Viewing page 24 of 34
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
Administrator shall exercise and perform his powers and duties under this Act in such a manner as will best tend to reduce or eliminate the possibility of, or recurrence of, accidents in air transportation. To the extent that a progressive loss of certain abilities generally starts well prior to age 60, further consideration is required of those aspects of safety in flight concerned with factors other than incapacitation. Especially with the development and increasing use of larger and higher performance aircraft and more complicated traffic conditions, growing importance attaches to the ability of pilots to learn new techniques, skills, and procedures, and to unlearn and discard previously learned and well-established patterns of behavior. For this reason, the draft proposal included a provision to establish age 55 as the age prior to which an individual must obtain a type-rating for turbo-jet powered aircraft in power to act as pilot-in-command for such aircraft in air carrier service. Age 55 was selected on the basis that it marks the point at which the detrimental effects of age on physiological and psychological functions have become significant. All interested persons have been given an opportunity to comment and all comments received have been given careful consideration. Many strong arguments were made, both in favor of and against the draft proposal. Some of the comments in favor of the proposal recommended more stringent action than that now being taken in this amendment, and referred to opinions and conclusions more far-reaching than those expressed above. Some of these were received from active airline pilots, although a majority of those identifying themselves as airline pilots from whom comments were received were adverse to the proposal. The Air Transport Association, representing the major air carriers, was in favor of the proposal as to age 60. The Air Line Pilots Association, from which most complete and voluminous comments were receive, was opposed to all proposals, but offered no practicable substitute to achieve the safety aims of this amendment. The position taken was that qualification of a pilot should be determined on an individual selection basis without any limitation as to chronological age. This is rejected as an inadequate safety standard in light of the present inability of medical science to provide a reliable and valid basis for selection. Some requests for a public hearing were received. In the rule-making process, a public hearing has basically the same purpose as written comments, namely, to inform the Agency of the facts and opinions of the public concerning the proposed rule. It serves a useful purpose, however, when it provides something more than usually is obtained from written comments. Normally, this would involve situations where facts and views cannot be expressed adequately by written comments, where written comments cannot properly be evaluated without further development in a public hearing, or where written comments which have been received raise new issues which require further public consideration and this can be accomplished most satisfactorily and expeditiously in a hearing. Comments were received covering all the issues involved in the proposed rule. They have been most carefully evaluated with respect to their bearing on some of the requests that were received for a public hearing. In respect to the provision to establish age 55 as the age prior to which an individual must obtain a type-rating for turbojet powered aircraft, it is possible that a hearing may produce further information or data not already encompassed in the scope of the comments received. The comments and other data available appear to be sufficiently precise and determinative in connection with the provisions applicable to utilization of a pilot after attainment of age 60. In this connection, the requests for a public hearing did not indicate any area that the comments have not covered adequately nor was any showing made that they could not be evaluated properly without a public hearing. They did not point out any issue that was not previously considered. On this point a public hearing is likely to repeat opinions and evidence already submitted in the form of written comments. With respect to this provision of the proposed rule, therefore, it does not appear that a public hearing would serve a useful purpose; and it is not deemed necessary in the public interest. After considering all of the comments received, I find that a public hearing is necessary and appropriate with respect to the proposal concerning eligibility to obtain a type-rating for turbojet powered aircraft after the attainment of age 55 and a notice for such a hearing on January 7, 1960, is being issued. I find further that establishment of a maximum age of 60 for pilots utilized by air carriers in air carrier operations is necessary for safety in air commerce and is in the public interest. In consideration of the foregoing, 40.260 of part 40 of the Civil Air Regulations (14 CFR Part 40) is hereby amended by designating the present text of the section following the caption as paragraph (a) and by adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows: 40.260 Utilization of airman. * * * * * (b) No individual who has reached his 60th birthday shall be utilized or serve as a pilot on any aircraft while engaged in air carrier operations. This amendment shall become effective on March 15, 1960. (Secs. 313(a), 601, 602, 604, 72 Stat. 752, 775, 776, 778; 49 U.S.C. 1354 (a), 1421, 1422, 1424) Issued in Washington, D.C., on December 15, 1959. JAMES T. PYLE Acting Administrator (F.R. Doc. 59-10300; Filed, Dec. 4, 1959; 8:49 a.m.] Part 40 last printed December 31, 1955
