U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

49–010 

" ! SENATE 109TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2006

109–225 

Calendar No. 382 

AGE 60 RULE 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 65 

MARCH 30, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTScongress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA SUTHERLAND, Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Deputy Staff Director 

KENNETH NAHIGIAN, Chief Counsel 

MARGARET CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
49–010 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2nd Session 109–225 

AGE 60 RULE 

MARCH 30, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. STEVENS, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 65] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 65) to amend the age restrictions for 

pilots, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with 

an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and recommends that 

the bill (as amended) do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of this legislation, as reported, is to direct the Secretary of Transportation to adopt the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) standard or recommended practice on age restrictions for commercial air carriers’ pilots-in-command from age 

60 to age 65. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

Domestic policy 

Since 1959, Federal regulations have specified that individuals 

age 60 and older may not serve as airline pilots on any flight operations covered under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

121 (c). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) adopted, what 

is commonly referred to as, the ‘‘Age 60 Rule’’ in 1959 because of 

concerns that a safety hazard was presented by aging pilots in air 

carrier operations. 

The Age 60 Rule has been a matter of considerable debate since 

the final rule was adopted. In 1959, airlines and pilots were enVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:40 Mar 31, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR225.XXX SR225

rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
2 

gaged in a disagreement over mandatory retirement policies imposed by the airlines, typically set at age 60. The early 1960’s was 

the onset of the age of commercial jets and several airlines contended it was in their economic best interest to recruit young pilots 

leaving the military who had flown jet aircraft rather than training 

its older, more senior pilots to transition from piston-engine airplanes to jet-powered airplanes. Senior pilots who had been forced 

into retirement based on these company policies filed grievances. 

Although an arbitrator sided with the pilots and ordered that they 

be reinstated, management at one major commercial airline refused 

to abide by the decision and continued to enforce their age 60 retirement policy. This and other grievances led pilots to strike during the holiday travel season of 1958. To end the strike, the disagreeing airline agreed to many of the pilots’ demands. However, 

the issue of a maximum age limit for pilots was not settled. 

The airline in question took its case for pilot age limits to the 

FAA, writing that it may be necessary for the regulatory agency to 

set a suitable retirement age. To bolster the argument for age limits, the airline provided the FAA with data showing that younger 

pilots required fewer hours of flight training to transition from propeller to jet airliners than older pilots and were more likely to successfully complete the training. 

As a result, two proposals were subsequently considered by the 

FAA; one to set a maximum age of 55 for pilots to receive certification to fly jet aircraft, and a second to set an age limit of 60 for 

all airline pilots. An expert panel was convened to review the proposals and the supporting data provided by the airline, and recommended favorably on adopting both recommendations, but eventually dropped the recommendation to limit jet type-ratings to pilots under the age of 55. However, when the FAA’s legal counsel 

reviewed the proposal, it found that the training data did not provide a compelling argument for setting a maximum age for airline 

pilots, and recommended that the FAA instead focus on available 

medical knowledge in setting a maximum age for pilots. The FAA 

did so, and on December 5, 1959, published a final rule that went 

into effect on March 15, 1960, establishing that a pilot could no 

longer fly in airline operations upon reaching age 60. 

The Age 60 Rule was justified on the basis of medical concerns 

over progressive deterioration of important physiological and psychological functions and the risk of sudden incapacitation. The FAA 

asserted that incapacitation could not be accurately predicted in an 

individual by available medical tests and criteria. Furthermore, the 

FAA noted that age is associated with other factors even more difficult to measure and predict including the loss of ability to: perform highly skilled tasks rapidly; resist fatigue; maintain physical 

stamina; perform effectively in a complex and stressful environment; apply experience, judgment, and reasoning rapidly in new, 

changing, and emergency situations; and learn new techniques, 

skills and procedures. 

The FAA followed standard rulemaking procedures including an 

opportunity for public comments and justified the rule as a safety 

measure. Since then, opponents have criticized the rule as being 

arbitrary. Some believe that the circumstances under which the 

rule was adopted have contributed to the longstanding controversy. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
3 

In the late 1990’s the number of pilots and types of operations 

subject to the Age 60 Rule was expanded when the FAA phasedin requirements to enhance the safety of scheduled commuter operations and bring them under the more stringent rules of Part 121. 

