Thats logic doesn't fly for any other profession

It's because no other profession has the combination of (1) forcing people out of a highly trained role so young (with no options to reuse those skills in any other roles - forcing folks to go have to go back to square one and get a new professional education to move anywhere else), along with (2) the peculiarities of a government pension.

Unless you overhaul the way government workers earn retirement, or we decide that it's safe to employ older air traffic controllers, any other choice would be highly exploitative.

Yes that logic applies.

Any federal law enforcement position has this. For example, for the FBI or the secret service, you must enter by 37 and retire by 56.

Shouldn't it be up to the individual to determine whether they want to take that bargain? What about those people who did well enough in their previous careers for retirement not to be a concern and desire a new technical challenge that serves the public?

If you can make an exception to the rules to force them to retire early, you can make an exception to the rules to let them earn pension benefits faster.

> Hiring someone older would be setting them up for a very bad time later in life.

If they spend 20 years there, and get 20 years worth of pension, what's the problem? They can combine it with whatever savings and pensions they had before being hired at 36.

Unless you're saying they don't get any pension, in which case stop screwing people over that way and cut the pension qualification to 5 years or less.