Working till 65 will kill you sooner

[Erlanger]

By Sing Lin, Ph.D.Member of National Council of Chinese Institute of Engineers – USA/Greater New York Chapter, and Member of Board of Director of National Taiwan University Alumni Association – Greater New York (March 2002)


Longevity Vs. Retirement Age

The pension funds in many large corporations (e.g., Boeing, Lockheed Martin, AT&T, Lucent Technologies, etc.) have been “Over Funded” because many “late retirees” who keep-on working into their old age and retire late after the age of 65 tend to die within two years after their retirements. In other words, many of these late retirees do not live long enough to collect all their fair shares of pension money such that they leave a lot of extra-unused money in the pension funds resulting in the over-funded pension funds.

Dr. Ephrem (Siao Chung) Cheng provided the important results in the following Table 1 from an actuarial study of life span vs. age at retirement.

Table 1 – Actuarial Study of life span vs. age at retirement.

Age at
Retirement-- Average Age At Death
49.9 ------- 86
51.2 ------- 85.3
52.5 ------- 84.6
53.8 ------- 83.9
55.1 --------83.2
56.4 ------- 82.5
57.2 ------- 81.4
58.3 ------- 80
59.2 ------- 78.5
60.1 ------- 76.8
61. -------- 74.5
62.1 --------71.8
63.1 ------- 69.3
64.1 ------- 67.9
65.2 ------- 66.8


Table 1 indicates that for people retired at the age of 50, their average life span is 86; whereas for people retired at the age of 65, their average life span is only 66.8.

An important conclusion from this study is that for every year one works beyond age 55, one loses 2 years of life span on average.

The hard-working late retirees probably put too much stress on their aging body-and-mind such that they are so stressed out to develop various serious health problems that forced them to quit and retire. With such long-term stress-induced serious health problems, they die within two years after they quit and retire.

On the other hand, people who take early retirements at the age of 55 tend to live long and well into their 80s and beyond. These earlier retirees probably are either wealthier or more able to plan and manage their various aspects of their life, health and career well such that they can afford to retire early and comfortably.

These early retirees are not really idling after their early retirements to get old. They still continue doing some work. But they do the work on the part-time basis at a more leisure pace so that they do not get too stressed out. Furthermore, they have the luxury to pick and chose the types of part-time work of real interest to them so that they can enjoy and love doing that “fun” work at a more leisure pace.

However, when you get older, you should plan your career path and financial matter so that you can retire comfortably at the age of 55 or earlier to enjoy your long, happy and leisure retirement life into your golden age of 80s and beyond. In retirement, you can still enjoy some fun work of great interest to you and of great values to the society and the community, but at a part-time leisure pace on your own term.

On the other hand, if you are not able to get out of the pressure-cooker or the high-speed battleground at the age of 55 and “have” to keep on working very hard until the age of 65 or older before your retirement, then you probably will die within 18 months of retirement. By working very hard in the pressure cooker for 10 more years beyond the age of 55, you give up at least 20 years of your life span on average.

 

[snow-back]

If I quit now, maybe I'll live forever!

Seriously though, I don't have the source, but I believe that table has been debunked.

 

[Jonny Sacko]

STATEMENT OF JON L. JORDAN, M.D., FEDERAL AIR SURGEON,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION
ON THE FAA’S AGE 60 COMMERCIAL PILOT RULE

JULY 19, 2005



Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Age-60 rule, which provides that a pilot may not engage in what are known as part 121 operations if the pilot has reached his 60th birthday. Part 121 covers operations of large commercial passenger aircraft, smaller propeller aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats, and common carriage operations of all-cargo aircraft with a payload capacity of 7500 pounds. I am accompanied today by my colleague, Jim Ballough, Director of FAA’s Flight Standards Service.
The Age-60 rule represents the FAA's best determination of the time when a general decline in health-related functions and overall cognitive and performance capabilities may begin and reach a level where a pilot's judgement and physical ability may begin to decline and therefore jeopardize safety. Our rule means that a pilot who reaches age 60 must leave part 121 operations, but it does not mean that he or she can no longer play an important role in aviation. Many pilots continue to work for part 121 airlines in the screening, recruitment and training of pilot applicants, serve as flight engineers, or fly in non-part 121 operations, or become flight instructors, or, fortunately for us, work as safety inspectors for the FAA.
Since its adoption in 1959, the FAA has reviewed the Age-60 rule several times to determine whether new and sufficient evidence exists to warrant a reconsideration of the regulation. The FAA has also successfully defended the rule in several administrative and judicial challenges.
FAA has conducted five studies on the relationship of pilot age to accidents between 1999 and 2004. The first four studies were conducted at the direction of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which requested in 1999 that the FAA study and provide data regarding relative accident rates based on pilot age. The FAA's Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) conducted a four-part study. The four studies were as follows: 1) an annotated bibliography of the scientific literature (1990-1999); 2) a re-analysis of the Chicago Tribune study data (1999) relating pilot age and accident rates; 3) an empirical analysis of accident rates by pilot age for professional pilots holding Air Transport Pilot (ATP) and Class 1 medical certificates between 1988 and 1997; and, 4) an empirical analysis of accident rates by pilot age for professional pilots holding ATP or Commercial Pilot and Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificates between 1988 and 1997.
Certain aspects of the analytic methodology used in the third and fourth studies were criticized in the open scientific literature. In response, the first author for those studies, Dr. Dana Broach of CAMI, re-analyzed the accident rate data. That study was published in 2004. The 2004 study used more restrictive criteria to select which accidents to include in the analysis than were used in the previous studies. Taken together, the criteria resulted in an “apples-to-apples” comparison of accident rates for pilots age 60-63 and younger pilots in that the accident and non-accident pilots had the same credentials, worked for the same employers, and operated complex, multi-engine commuter or larger aircraft now covered by Part 121. As in the previous studies, the data were aggregated by age group (in five-year increments) and year, and analyzed with the same statistical technique.
The results of the 2004 study were similar to those reported in the third and fourth empirical studies previously reported to Congress. Overall, accident rate increased with pilot age. The patterns of findings across the three empirical studies are similar – there appears to be a relationship between pilot age and accident rate. The consistency of this finding across the three empirical studies suggests that changes to the Age 60 rule should be approached cautiously.
I must emphasize that before making any change to a safety rule, the FAA must be satisfied that the regulation will maintain or raise the current level of safety. What is clear to us from reviewing public comments and relevant literature concerning the Age-60 rule is that there is no single "right answer." What is also clear is that the question for the FAA is one of public safety and determining acceptable risk. At this time, the FAA cannot be assured that changing the Age-60 rule will maintain or raise the level of safety.
At some age, every individual reaches a level of increased infirmity leading to decreased reliability. That age will vary from person to person but cannot yet be predicted in a specific individual. While science does not absolutely dictate the age of 60 for commercial passenger pilot retirement, that age is within the age range during which sharp increases in disease mortality and morbidity occur. Clearly, there is a progressive anatomic, physiological, and cognitive decline associated with aging, albeit variable in severity and onset among individuals. There is no absolute, scientific formula that may be readily applied.
It is indisputable that, as people age, they experience more illnesses and disorders, and suffer more cognitive decline. Cardiovascular disease rises with age, steeply, beginning between ages 55 and 65, and, though mortality has dropped since 1960, cardiovascular disease remains the most frequent cause of death in pilots and the general population. With this increased incidence of cardiovascular disease in the older population, the risk for unexpected events that could be a threat to safety of flight is increased. Cardiac events (e.g., heart attacks, heart failure) during flight have continued to occur in low but fairly consistent numbers over the years and have caused general aviation accidents.
Other health conditions are known to increase in incidence or to become more complicated with aging. Many present greater difficulties of detection and risk assessment than do cardiovascular disease. Among these are cerebrovascular disease; malignancies; endocrine dysfunction; neurological disorders; psychiatric disorders, including depression; and decline in sensory and motor capabilities. There has been an increasing awareness of the more subtle adverse conditions affecting performance, such as those related to cognitive functioning.
The “Age 60 rule” has served well as a regulatory limit in the United States. It remains the best determination that can be made of the time when a general decline in health-related functions and overall cognitive capabilities has reached a level where decrements in a pilot's performance may jeopardize safety. The “Age 60 rule” has been repeatedly reviewed to determine whether new and sufficient evidence exists to warrant a reconsideration of the regulation. Studies conducted to date do not present sufficient information that would address concerns about negatively impacting the current level of safety by changing the rule.
The FAA has invited the public to provide comments on the viability of the “Age 60 rule.” The most recent comment period was opened in September 2002 in relation to a petition for exemption to the rule filed by a coalition of U.S. pilots approaching age 60. Nearly 7,000 comments were submitted during the month-long open comment period. Overwhelmingly, the comments favored retaining the current “Age 60 rule.” They cited safety and medical issues most often as reasons for retention of the current rule.
Several U.S. Courts of Appeals have reviewed the “Age 60 rule” and studies related to the rule. Uniformly, these courts have denied petitioners’ requests for relief from the rule. In September 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to review FAA’s denial of a petition for exemptions from the rule. In May 2055, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear arguments on the same matter.
In recent years several bills to revise the age limit for airliner pilots have been introduced. In February 2001, a bill to modify the “Age 60 rule” by increasing the age limit to age 65 was referred to the House Subcommittee on Aviation. In March 2001, a bill to modify the “Age 60 rule” to age 63 was favorably reported by this Committee. Neither bill was ultimately enacted. Most recently, legislation was proposed earlier this year that would tie an age limit for air carrier pilots to Social Security retirement age eligibility. Modifying the long-standing baseline of age 60 in the U.S. requires that the public be shown how such modification would maintain an equivalent level of safety. The “Age 60 rule” is a long-standing operational rule that pre-dates subsequent studies completed over the years. None of the studies completed since implementation of the rule provide satisfactory data that conclusively supports changing the rule. No protocols exist to reliably predict when or whether an over-age-60 pilot might experience a medical event that could jeopardize aviation safety. With inconclusive data and no practical experience with pilots above age 60, the FAA does not agree, at this time, to modify the current age limit for airliner pilots.

 

[Jonny Sacko]

Mr. Chairman, the FAA will develop regulations in the context of what is best for public safety. The FAA's primary mission is ensuring the safety of the National Airspace System. We work hard to manage a growth oriented aviation system--and the constraints on the system that growth imposes--in the most efficient and safe way possible. The FAA establishes, through our regulations, basic safety standards for aircraft and crewmembers that will ensure the safety of our traveling public. We construct our regulations very carefully, taking into account as many factors as we can, but ultimately, always making the decision that will best enhance aviation safety. While economic factors are certainly a part of that calculation, I am sure the Committee and our colleagues in industry would agree that safety must be the top priority. That concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

It just means that we as pilots must seriously take care of ourselves. Less booze and more water and grilled chicken.
God that will suck.

 

[Mach 80]

The chart by he first poster has been totally debunked and is very dated.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/4286.html

"Working till late in life might boost your chances of living longer, a study has said, busting the myth that taking an early retirement is linked to longevity."


http://www.mymoneyblog.com/archives/2007/11/will-retiring-early-help-you-live-longer.html

http://www.speea.org/general_info/files/life.htm

 

[CitationLover]

the OPPOSITE is true. people who continue to work are healthier and thus live longer. people who retire early, generally do so because medically they cannot work any longer and live fewer years.

i disagree with the change, but at least use facts to support your argument. nice try though.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/PreventiveCare/tb/1980
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=12227978&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
[SIZE=-1]http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp93.pdf[/SIZE]
http://www.worldhealth.net/p/early-...-to-longer-life-study-reuters-2005-11-07.html
http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20051020/early-retirement-early-death
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Retirement/5-10-21Retire55.htm
and on and on via googling "early retirement mortality"

or better yet, call the SOA (Society of Actuaries) and ask them @ 847.706.3500.