Under those requirements, all commuter turbojets and commuter 

turboprop aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats were required 

to operate under the same rules as air carriers flying larger aircraft, including the Age 60 Rule. During the transition, pilots over 

the age of 60 that had been flying for commuter airlines were permitted to continue to do so up until December 20, 1999. Today, 

Part 121 operations covers scheduled passenger operations of jet 

and turboprop aircraft having a seating capacity of 10 or more passengers and all-cargo aircraft with a payload capacity of 7,500 

pounds or greater. Under the Age 60 Rule, airlines are not permitted to use pilots age 60 and older in these operations. 

Opponents of the Age 60 Rule presented the following arguments 

to the FAA: the rule has no basis in fact; refusal to repeal the rule 

would constitute arbitrary and capricious action by the FAA that 

would violate the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act; 

refusal to repeal the rule without evidence of a need to retain it 

in the interest of public safety is inconsistent with Federal policy 

against age discrimination; and repeal of the rule would have a 

positive economic impact on the U.S. air carrier industry. 

The FAA believes that a review of all of the comments and relevant literature reveals that scientific or medical studies do not 

provide a definitive answer to the age 60 issue. In 1995, the FAA 

said that it could not be assured that raising the age 60 limit 

would maintain or raise the level of safety that the Age 60 Rule 

offers, and on that basis, the FAA retained the rule. Without further medical evidence to compel the FAA to modify its position, it 

is apparent any change to the rule requires a legislative mandate. 

International policy 

ICAO is a specialized agency of the United Nations. It is comprised of 188 Contracting States, including the United States. 

ICAO policies are recommended standards and practices, not binding on contracting States. 

Currently, ICAO’s Standards and Recommended Practices states 

that ‘‘an age limit of 60 years is established for pilots engaged in 

scheduled international air services or non-scheduled international 

air transport operations for remuneration or hire. It is a Standard 

for the pilot-in-command and a Recommendation for the co-pilot.’’

Most developed countries do not adhere to this age limitation for 

pilots. 

In 2003, ICAO conducted a survey questioning its membership 

on the continuing validity of the 60 year upper age limit for airline 

pilots with the aim of harmonizing their Contracting States policies. 

In 2004, ICAO received 116 replies from 112 States and four 

international organizations. Over 81 percent considered it appropriate to increase the upper age limit. Various age levels between 

62 and 68 were considered appropriate; a significant majority favored 65 years. 

In 2005, following the survey results, a State letter was sent to 

all Contracting States proposing to change the upper age limit to 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
4 

age 65 with two modifications: (1) if the pilot-in-command is older 

than 60 years, the other flight crew members must be younger 

than 60; and (2) airline pilots over age 60 must undergo health examinations every 6 months. ICAO speculates that the earliest date 

at which the amendment would become applicable is November 

2006. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On January 24, 2005, Senators Inhofe, Stevens, and Burns introduced S. 65, a bill to amend the age restrictions for pilots. 

On July 19, 2005, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, Subcommittee on Aviation held a hearing on the 

FAA Age 60 Rule. Representatives from the FAA, Aerospace Medical Association, Air Line Pilots Association, Southwest Airlines Pilot’s Association, Allied Pilots Association, and JetBlue Airways 

Corporation testified about the issues regarding the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots. 

On November 17, 2005, the bill, S. 65, was ordered to be reported 

favorably with an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the 

Senate from the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee by voice vote in the presence of a quorum. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, the Committee provides the following cost estimate, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office: 

DECEMBER 6, 2005. 

Hon. TED STEVENS, 

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 65, a bill to amend the age 

restrictions for pilots. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan Carroll. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN. 

Enclosure. 

S. 65—A bill to amend the age restrictions for pilots 

S. 65 would direct the Secretary of Transportation to amend federal regulations that prohibit pilots over the age of 60 from operating federally regulated commercial aircraft. Under the bill, that 

age limit would be increased to 65 years. Based on information 

from the Federal Aviation Administration, CBO estimates that the 

proposed change would not significantly affect federal costs. The 

bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

S. 65 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not 

affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
5 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Megan Carroll. This 

estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the legislation, as reported: 

Number of persons covered 

Due to the bill as reported, former pilots who have been forced 

to retire because of the current mandatory retirement age, but are 

younger than 65 years of age, would no longer be subject to the 

prohibition and would potentially be eligible to fly as a commercial 

airline pilot. Pilots under the age of 60 would eventually have the 

option to fly for a longer period of time. 

