What is the rationale behind requiring ATC to retire at age 56?

Question

Commercial jet airliner pilots are required to retire before the age of 60 or 65, depending on region and regulations. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) set the retirement age at 60 for single pilot roles, and 65 for multi-pilot roles. Pilots basically are all allowed to continue to work until at least age 60, unless of known deficiencies, both medical or professional, that may hinder their ability to fly the aircraft safely. Otherwise, they may choose to retire at 60 to 65 years old. However, FAA regulates that all Air Traffic Controllers (ATC) must retire before age 56. ICAO did not set a global standard for the enforced retirement age of ATC, but most countries follow FAA's 56 rule, with a few variations. Why is there such a major difference between the required retirement age of pilots and ATC? Many sources I found stated that the ability to cope with the high-stress, fast-paced and multi-tasking working conditions and immense responsibility deteriorates with age¹. However, each of these claims also applies to pilots. Pilots also have to deal with high-stress situations, sudden mishaps, or even emergencies. Although pilots can relax a bit when cruising, they need maximum concentration on the critical phases of the flight (i.e., taxi, takeoff, climb, decent, approach, and land). They also may have to deal with a large amount of overnight flights, and jet lag if they fly international routes. Why then, are ATC required to retire nearly a decade earlier than pilots? Is there another reason? I'll appreciate any help. Thanks in advance!

---

¹: See what age must ATC retire

Answer 1

In the 1970's (sorry, couldn't find the exact year) the ATC union, the Professional Air Traffic Controller Organization (PATCO) lobbied for an earlier retirement for ATC personnel. PATCO cited the stress of the job and reduced abilities as controllers aged. A law was passed that created a mandatory retirement for controllers at age 56, and a maximum age of 30 for being hired.

Under the new law, controllers and first-line supervisors could retire at age 50 with 20 years of "good time" (actively controlling air traffic, staff time didn't count) or with 25 years good time at any age. All other jobs in the FAA used the regular Civil Service Retirement System age requirements. The maximum age to be hired (30) ensured that controllers were able to reach retirement eligibility once they turned 56.

Controllers hired before the change in the law had a minimum age (18) but no maximum, so they were exempt from the mandatory retirement at age 56. I worked with many when I started my career. For the most part, these controllers retired (if they were eligible) around their mid fifties anyway.

On good weather days, controlling traffic was sometimes moderately stressful during a typical shift. On bad weather days, it could be really tough. As controllers age, the bad days start to add up, and combined with shift-work that featured eve-eve-day-day-mid shifts in a five-day period, it really takes its toll over the long run, not only on your mental acuity but your overall health as well.

Answer 2

The basic rationale dating back to the 70's is, simply put, that ATC personnel handle a constant flow of many planes, while pilots only manage one plane.

From "Review of the Scientific Basis for the Mandatory Separation of an Air Traffic Control Specialist at Age 56", page 2 (10th actual page) (link to pdf)

At this point, Mr. Francke identified several reports “proving” that the business of air traffic control was highly stressful. He first contrasted the description of the pilot occupation as “hours of boredom intermixed with moments of sheer terror” to a description of the ATCS occupation:

The controller has no such hours of boredom; he must frequently work for 8 hours at a stretch without rest periods and gulping his lunch at his position. Because of shortages of personnel, many of them have been on 6-day weeks for several years. This situation is further worsened by the fact that air traffic control is a 3 shift per day, 7-day a week operation, and each controller must take his turn standing midwatches. This is usually not too onerous on the younger man, but older men usually have difficulty in changing the rhythm of their life, and in sleeping during the daytime in the periods that they are on midwatches (Hearings, p. 98).

This comparison may be outdated and a little exaggerated, and depends greatly on where the controller is stationed or what kind of routes the pilot flies. But one might very well argue, that an aircraft is a more stable system to handle than, say, a CTA is.

Answer 3

As noted in other answers but salient: ATCs handle multiple - sometimes dozens - of aircraft simultaneously while pilots operate a single aircraft. A disastrous error by a pilot can kill hundreds but even in a mid-air between two fully loaded 747s, there's two pilots involved and responsibility is distributed. A similarly severe ATC error can have double the consequences, or more.

Pilots operate machines, while ATCs do their best to influence (thankfully quite cooperative) human behavior. At the end of the day, the NAS is chaotic in ways that flight just isn't. Pilots receive direct, observable feedback to their command/control inputs to aircraft operating normally. ATC, especially in TRACON and En-Route positions, receive delayed, probabilistic feedback for the actions they take. The anticipatory tension experienced by ATCs is thus higher. Pilots do have more skin in the game - they're on board their craft - but they have more immediate control over what situations their craft experiences as well.

ATCs, consequently, suffer elevated health consequences compared to pilots.

These include:

From this 1978 study - Hypertension (substantially elevated risk), respiratory illness (not super conclusive because of wide variance in diagnostic criteria), peptic ulcers

From this earlier study - Hypertension, Peptic Ulcers, Diabetes

From a 2015 study - Poor sleep quality, poor quality of life scores, concentration issues, higher body fat percentages with all comorbidities that implies.

The selection of age 56 specifically was not scientifically determined but is consistent with the maximum hiring age of 30 allowing 25 years of service, sufficient to justify pension benefits and other retirement perks while still being earlier enough in a retired controller's life as to allow a second career in less stressful work.

It's important to acknowledge that studies since the 70s, when this retirement age was laid down in law, don't find the evidence as compelling as was understood to be the case at that time. Nor, however, is it dispositive. More modern evidence suggests that the health impacts of ATC work have as much to do with the work culture, structure of shifts, and staffing shortages as anything else - i.e. it's not the work itself, but how it's being performed.

Evidence does exist, as of 2005 anyway, that controller performance suffers more variability as a function of age in ATCs than in other types of work - and certainly attention to detail and concentration issues - which also correlate with age - are especially deleterious to the work ATCs do.

None of this is perfect, but the studies from the 1970s did use airmen as a comparison/control group.

TL;DR - Pilots and ATCs suffer different kinds of stress which acts on the body and mind in different ways. ATCs are required to process far more discrete information at a constant rate and have far less immediate and direct control over the systems they operate. At the time the mandatory retirement age was instituted, best available scientific research suggested that ATCs burned out more quickly and thus there was merit to making them eligible for retirement benefits earlier and safety reasons to force them to take it. Our understanding of the situation is evolving, but the law is always slower to change than our knowledge.