Viewing page 32 of 34

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-2-

in predicting which individuals are likely to suffer an incapacitating attack would be futile under the circumstances and would not be medically sound". Nor is the fact of petitioner's recent qualification for a first-class medical certificate persuasive, since as state in the preamble to the age 60 rule "in the case of one large group under medical supervision over an extended period, some 85% of the persons who had a heart attack for the first time had the attack within six months to a year after a thorough medical examination had found the individual in a condition normal to his age and without any evidence to suggest the imminence of such an attack."

The FAA does not have sufficient medical or other evidence at this time on which to justify initiation of a selective system of the type rejected when the age 60 rule was adopted. Until a firm basis for such a system is established, the FAA believes that the statutory directive contained in § 601(b) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 which requires the Administrator to "give full consideration to the duty resting upon air carriers to perform their services with the highest possible degree of safety in the public interest..." precludes it from conducting experiments in actual Part 121 operations (however much "controlled") as petitioner suggests.

Notwithstanding petitioner's allegations, section 121.383(c) does not deprive petitioner of his gainful employment. The only type of flying from which petitioner is excluded is an operation under Part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. For example, petitioner may fill pilot positions with an air carrier as a check pilot or flight instructor provided he is crewmember under Part 121. Thus, the age 60 rule does not automatically deprive petitioner of all pilot employment possibilities nor does it necessarily deprive petitioner's employer of further return on its investment in him.

In consideration of the foregoing, and in the absence of more compelling reasons for granting relief, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 313(a) and 601(c) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, which has been delegated to me by the Administrator (14 CFR 11.53), the petition of Charles Force Hunter for a one-year exemption from the provision of section 121.383(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations is hereby denied.

James F. Rudolph
Acting Director
Flight Standards Service

Issued in Washington, D.C., on APR 28 1967