Economic impact 

Due to the bill as reported, some older pilots may decide to continue flying beyond their expected Age 60 retirement dates, and 

thus continue to earn a salary. Some younger pilots may not be 

promoted as quickly if more senior pilots continue flying. Airlines 

may incur the additional costs of employing some of their most senior pilots for five additional years. Those additional costs would be 

offset, at least in part, when the airlines are able to forego the 

costs of training younger pilots to replace those who otherwise 

would have retired because of the Age 60 Rule. If a pilot shortage 

were to affect small and rural communities, the bill as reported 

may economically benefit those communities by increasing the supply of pilots. 

The bill as reported may cause air carriers to incur the costs of 

additional or more stringent medical, cognitive, or proficiency testing for pilots who have reached the age of 60. 

Privacy 

Within the air transportation system, the overriding need to ensure safety has long been settled with respect to pilots’ expectations of privacy. Pilots who choose to fly beyond their 60th birthdays may be subjected to additional certification testing or crew 

pairing standards. 

Paperwork 

Under the bill as reported, the FAA would incur additional paperwork associated with the change in the current age limit. In addition, air carriers and the FAA may have additional paperwork as 

a result of new crew standards. Under section 3, the National 

Transportation Safety Board would be subject to additional paperwork associated with reporting safety implications, if any. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Modification of FAA’s Age 60 Rule 

The Secretary of Transportation would be directed to adopt the 

ICAO standard or recommended practice within 30 days after the 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
6 

effective date of action taken by the ICAO Secretariat in November 

2006. 

The Secretary would be only authorized to adopt the new modification if it is consistent with a previously agreed upon Air Navigation Commission directive. That directive would allow commercial carriers pilots-in-command to fly up to their 65th birthday, if 

the co-pilot is 60 years old or younger. 

Section 2. Applicability 

Pilots who have previously been terminated or had cessation of 

employment at a commercial air carrier because of the Age 60 restriction would be able to seek re-employment at a commercial air 

carrier. However, pilots would not be able to file suit to gain reemployment and cannot file suit to reclaim seniority under any 

labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for 

pilots and an air carrier engaged in commercial operations. 

Section 3. Reporting requirement 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), within two 

years of the modification, would submit a report to both Senate and 

House authorizing committees of jurisdiction concerning the effects, 

if any, the modification has on aviation safety. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(7) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS INOUYE, ROCKEFELLER, 

DORGAN, CANTWELL, LAUTENBERG, AND PRYOR 

On July 19, 2005, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation held a hearing to examine the FAA’s Age 60 

rule which raised a number of concerns about moving forward on 

legislation to alter existing FAA regulations that prohibit a pilot 

from engaging in Part 121 operations if the pilot has reached his 

or her 60th birthday. 

On November 17, 2005, the Committee approved the bill by voice 

vote in Executive Session. Despite this action we continue to have 

serious concerns regarding the repeal of the Age 60 rule (14 CFR 

121.383(c)). Any changes to this long-standing safety regulation 

should be approached cautiously to ensure that any potential risk 

is minimized and commercial flight remains consistent with existing safety parameters. Congress provided the FAA air safety regulatory authority for U.S., which the agency has consistently exercised in an impartial manner to ensure that the safety of the nation’s air transportation system is its primary mission. As noted in 

the agency’s testimony at the hearing, the FAA can not assure Congress that changing the Age 60 rule will maintain or raise the current level of safety. In fact, their most recent empirical studies 

completed in 2004 continue to indicate that there appears to be a 

relationship between pilot age and accident rate. 

Over the past 45 years, the FAA has thoroughly and comprehensively reviewed its findings on the Age 60 rule on numerous occasions. They continue to believe that the Age 60 rule remains the 

best determination that can be made of a time when a general decline in health-related functions and overall cognitive capabilities 

have reached a level where decrements in a pilot’s performance 

may jeopardize safety. In addition, several U.S. Courts of Appeals 

have reviewed the Age 60 rule and studies related to the rule, and 

have uniformly denied petitioners’ challenges. 

The bill would effectively delegate U.S. safety decisions to an 

international body, despite the fact that the FAA has long been 

considered the world leader in aviation safety. In fact, the FAA has 

never delegated the discharge of its safety responsibilities to an 

international organization. We also will need to look carefully at 

how physicals pre-age 60 and post-age 60 are performed. Many of 

the nations that currently allow pilots over the age of 60 to pilot 

for their commercial airlines have stricter recurring flight medical 

examinations than are currently conducted in the U.S. If Congress 

moves forward with legislation regarding the Age 60 rule, this matter must be adequately addressed prior to altering existing regulations. 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(8) 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the bill as reported 

would make no change to existing law. 

Æ 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS