![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
The Honorable W. Willard Secretary of Labor May 13, 1968 -2- Recognizing that our views are not shared by FAA, and also accepting the proposition that Congress has, in the first instance, entrusted FAA with responsibility in matters of air safety, we nevertheles find no inconsistency in the following propositions, which, in our view, are strongly appealing to all fair and reasonable men, but which, to date, have had no appeal for those who support and administer the rule: 1. Normally, when the factual or legal basis for agency action is questioned by qualified and competent people acting in good faith an evidentiary administrative hearing is the means by which such issues are resolved, on the basis of objective evidence, and in equitable fashion. Subsequent judicial review is frequently available. Yet here, FAA has consistently refused requests for a hearing - indeed it has even declined to hold an informal conference to discuss the subject before denying the most recent hearing request - and no hearing has ever been held. Federal court litigation commenced by this Association in 1960 to compel FAA to con-duct an evidentiary hearing on this subject was opposed by FAA and was summarily dismissed. 2. Normally, when agency action has the direct consequence of deploying valuable property rights - such as the careers of airline pilots - victims of such action will, at some point before it becomes effective or final, have the benefit of procedural due process of law, with, as a minimum, an opportunity to be heard and to meet and rebut the assertions used to justify the confiscatory agency action. Such an opportunity, though often requested, has never been made available to persons affected by the age 60 rule. 3. Neither FAA nor any other administrative agency is infallible, even in matters in which it is assumed to have expertise. History proves that FAA has been totally wrong on issues affecting air safety on several previous occasions. 4. This Association, and the individual airline pilots whom it represents, have consistently enjoyed the public respect, particularly by reason of our conservatism in matters of air safety. More directly, perhaps, than any others in our industry, our lives depend, every working day, upon a responsible and mature attitude toward matters of air safety. No person or body has the right or basis to assume that our views concerning the age 60 rule reflect less than our deliberate and mature judgement as experi-enced and competent professionals, supported by hard facts. This does not, of course, suggest that our views in the matter should be accepted on faith and on that basis be permitted to prevail over the FAA position.