By raising maximum airline pilot age from 60 to 65, ICAO has forced nations with lower limits - notably the USA - to review their rules
When US Federal Aviation Administration chief Marion Blakey asked the top aviation medical and airline brains in her country whether raising the maximum air transport pilot (ATP) age by five years was safe she was, reasonably, hoping for some guidance. What she actually got was a considerable body of data and expert opinion, but the Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) was divided neatly into "for and against" camps.
There is a fair chance that Blakey will eventually opt for parity with the new International Civil Aviation Organisation standard - revised last November - that says an ATP can fly up to age 65 in either seat, provided that the pilot in the other seat is younger than 60. If Blakey does follow ICAO it will not be because she has to - the USA could file a national difference - it will be because nations agree to adopt ICAO standards unless they have compelling reasons not to do so. The ARC arguments against raising the age from 60 to 65 are definitely not compelling, although it would be reasonable for the FAA to delay implementation for five years so individual pilots and the airlines themselves have time to adjust everything from career and pension plans to recruiting and rostering practices. Meanwhile, Blakey - and the airlines - have to prepare themselves for an increase in legal assaults mounted under the USA's Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The most striking thing about the "pro-ICAO" argument was that the aviation medical expertise is almost unanimously on board that bandwagon. The Aerospace Medical Association (AsMA), in the ARC report, states the unified position of the aerospace medical community: "On review of the existing evidence, the Aerospace Medical Association concludes there is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based on age alone." But that says there is no reason not do to it, rather than saying there is a good reason to do it. But AsMA goes further: "There has never been a US air carrier ATP accident assigned to medical causes. Certainly incidents have occurred in flight that did threaten flying safety, but these are very rare events, and when they do occur, the illness is almost always not incapacitating. Given this information and the fact that there are two pilots in the cockpit, it would seem reasonable to assume the risk of a significant medical event during a critical phase of flight would imperceptibly threaten flying safety. The risk is vanishingly small." Yes, but all those pilots were younger than 60. The doctors concede this point, but add that those nations which, like Japan, have adopted age 65 have seen no age-related accidents since having done so.
The anti-ICAO camp ventured one sound proposal: there should be a controlled study of pilots in the 60-65 age band before any change is adopted. Blakey should propose changing to the ICAO standard five years from now, subject to the result of a study the FAA will run in that period.
Source: Flight International
