avweb article by Mr. Deacon said:
Additionally, many pilots then and now take the narrow-minded viewpoint that getting rid of the older pilots will create greater opportunities for upgrades, not thinking that they too will one day reach 60. The vast majority of pilots rarely see the greater principles in any issues, they simply react to what directly affects them, right now.
Another theory favored by those who like the rule is that by getting rid of the old pilots, younger pilots will upgrade sooner, and make more money in the long run, even if they themselves are forced out at 60. Many took the attitude that the rule would be overturned by the time they grew up, so they'd have the best of both sides of the issue, an early upgrade, then would be able to go beyond 60 when their turn came. I have taken great pleasure in reminding a few of these folks, when their time did come, and they fell by the rule. For the record, I've always felt it was a bad, bad rule. I've spoken loudly against it, but if my wife won't listen to me, what hope have I with the FAA?
Initially, ALPA (Air Line Pilots Association) took issue, and filed a number of lawsuits against the Age Sixty Rule, but all were defeated. Over time, as the younger members of ALPA became the majority and took over the power, ALPA reversed itself, and now favors keeping the rule. Again, so much for principle.
On December 1, 1959, the rule was published, and took effect on March 15, 1960. Quesada ruled that no hearings were to be held, and none were. Again, as "Czar," he had (and used) sweeping powers to get his way, and ever since, those pilots who turn 60 are out of luck.
The FAA mentioned early on that they were open to applications for exemptions in individual case, but to date, not one has ever been issued. You will forgive me, I hope, for thinking the FAA used that promise as a sop to reduce opposition, with zero intention of every carrying through.
There had been no crashes due to old folks in the cockpit, no "trouble" of any kind. It is astonishing to me, because all the cockpits affected by the Age Sixty Rule (Part 121 carriers only) had additional crewmembers as a backup! There have been a number of in-flight deaths in the cockpit over the years (all under age 60, many much younger), and in every case, the other pilot has successfully landed the airplane without incident, as trained, and as expected. No big deal. In fact, there's even a standard procedure for it, the copilot calls up the cabin crew to help, and issues his first order as PIC, "Drag that dead ******* out of my seat!"
The FAA, prompted by the adverse reaction, set up a "study" in the early sixties, but abandoned it before the final results were made public. In 1969, an outside report was commissioned and completed, but no results were ever made public.
Gee, guess why? Do you think it's just possible the results might not have been what the FAA wanted, and they simply suppressed that which they did not like? No, no, of COURSE not. They'd never do a thing like that. Would they?
In 1979, the FAA reviewed a Navy study on the long-term health histories of 1,000 aviators but concluded that the study failed to provide an adequate basis for revising the Age Sixty Rule. In other words, the FAA doesn't need, nor are they interested in no feelthy, steenking real data, unless it supports their nutty position.
In 1979, Congress finally got interested, and directed (by legislation) the National Institutes of Health to do some research on retaining or ditching the rule. A panel was convened outside the authority of the FAA, and "expressed doubts about the need for all pilots to step aside at age sixty." They further suggested a study of selected captains over sixty.
The FAA, ever willing to pile insanity upon insanity, issued two NPRMs after reviewing the NIH report. First they suggested extending the Age Sixty Rule to flight engineers! The arrogance! Second, they proposed what the NIH had suggested, a test program for selected pilots over sixty.
Two years later, after the furor had died down, the FAA quietly dropped both proposals.
