In 1959 the FAA mandated, under the auspices of public safety, a regulation that requires the mandatory retirement of all commercial (part 121) airline pilots upon reaching the age of sixty. Specifically, the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Title 14, 121.383(c) states, “No certificate holder may use the services of any person as a pilot on an airplane engaged in operations under this part if that person has reached his 60th birthday. No person may serve as a pilot on an airplane engaged in operations under this part if that person has reached his 60th birthday” (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], 2002). This regulation was instituted by the FAA based on the potential for medical problems, which could become incapacitating to an older pilot. The purpose of this paper is to argue that Title 14, 121.383(c) of the Code of Federal Re

Quesada admitted in a letter to the president of Notre Dame University on April 12, 1959 that “There exists at present no sound scientific evidence that airline piloting, or any other aeronautical activity, becomes critical at any given age” (Chronology). Despite this, the age 60 rule continues to be justified by claims that the human factor of age leads to decreased performance in cognitive skills and an increased risk of pilot incapacitation from age related illnesses such as heart attack or stroke (Woerth). A study of contributing human factors to aviation crashes, utilizing data from the FAA and NTSB, concluded that although errors by pilots contributed to as many as 80% of crashes, “… the prevalence and patterns of pilot errors [does not] appear to change significantly as age increases from the 40s to the 50s and early 60s” (Gouha et al.).

disorders] represented nearly half the total in-flight incapacitation’s of pilots, while heart attacks accounted for only one seventh” (Hawkins, 1987, p84). Furthermore, “IATA data and simulator data show that the risk of incapacitation due to cardiovascular disease is only 1 event in more than 20 million flight hours, or, stated another way, 1 episode every 400 years” (Wilkening).

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, passed in 1967, states in part: “The existence in industries affecting commerce, of arbitrary discrimination in employment because of age, burdens commerce and free flow of goods in commerce.” “…therefore the purpose of [this act is] to promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age; and to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment (Woolsey, (b)). Despite this act, the FAA refuses to put an end to the obvious discrimination and continues, to this day, to deny affected pilots, waivers to the rule so that they may continue to serve their profession.

gulations has no valid safety justification to force pilots off the flight deck at age sixty.

Some topics in this essay:
Duane Woerth, FAA NTSB, , Woolsey Despite, Samuel Woolsey, Chronology Despite, Emens FAA, Employment Act, CEO Smith, CFR Title, age 60, age 60 rule, 60 rule, age sixty, pilots age, flight deck, airline pilots, discrimination employment, age discrimination, medical science, age discrimination employment, repealing age, pilot airplane engaged, title 14 121383c, code federal regulations,