Viewing page 3 of 47

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

2

It is entitled a “Petition for Exemption” and the petitioner state in the opening paragraph of the petition that they “request an exemption from the provisions of section 121.383 (c) of the Federal Aviation regulations . . .“. In the circumstances, we have processed the petition as one for an exemption. In the passing, however, it should be noted that the validity of 121.383 (c) was firmly established by the courts and it is not, in our opinion, subject to doubt. Air Line Pilots Association, International, et al., v. Elwood R. Quesada, 276 Fed 2nd 892 (Second Circ. 1960), Cert. Den. 366 U.S. 962; Robert G. Chew v. E.R. Quesada, 182 F. Supp 231 (D.C. 1960).

In regard to a petition for exemption, Section 11.25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations requires a petitioner to show why the granting of an exemption would be in public interest and why it would not adversely affect safety. 

In regard to a petition for exemption, Secteion 11.25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations requires the peititoners to show why the granting of an exemption would be in public interest and why it would not adversely affect safety. apart from making the argument that there is ". . . doubt concerning the validity today of the basis for the rule", the petitioners rely largely on the assertion that Captain Gitt ". . . is in excellent physical condition and is at a functional age which enables him to accomplish each and every requirement which the Federal Aviation Administration has established for a pilot-in-command of a turbojet aircraft in scheduled air transportation". In short, the petitioners argue that Captain Gitt's functional age and health are such that he would not present a risk to the safety of operations in air transportation. In adopting the age 60 rule in 1959, the FDA recognised and stated that "any attempt to be selective in predicting which individuals are likely to suffer an incapacitating attack would be futile under the circumstances and would not be medically sound." The petitioners have not presented any facts or arguments that have not been considered or that would justify a different position at this time. Indeed, their assertions are basically similar to those made in the peititons of Charles Force Hunter (Docket No. 8007, exemption No. 673) and James Wadsworth Furlow (Docket No. 8240,Exemption No. 726) which were denied. 

The petitioners also assert that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 places an obligation on the FAA to re-examine the age 60 rule. The exception in Section 4 (f) of that Act based on "bona fide occupational qualification" serves to exclude the age 60 rule for pilots. This view is supported by the legislative history of that Act. 

As a procedural matter the petitioners request "an evidentiary hearing" which they describe as an adversary or trial type proceeding. A petition for exemption is an action accomplished in accordance with the procedural rules specified in Par 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Under the provisions of that Part evidentiary hearings of the type requested by the petitioners are not required and serve no useful purpose. Moreover, it appears questionable whether the normal legislative type of hearing would serve to bring to the attention of the FAA any ore facts concerning Captain Gitt. The request for any type of hearing is hereby denied. The petitioners