Premium
Age 60 Rule for Retirement of Airline Pilots: To the Editor
Author(s) -
Stuck Andreas E.,
Beck John C.
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
journal of the american geriatrics society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.992
H-Index - 232
eISSN - 1532-5415
pISSN - 0002-8614
DOI - 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1994.tb06874.x
Subject(s) - medicine , aviation , general aviation , accident (philosophy) , civil aviation , age groups , retirement age , certification , occupational safety and health , demography , aeronautics , gerontology , engineering , finance , management , philosophy , epistemology , pension , pathology , sociology , economics , aerospace engineering
To the Editor:-The Civil Aeromedical Institute has recently published a major report on the relationship between airline pilot age and accident risk.' This new report is based on an analysis of a large consolidated database combining databases from the FAA (pilot certification and flight experience data) and the NTSB (aircraft accident data) from 1976 to 1988. The main findings of this carefully conducted study were: (1) there was no support for the hypothesis that airline pilots of scheduled air carriers have increased accident rates as they neared the age of 60 years (because of the age 60 regulation, no data were available for this category of airline pilots beyond the age of 60); (2) when the accident risk of experienced class III (general aviation) airline pilots aged 50 to 70 years was examined, no effect for age was found; (3) however, using extremely conservative statistical criteria, the authors could not exclude an increase of accident risk for class III pilots after the age of 63 years. The authors recommend a cautious increase of the mandatory retirement age to age 63. The major merit of this study is that it clearly contradicts the findings of a frequently cited, but flawed, 1983 study! that found an increase in accident risk of airline pilots after the age of 60 years. The new report supports our earlier conclusion that the age 60 criterion for retirement of airline pilots is not supported by current scientific evidence." This new study should help to stimulate more work in this field. In our opinion, development of an improved consolidated database with both better and additional data on airline pilot (including medical and performance data) and aircraft accident factors is a first priority. In addition, a more effective FAA medical certification process is needed in order to better detect early pathologic conditions that might increase the accident risk of affected airline pilots of any age. Interdisciplinary research such as development of screening instruments for early detection of cognitive decline can contribute to future replacement of chronological age with an ageindependent risk assessment strategy.'