Age 67 Rule

The Let Experienced Pilots Fly Act was proposed in late July 2022 with the intention of raising the mandatory retirement
age of airline pilots in the United States from 65 to 67. The state of the U.S. Air Carrier Industry is precarious, at best.

The airlines are cancelling flights due to a shortage of employees, particularly pilots and flight attendants, while hiring
foreign nationals to fill vacancies all the while forcing able bodied experienced pilots to retire. The Let Experienced Pilots
Fly Act will not completely alleviate the situation, but it will help. At the writing of this text the bill has been referred to
committee in both the House and the Senate.

My name is Jack Vyhnalek. I am a B-737 Captain and Check Pilot. I have set up this simple website to assist those who
wish to gain a glimpse of the situation and to offer a sample letter that I have sent to my representatives and to those in
the House and Senate subcommittees reviewing the act.

I encourage those who wish to do so to copy and paste the letter below, modify it, and send it via email and U.S. Post
Office service to their representatives and the representatives on the committees. I have made references to my
personal experiences within the body of this letter that must be changed if you wish to copy and paste. I encourage you
to include your experiences.

I also welcome any input at Jack@Age67Rule.info

You can find your Congressional members here httpswww.congress.govmembersfind-your-member

Track this bill in the Senate httpswww.govtrack.uscongressbills117s4607

Track this bill in the House httpswww.congress.govbill117th-congresshouse-bill8513allactionss=1&r=239&overview=closed

Read the Bill httpstrackbill.combillus-congress-house-bill-8513-let-experienced-pilots-fly-act2267330

LETTER DRAFTED TO MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Your Name Here
Your Address Here
Your City, State, Zip Here

SenatorRepresentative Name
Address
City, State, Zip
3 August 2022

Summary Points of this Letter

• The Let Experienced Pilots Fly Act is in the public interest and should be enacted into law.

• The discriminatory mandatory pilot retirement age was pushed by big airlines to facilitate the onboarding of the
new ‘jet’ aircraft as a cost savings measure.

• In 1959, when there were roughly 40 pilots over the age of 60 and aviation was young, as were its pilots, a union
arbitrator wrote in his decision that there was no testimonial basis or fact of life that supports the view that
pilots are unsafe as they age.

• Airlines are now being forced to hire foreign nationals who are seeking E-3 visas to fill positions being vacated by
retiring pilots.

• Airline pilots over the age of 40 are subject to semi-annual medical exams and annual electrocardiograms to
ensure their health. What other industry can boast this

• The FAA maintains an entire branch that oversees the medical evaluation of pilots.

• The training and testing pilots now undergo includes extensive Human Factors evaluation, especially under the
Advanced Qualification Program. Pilots with diminished cognitive skills would not be capable of passing these
ongoing evaluations.

• Unions are comprised mainly of younger pilots and will take the unreasonable position that the retirement age
should not be raised because younger pilots benefit when older pilots are forced to retire.

• The airlines are in a tight spot. Hiring younger pilots to replace senior pilots is cheaper but the airlines are
sometimes paying 3 times their wage to staff airplanes on their days off.

Dear Senator/epresentative __,

The Let Experienced Pilots Fly Act is in the public interest and should be moved forward. I offer some additional points.

Opponents of the act cite that between the ages of 55 and 65 people begin to show effects of cardiovascular disease,
physical deterioration, and cognitive loss. This has no basis in fact or reality. The mandatory retirement age was enacted
in 1959. ALPA signed its first jet contract with National Airlines in anticipation of the airline adding jets. It was the dawn
of the jet age and airlines were scrambling to replace their piston-driven aircraft with jets. Many airline managements
propagated the idea that older airline pilots might not be able to adapt to the physical and mental demands of flying at
higher altitudes in faster, more sophisticated airliners.
In reality, the airlines wanted to get their jet operations up and running quickly. A fresh supply of young aviators who
had received jet training in the military was available, and airline managers knew that they could save considerable time
and expense by recruiting these younger pilots instead of having to train their senior pilots.

In the April 1959 issue of Air Line Pilot, ALPA reported that Capt. Deke DeLong, the nation’s oldest airline pilot, had
retired from Northwest Airlines at the age of 65. That same year, the FAA estimated that approximately 40 active airline
pilots were over the age of 60. Aviation was still relatively young, and so was most of its pilots. But the number of pilots
over the age of 60 was expected to surge in the years to come.
In a union grievance brought on behalf of Western Airlines pilots, the arbitrator wrote in his decision There is no
testimonial basis and no ‘fact of life’ on which we could be expected to take a kind of ‘judicial notice’ that supports the
view that it is unsafe to let a pilot perform after the age of 60. That is not to say that there is not some age–say 90–
when we would take judicial notice of physical impairment beyond all reason. It is enough to say that the evidence here
does not support the theory that the attainment of age 60 is in itself enough to disqualify a pilot.”

As a 64-year-old line pilot with over 35 years of airline pilot experience I serve as a member of my carrier’s pilot
recruitment team. I also serve as a check pilot ensuring flight crew proficiency and public safety. Our carrier holds its
crewmembers to the very highest level of safety and proficiency. I proudly do my best to determine if the people I
interview will be successful. If I measure myself against the standards by which I judge potential new hires, I surely
measure up.

As a check pilot I often complete their qualification as pilots. I decide whether they meet the prescribed performance
standards. I gladly mentor and check all pilots as my brothers and sisters, a brotherhood that we enjoy as professional
aviators. I am hiring and qualifying pilots to replace me because I am being forced to retire. The plainly discriminatory
mandatory retirement age is replacing employed Americans often with foreign nationals.

Unlike most industries, our key players – airline pilots – are subject to testing on a recurring basis. Pilots over the age of
40 are required to pass semi-annual medical examinations and annual electrocardiograms. In addition to general fitness,
hearing, and vision requirements, there are a plethora of conditions that can, and do, disqualify pilots from flying at the
airline level.

The Federal Aviation Administration maintains a branch that does nothing but oversee the medical standards and
evaluation of pilots and other aviation personnel, the Office of Aerospace Medicine. This branch ensures that each pilot
is medically cleared to fly. Pilots who endure certain medical conditions such as heart disorders, etc., must also face
incredible medical scrutiny through ‘Aero-Medical’. The thought of forced retirement at age 65 while one continues to
meet these rigorous standards is absurd.

The training and testing of airline pilots goes well beyond semi-annual medical exams. Captains, usually the oldest
crewmembers, are trained and tested as often as every six months. This training and testing includes Human Factors, the
discipline of how humans interact with other humans, equipment, and the environment.

Human Factors in Aviation requires the training, application, and evaluation of critical skills that would be compromised
if cognitive skills should decline. During each evaluation our communication, situational awareness, aeronautical
decision making, time management, team management, and technical skills are all assessed. No other work area,
including the operating room, has such stringent standards. In fact, Human Factors was developed because of aviation
and now has spread to many other practices. We determine if pilots are capable of applying cognitive skill to real life
scenarios every day.

Most of today’s air carriers train and test pilots under the Advanced Qualification Program (AQP). AQP was introduced in
1990 to better address Human Factors and the ever-improving technical changes in aircraft systems and their operation.

Even prior to AQP, the FAA and industry recognized the need to address human factors in aviation and administered
Cockpit Resource Management and other programs to enhance flight safety.
Human factors in the cockpit is a main tenant of our training and testing. Why then must a pilot retire arbitrarily at age 65 Has all the effort and expense of developing Human Factors in Aviation been a waste? If my government cannot put faith in the program it heavily promoted then it was all a waste of taxpayer money.

Ask those who oppose your legislation to cite one other industry that can boast such testing in addressing medical and
cognitive health in the workplace. Surgeons are not required to retire at a specific age, they are permitted to conduct
surgery in the operating room without another surgeon present and without Federal oversight. They are not even
required to pass a vision test.

I might point out our elected officials and the esteemed members of the Supreme Court of this great nation as examples
of people whose cognitive skills are never questioned or vetted.

It seems we are being discriminated against. While opponents of the age 67 rule might state there is no positive
cognitive assessment for the loss of these skills with age, I point out that we make that assessment through empirical
data and testing. These skills are assessed on every Line Check, Operating Experience assignment, Line Oriented
Evaluation, Line Oriented Flight Training, Proficiency Check, Proficiency Training session, Knowledge Validation, and
Maneuvers Validation. The evaluation is much more objective than a test to determine cognitive ability. We have
become very proficient at this as demonstrated by the reduction in aircraft accidents in Group II turbojet transport
category aircraft (the big jets) in the last several decades. At least three times a year I am subject to the same testing
and evaluation that I successfully passed when I first became an airline pilot. Does my physician face such scrutiny?
Hardly not.

Another player in the industry, the union groups, mostly the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), represent the bulk of the airline pilots in the United States. As a member of the IBT I
serve on a union committee and was on a crucial committee during our last contract negotiation. I also was a 20+ year
member of ALPA and served on committees there, as well. Consider the members and how the unions represent them.

An air carrier’s pilot group can be as large as 10,000 pilots or more. The pilots range anywhere from 23 to 65 years of
age. Our system is seniority based. Every aircraft assignment, monthly schedule, vacation preference, and so on, is based
on relative seniority within the airline. The older pilots are generally the most senior because they were hired first.

While roughly half the pilots at an airline are captains, many of the captains are flying smaller aircraft with more rigorous
schedules. The most senior pilots often fly the larger, higher paying aircraft. Some on the larger aircraft endure poorer
schedules and working holidays while the more senior pilots enjoy the fruits of their seniority. This means most of the
pilots represented by the unions are looking to better their seniority position (and pay) which happens through attrition
and growth. For that reason, the unions are going to accurately represent the greater number of their members by
taking the position that they are not in favor of raising the retirement age, even though we are in dire need of pilots.

Junior pilots are eager to improve their relative seniority and thus their quality of life. Pushing senior pilots into
retirement improves their position. This is, of course, short sighted, self-serving and not in the public interest.

Not surprisingly, the airlines themselves are in a quandary; raising the retirement age does indeed keep pilots on the
property, but these are the most senior and highest paid pilots. Replacing them with a 23-year-old is certainly less
expensive, however, airlines are sometimes paying pilots three or four times their salary simply to staff the aircraft.

Other countries have already raised the pilot retirement age. The act will not completely fix the pilot shortage, but it will
offer some relief. More importantly, we will not be kicking highly capable pilots out of the cockpit and exacerbating the
pilot shortage. I am grateful your committee is addressing this issue through legislation. I will also be contacting other
representatives to encourage them to move the act forward. I would be delighted to discuss these points with you if you
prefer.

Respectfully,

Captain Jack Vyhnalek
B-737 Line Check Pilot
Jack@age67rule.info