In the course of debating a significant change to air transportation regulations, our goal should be, “First, Do No Harm.” Maintaining or increasing the current level of aviation safety must be the primary test by which any new regulation is judged. Economic and personal considerations should not be disregarded, but the annals of aviation and aerospace history overflow with examples of the false economy that results by giving safety a back seat to other issues. Safety concerns gave birth to the Age 60 Rule, and in the absence of compelling evidence for change, the federal government’s continuing commitment to aviation safety demands the retention of this important regulation.

I would submit that much of the current support for increasing the mandatory retirement age of airline pilots is an economic argument masquerading as an age discrimination argument. Along with most of our nation’s commercial pilots, APA pilots have also suffered the financial pains of an industry in turmoil. Despite this deep concern, we should not contemplate a change to the current retirement rule in absence of clear and convincing evidence that safety is not compromised.

Let’s be perfectly clear on one point – mandatory retirement ages are not discriminatory when tied to a bone fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). Both the U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have repeatedly denied challenges to the Age 60 Rule based upon this doctrine. Many other professions responsible for the public’s health and safety, such as law enforcement, firefighting, air traffic control, and even the military impose some form of mandatory retirement age. Recognizing this important public policy, Congress passed an exemption to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in 1996 allowing state and local governments to set mandatory retirement ages as low as 55 for public safety employees. It is simply good judgment for individuals in safety-sensitive professions to conclude their careers before the natural process of aging becomes a problem. We all recognize that whenever mandatory retirement is based upon a fixed chronological age, some workers may well be physically capable of continuing their careers for some unknown period. However, current medical technology does not provide a safe and reliable method to make that determination, and the use of a fixed chronological age has proved to be a fair and effective standard. Even the opponents of the Age 60 Rule tacitly admit this fact by merely requesting an increase – and not elimination – of the mandatory retirement age.

The question then becomes, “What IS the appropriate age for a pilot to retire before the inevitable effects of aging become too high a risk?” This question has been repeatedly asked, studied, and answered over the rule’s 46-year history. While opponents of the Age 60 Rule would accuse the FAA of ancestor worship, the reality is that as recently as 1994, the FAA made a significant rule change for certain commercial flight operations that actually reduced the retirement age for some pilots as part of its “One Level of Safety” program.

One of the most recent and comprehensive surveys of the medical basis for the Age 60 Rule was published in January of 2004 by the Aerospace Medical Association (AsMA), and I have included their report as an attachment with my written remarks. Let me quote a few of the key findings from the AsMA study:

Ø “Physiological studies consistently show age-related declines in hearing, vision, and motor skills.”

Ø “Pilot cognitive performance has been shown to generally decline with age.”

Ø “[A] recent simulator study of age and pilot performance found that increased age was significantly associated with decreased aviator performance.”

Ø “Increased pilot experience does not appear to alter the typical age-related decline found in many cognitive skills.”

While opponents of the Age 60 Rule regularly cite this same report as concluding that there is insufficient medical evidence to support pilot restrictions based strictly on chronological age, the study also demonstrates how incredibly difficult and expensive it would be to develop another set of criteria. Quoting from the study’s summary, “A transition to a criterion-based process for determining a pilot’s fitness to fly beyond age 60 would require extensive additional research. The economic burden on the FAA and corporations to develop a non-age safety basis for denying pilots continued employment could be significant.” Despite the report’s support for a shift away from an age based retirement standard, it presented no viable alternative with a substantiated capability to maintain the current level of aviation safety with available medical technology.

It is significant to note that a majority of commercial airline pilots support the existing policy. More than 80 percent of APA members supported the Age 60 Rule in a survey we conducted a few years ago. The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) recently reaffirmed its support for Age 60 retirement, and the FAA has stated its desire to maintain the status quo. I believe it would be a grave error to disregard the voices of those closest to the trenches in this debate. We are frequent observers of the very real impact of aging on pilot skills. While we know that nothing magical occurs at age 60 years and one day to make a previously competent pilot unsafe, we are also keenly aware of the inevitable impact of aging on pilot skill and the near impossibility of clearly defining the acceptable limit of that decline with current medical technology.

Our position is firm: The Age 60 Rule is a well-established safety regulation substantiated by medical science and reaffirmed repeatedly by the FAA and the Courts. Despite the apparent arbitrariness of using a fixed chronological age, the rule has actually performed its mission quite effectively for more than 46 years. We concede that there very well may come a day when conclusive data exist that supports a replacement for the Age 60 rule. However, that data does not currently exist, and the federal government’s commitment to aviation safety demands that the current rule be retained.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the 13,000 pilots that APA represents, and I will be glad to answer any questions.