 

[CF34-3B1]

It just means that we as pilots must seriously take care of ourselves. Less booze and more water and grilled chicken.
God that will suck.

Don't worry, I hear most of the over 60 guys are going to pay for their FO's water......

 

[FoxHunter]

STATEMENT OF JON L. JORDAN, M.D., FEDERAL AIR SURGEON,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION
ON THE FAA’S AGE 60 COMMERCIAL PILOT RULE

JULY 19, 2005



Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Age-60 rule, which provides that a pilot may not engage in what are known as part 121 operations if the pilot has reached his 60th birthday. Part 121 covers operations of large commercial passenger aircraft, smaller propeller aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats, and common carriage operations of all-cargo aircraft with a payload capacity of 7500 pounds. I am accompanied today by my colleague, Jim Ballough, Director of FAA’s Flight Standards Service.
The Age-60 rule represents the FAA's best determination of the time when a general decline in health-related functions and overall cognitive and performance capabilities may begin and reach a level where a pilot's judgement and physical ability may begin to decline and therefore jeopardize safety. Our rule means that a pilot who reaches age 60 must leave part 121 operations, but it does not mean that he or she can no longer play an important role in aviation. Many pilots continue to work for part 121 airlines in the screening, recruitment and training of pilot applicants, serve as flight engineers, or fly in non-part 121 operations, or become flight instructors, or, fortunately for us, work as safety inspectors for the FAA.
Since its adoption in 1959, the FAA has reviewed the Age-60 rule several times to determine whether new and sufficient evidence exists to warrant a reconsideration of the regulation. The FAA has also successfully defended the rule in several administrative and judicial challenges.
FAA has conducted five studies on the relationship of pilot age to accidents between 1999 and 2004. The first four studies were conducted at the direction of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which requested in 1999 that the FAA study and provide data regarding relative accident rates based on pilot age. The FAA's Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) conducted a four-part study. The four studies were as follows: 1) an annotated bibliography of the scientific literature (1990-1999); 2) a re-analysis of the Chicago Tribune study data (1999) relating pilot age and accident rates; 3) an empirical analysis of accident rates by pilot age for professional pilots holding Air Transport Pilot (ATP) and Class 1 medical certificates between 1988 and 1997; and, 4) an empirical analysis of accident rates by pilot age for professional pilots holding ATP or Commercial Pilot and Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificates between 1988 and 1997.
Certain aspects of the analytic methodology used in the third and fourth studies were criticized in the open scientific literature. In response, the first author for those studies, Dr. Dana Broach of CAMI, re-analyzed the accident rate data. That study was published in 2004. The 2004 study used more restrictive criteria to select which accidents to include in the analysis than were used in the previous studies. Taken together, the criteria resulted in an “apples-to-apples” comparison of accident rates for pilots age 60-63 and younger pilots in that the accident and non-accident pilots had the same credentials, worked for the same employers, and operated complex, multi-engine commuter or larger aircraft now covered by Part 121. As in the previous studies, the data were aggregated by age group (in five-year increments) and year, and analyzed with the same statistical technique.
The results of the 2004 study were similar to those reported in the third and fourth empirical studies previously reported to Congress. Overall, accident rate increased with pilot age. The patterns of findings across the three empirical studies are similar – there appears to be a relationship between pilot age and accident rate. The consistency of this finding across the three empirical studies suggests that changes to the Age 60 rule should be approached cautiously.
I must emphasize that before making any change to a safety rule, the FAA must be satisfied that the regulation will maintain or raise the current level of safety. What is clear to us from reviewing public comments and relevant literature concerning the Age-60 rule is that there is no single "right answer." What is also clear is that the question for the FAA is one of public safety and determining acceptable risk. At this time, the FAA cannot be assured that changing the Age-60 rule will maintain or raise the level of safety.
