Pilots Must Retire at Age 60, Court Rules
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago has upheld a 30-year-old Federal Aviation Administration rule that forces commercial airline pilots to retire at age 60.
The three-judge panel voted 2-1 Wednesday against a group of airline pilots who sought to have the rule overturned.
But all three judges voiced reservations about the ruling. The senior judge, Hubert Will, wrote a strongly worded dissent.
The FAA established the retirement rule in 1960 and has argued consistently that allowing pilots to fly beyond age 60 would be dangerous.
Critics say that pilots in their 60s have experience that benefits passengers and cite the 1989 crash of a United Airlines jetliner in Sioux City, Iowa, to back their case.
In that crash, a 57-year-old pilot landed a jet, despite a crippled hydraulic system.
While “safety is the dominant and controlling consideration . . . the FAA should not take this (ruling) as a signal that the age 60 rule is sacrosanct and untouchable,” U.S. Appeals Court Judge Richard Cudahy said in writing for the majority.
But Cudahy said there was insufficient evidence to overrule the agency’s concerns that older pilots pose health and safety risks.
Lawyers for the 30 pilots said they had not decided whether to seek a rehearing from the appeals court or to take the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Pilots older than 60 have twice as many accidents as those in their 50s, but they’re still safer than pilots in their 20s or 30s, according to a congressional report released last month.
The Office of Technology Assessment, which did the study, reached no conclusion on whether the Federal Aviation Administration should revise its regulation forcing retirement at age 60 for pilots on major airlines--those which operate planes with more than 30 seats.
No such requirement exists for corporate, private or commuter-airline pilots.
Last month the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Lockheed Corp. over the company’s requirement that its test pilots retire at age 60.
