Prior to 1960, no maximum retirement age existed. Although it’s a colorful story, ripe with questionable political ethics, the maximum retirement age for U.S. pilots operating in a Part 121 environment was arbitrarily established at 60 and remained so for 47 years until it was changed to 65 in 2007. //
In 1959, the CEO of American Airlines, C.R. Smith, publicly convinced the first FAA administrator, Elwood Quesada, that after age 60, pilots begin to suffer disqualifying medical issues, notwithstanding being significantly challenged in the transition from props to jets. No substantive studies, medically or otherwise, were presented for such arguments. Privately, Smith was simply attempting to reduce the number of higher-paid older and more senior pilots.
It would seem that the same strategy of a medical argument is repeating itself in the current environment. Although some truth exists as to aging pilots succumbing to more ailments and requiring the use of more sick time leave, past studies indicate that sudden incapacitation, such as a cardiac arrest causing an accident, is highly unlikely. Because of initial screening and continued FAA medical exam scrutiny, the airline pilot population trends healthier than the general population. As for cognitive skills, the argument has often been made that pilots who demonstrate successful performance during recurrent training cycles in a classroom and in a simulator are definitive proof of mental capabilities. //
One of the larger hurdles is the fact that ICAO rules still restrict pilots over 65 to fly internationally. But based on recent ICAO agendas, it would seem the organization is seriously considering lifting the ceiling. If ICAO’s research studies bear out that airline pilots’ above-average health does not pose a risk to the flying public even in cases of sudden incapacitation, why have a ceiling at all? Why establish another arbitrary age? //
Pilots flying under Part 91 and Part 135 operations have no age restrictions. They fly in the same environment as airline pilots, so the only justification seems to be that those operations put less people at risk per flight. With some exceptions, air traffic controllers still must retire at age 56. Why would a healthy controller be any different than a healthy airline pilot to continue on the job?
If airline pilot mandatory retirement age has no ceiling, recovery from sudden pilot incapacitation should be a training requirement. Recognition is key, especially during critical phases of flight like takeoff or landing. Perhaps as was initially instituted for age 65, a restriction for pairing pilots in the same cockpit at certain ages should be considered. Can the public, let alone airline pilots, embrace two 75-year-olds on the same flight deck? //
My argument for mandatory airline pilot age is simple. If no substantive study with accurate data quantifies a particular age whereupon medical and cognitive issues indicate enough of a decline to create a risk to the flying public, then why define another arbitrary age?
