sense of humor.”

The enactment of this legislation brings the United States into line with the retirement standard adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in November 2006. Known as ICAO Amendment 167, the new rule on retirement allows pilots of commercial aircraft to keep flying past their 60th birthday and up to their 65th birthday so long as the other pilot in the cockpit is under the age of 60. This proviso, known as the over/under rule, was a compromise for purposes of unity and not a reflection of the medical necessity of having one pilot under 60 years of age. For the United States, this age pairing applies only to international flights; on domestic flights both pilots may be over 60. It is understood that the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) was instrumental in getting language to this effect into the bill. If so, it would appear that there is not still some concern about the capability of 60+ pilots. Of interest, ALPA was originally opposed to changing the age 60 retirement rule.

The new retirement law resolves an issue of international harmonization. As former Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) head Marion Blakey said last year, when she announced that the FAA would change the 60-year retirement rule in place since 1959:

“Under our current rules, we will have captains older than 60 carrying Americans on foreign carriers originating overseas, from countries such as Canada, Australia, Israel, Japan – about three dozen countries overall. They’ll be coming here, picking up Americans, and then flying them elsewhere. So you have to ask: it’s safe to fly with foreign pilots on our shores, but it’s not safe with our own?”

It could have taken up to two years for the FAA to complete rulemaking changing the retirement age. The Congressional legislation effectively shortstops the FAA’s lengthy rulemaking process and is effective within 30 days of passage. The bill brings to a close longstanding controversy and gridlock over pilot retirement (see the March 2006 edition of this newsletter in the archives section, at www.aviationsafetysecuritydigest.com).

What’s lost here is the opportunity to rationalize the flight time/duty time regulations, which do not guarantee adequate rest between flights and are in dire need of updating. Under the heading, “Reduce Accidents and Incidents Caused by Human Fatigue,” the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has declared this item one of its “Most Wanted” safety recommendations: “Set working hour limits for flight crews, aviation mechanics and air traffic controllers based on fatigue research, circadian rhythms, and sleep and rest requirements.”

NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker noted, “In December 1995 the FAA issued an NPRM [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] to update the flight and duty regulations for airline pilots; however, in the intervening 12 year, the regulations have not been revised.”

The FAA has told the NTSB that it plans to address fatigue through education and training.

As in the case of retirement, there is a long history of FAA inaction, obfuscation and outright resistance to change.

Based on personal experience of the author (age 63), lack of adequate rest results in a greater propensity for error on the job. To be sure, if flight and duty time rules were changed now, the under age 50 set might say the changes were done to accommodate the older pilots. As one pilot said confidentially, “Some of these guys are hard core; they’d rather fly around dead tired with age 60 still in place.”

This quip aside, one would have hoped for a “grand bargain,” in which an increase in pilot retirement age would have been coupled to legislation updating the flight time/duty time allowed for pilots. By focusing on the former and not the latter, we now have the prospect of older pilots flying draconian schedules that will likely worsen fatigue.