At some age, every individual reaches a level of increased infirmity leading to decreased reliability. That age will vary from person to person but cannot yet be predicted in a specific individual. While science does not absolutely dictate the age of 60 for commercial passenger pilot retirement, that age is within the age range during which sharp increases in disease mortality and morbidity occur. Clearly, there is a progressive anatomic, physiological, and cognitive decline associated with aging, albeit variable in severity and onset among individuals. There is no absolute, scientific formula that may be readily applied.
It is indisputable that, as people age, they experience more illnesses and disorders, and suffer more cognitive decline. Cardiovascular disease rises with age, steeply, beginning between ages 55 and 65, and, though mortality has dropped since 1960, cardiovascular disease remains the most frequent cause of death in pilots and the general population. With this increased incidence of cardiovascular disease in the older population, the risk for unexpected events that could be a threat to safety of flight is increased. Cardiac events (e.g., heart attacks, heart failure) during flight have continued to occur in low but fairly consistent numbers over the years and have caused general aviation accidents.
Other health conditions are known to increase in incidence or to become more complicated with aging. Many present greater difficulties of detection and risk assessment than do cardiovascular disease. Among these are cerebrovascular disease; malignancies; endocrine dysfunction; neurological disorders; psychiatric disorders, including depression; and decline in sensory and motor capabilities. There has been an increasing awareness of the more subtle adverse conditions affecting performance, such as those related to cognitive functioning.
The “Age 60 rule” has served well as a regulatory limit in the United States. It remains the best determination that can be made of the time when a general decline in health-related functions and overall cognitive capabilities has reached a level where decrements in a pilot's performance may jeopardize safety. The “Age 60 rule” has been repeatedly reviewed to determine whether new and sufficient evidence exists to warrant a reconsideration of the regulation. Studies conducted to date do not present sufficient information that would address concerns about negatively impacting the current level of safety by changing the rule.
The FAA has invited the public to provide comments on the viability of the “Age 60 rule.” The most recent comment period was opened in September 2002 in relation to a petition for exemption to the rule filed by a coalition of U.S. pilots approaching age 60. Nearly 7,000 comments were submitted during the month-long open comment period. Overwhelmingly, the comments favored retaining the current “Age 60 rule.” They cited safety and medical issues most often as reasons for retention of the current rule.
Several U.S. Courts of Appeals have reviewed the “Age 60 rule” and studies related to the rule. Uniformly, these courts have denied petitioners’ requests for relief from the rule. In September 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to review FAA’s denial of a petition for exemptions from the rule. In May 2055, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear arguments on the same matter.
In recent years several bills to revise the age limit for airliner pilots have been introduced. In February 2001, a bill to modify the “Age 60 rule” by increasing the age limit to age 65 was referred to the House Subcommittee on Aviation. In March 2001, a bill to modify the “Age 60 rule” to age 63 was favorably reported by this Committee. Neither bill was ultimately enacted. Most recently, legislation was proposed earlier this year that would tie an age limit for air carrier pilots to Social Security retirement age eligibility. Modifying the long-standing baseline of age 60 in the U.S. requires that the public be shown how such modification would maintain an equivalent level of safety. The “Age 60 rule” is a long-standing operational rule that pre-dates subsequent studies completed over the years. None of the studies completed since implementation of the rule provide satisfactory data that conclusively supports changing the rule. No protocols exist to reliably predict when or whether an over-age-60 pilot might experience a medical event that could jeopardize aviation safety. With inconclusive data and no practical experience with pilots above age 60, the FAA does not agree, at this time, to modify the current age limit for airliner pilots.

I recall that hearing. The statement was great but Dr.Jordan had some serious problems as the Senators started asking questions. Soon after his appearance Dr. Jordan was retired from the FAA.