Safety programs are designed to protect life and property. For economic reasons, aviation safety programs attempt to mitigate any potential hazard that could cost an already profit margin limited industry from suffering loss. On a national level, the United States (as well as other countries) has instituted a safety program, governed by the FAA, which is based on the prejudice of age.
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 Regulations has no valid safety justification to force pilots off the flight deck at age sixty.
The rule, commonly referred to as the "Age 60 Rule", was enacted under the purview of the first administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, Elwood Quesada. Quesada, appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower upon the establishment of the FAA in 1958, along with the age 60 rule, has been the topic of much debate and criticism. Opponents claim the rule was established for the economical gain of the airlines vice medical reasons (Emens). The FAA insists the rule is in the best interest of public safety based on the potential for pilot incapacitation or decreased performance at such an increased age (Woerth).