I ask that my statement be submitted into the Record.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to make some brief remarks on an issue very near and dear to my heart…the FAA’s Age 60 Rule.

Mr. Chairman, I especially want to thank you and Chairman Stevens of the Full Committee for joining me as original cosponsors of S. 65, which would put an end to the arbitrary Age 60 Rule once and for all.

I also want to thank my colleague, Jim Gibbons, of Nevada, for offering the identical bill in the House.

I am 70 years old and I can tell you today that I’m the best pilot I’ve ever been.

It is my firm belief that there should be no age limit at all for commercial airline pilots, given the current medical criteria we have in place, as well as the hundreds of thousands of “man-years” of safe flying experience by pilots over age 60 around the world

Our neighbors to the north in Canada have no age restriction—is there anything inherently healthier about Canadian pilots?

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) stated in a recent report that there is no medical evidence to support an age restriction above 60 and has recommended that member states with an age restriction raise the maximum retirement age to 65.

Only 25 countries have an age limit of 60 or less, the United States and France are the only developed nations with limits that low.

I understand political realities will dictate that we will end up with some kind of age limitation, but it is critical that the limit at least meet our current national retirement age of 65 in order to close the gap in benefits that exists for a growing number of our most experienced airline pilots.

The news is full of reports of airline pension funds being terminated and turned over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

The legislation introduced by Congressman Gibbons and me will help alleviate this burden on the taxpayers and the airlines.

I also want to say that AARP supports our efforts—they believe like I do, that this is blatant age discrimination.

In a May 20th letter to me AARP stated:

“AARP is pleased to support…S. 65. The bill is an important step in recognizing that pilots should be judged on the basis of their individual ability and flying skills…AARP has long opposed the Federal Aviation Administration’s arbitrary rule requiring airline pilots to retire at age 60…”

I couldn’t agree more—the FAA’s Age 60 Rule IS arbitrary.

It was a political decision based on a labor disagreement—it has no basis in medical science and I think you will hear testimony today from the Aerospace Medical Association that backs me up.

Not only is the Rule arbitrary, it was implemented in 1960 when life expectancies were much lower—just over 69 ½ years—today they are much higher at just over 77 years.

Times were different when this Rule took effect—the Social Security retirement age was 65 and many people retired at that age because it was considered much older than it is now.

Today, people often work well past 65—many people in the Senate are past age 65, including myself—these later years working can be the prime of a person’s career.

As a matter of fact, since the implementation of the Age 60 Rule, numerous studies have shown that pilots over 60 are as safe—if not more safe—than their younger counterparts.

I’m sure some of the pilots testifying today will tell you that there are strict medical and proficiency tests already in place to ensure only the most qualified pilots are flying commercially.

Mr. Chairman, we need this legislation to allow our most experienced pilots to keep flying—those who have proven their skills over many years.

I look forward to working with you, Chairman Stevens and the Members of this Committee to move legislation to end the FAA’s Age 60 Rule onto the floor of the Senate and to the President’s desk and ask that you use S. 65 as a vehicle to do so.

Please view our archived webcast of this hearing for Senator Inhofe's complete statement as delivered