review of commercial medicals

[Thomas coupling]

I intend to copy this across to the health forum, but to grab a wider audience in the UK:

As of December 2006, mulit crew helicopter pilots over 40 now only need to have 1 x aircrew medical a year. Unfortunately for single pilot operators you will still need to do 2 x year.

Also, if you have corrected vision and wear corrective lenses, you don't need to see an optician again unless your eyesight takes a turn for the worse. So those 2 yearly visits to specsavers is over!

There is hope yet for common sense.

All we in EASA/UK have to do now is concentrate on removing the age barrier for single pilot ops (60) under the age discrimination act :ugh:

[What Limits]

TC

Can you please update us on the latest effort to remove the age restriction?

Thanks

WL

[Thomas coupling]

ICAO call the shots with regard to when single pilot commercial operators have to retire their drivers at 60 Vs multi crew continuing to 65.
My research led me to numerous sources, all of which agree that there is NO CONCEIVABLE MEDICAL REASON TO AFFECT THESE CHANGES AT 60 for single crew.
The (relatively) new head of Ops at the CAA cannot see any reason for medically splitting the retirement ages either.
As of October 2006 this practice is now illegal.
However my union lawyers comment that it will take a "class action" to change the legislation and in the UK it should start with the national authority (CAA). However they state that they are not in a financial position to take this forward currently :ugh:
Out of the 13 states that have signed up to the ICAO convention. Only Australia have no discrimination between multi and single crewing, w.r.t. age. Well done Aussie:)
In the UK, the only branch of the helicopter industry with a strong union, is the offshore guys (Multi), all the airlines fly multi, who else in the UK can therefore challenge this regulation?

I'm sure the CAA will change it if they get enough pressure.

[Brian Abraham]

Well done Aussie

CASA in Oz get a lot of flak for different things but it has to be said that their medical people are at the fore front of innovation and ahead of the USA, who I would have thought to be fairly liberal. An example is the use of SSRI's, permitted in Oz but immediate grounding in the US. Yearly medical for ATPL till over 60, then 6 monthly. They are really pro active in keeping you in the cockpit. Well done CASA :ok:

[Martin1234]

Please note that I have no knowledge of the UK law whatsoever and what is stated in the message as following should not be considered as any advice whatsoever.

"However my union lawyers comment that it will take a "class action" to change the legislation"

Why do you need to change the legislation itself, as the important matter is the interpretation of the legislation?

If a legislation is stating "within the UK only" which illegally discriminates other EC countries, "within the UK only" shall be interpreted as "within the EC" no matter what the legislation reads.

The same principle should apply to the age discrimination. In order to get a precedent you could either change the ops manual stating that single pilot ops are allowed for pilots up to the age of f.e. 65. If it's not approved the case is appealed to the administrative court. Alternatively, you just continue to fly commercial singel pilot ops after the age of 60 and notify the CAA. If they decide to prosecute they have to convince to court that the "age 60 rule" isn't against any discrimination law.

Pose that no medicals are allowed to be issued to any of the female gender, because the risk of PMS etc could compromise safety. No court would allow any such discrimination. Then why would they allow the discrimination of age when discrimination laws regarding age and gender in many ways are similar?

[SASless]

I'm sure the CAA will change it if they get enough pressure.

Time for a urine test me thinks!

[tecpilot]

In the UK, the only branch of the helicopter industry with a strong union, is the offshore guys (Multi), all the airlines fly multi, who else in the UK can therefore challenge this regulation?

Yes, that's the situation. And more, some of the big (fixed wing pilots) unions creating much pressure to the national CAAs to fasten the 60 years age border. Also for dual pilot crews. Because their clientele, mostly well provided with company retirement pays, need a reason to leave the business. :} This well organised guys finding more and more "reasons" like higher heart attack risks for over 55 years aged pilots and using their power to force the big airlines to sign special retirement contracts with big gratuities. And in this situation a 60 years age rule is highly welcome. In Germany 3 elder Lufthansa pilots have started proceedings against the big german pilot union "Vereinigung Cockpit" because this union assist the airline in layoffs of over 60 years old pilots, although in Germany the JAA 60 years age rule isn't in national law at the moment.

Sure this way isn't the way for us poor rotorheads.
But in the struggle against a dramatic rise of impoverished elderly rotary pilots we are nearly alone and i couldn't see a helicopter operator able to give pilots between 55 and 60 a XXX,XXX€ bonus.

[Thomas coupling]

Martin 1234 very interesting approach to the issue. I will think more about your suggestions and might even apply them when/if the time comes!

Thanks.

[Whirlybird]

TC,

Am I right in thinking instructors only need one a year? And if my medical expires in February, do I have to renew it, ie does this apply to medicals issued before the change came in?

On second thoughts, if it's easier, could you post the link to the document detailing the changes.

I hope I don't need one; with almost no instructing work recently due to weather etc, I could do with saving £180 quid!!!!

[Rotorbike]

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=49&pagetype=90&pageid=7156

Try that

[Bertie Thruster]

I wonder how all this affects the UK helo pilots directly employed by the police?

The UK Inland Revenue has stated that these pilots do not work in "commercial air transport passenger carrying operations"!! :ugh:

[Whirlygig]

Pose that no medicals are allowed to be issued to any of the female gender, because the risk of PMS etc could compromise safety. No court would allow any such discrimination. Then why would they allow the discrimination of age when discrimination laws regarding age and gender in many ways are similar?

:hmm: They are not similar at all.

Most women do not suffer from PMS whereas reaching the age of 60 is pretty much irrefutable.

Cheers

Whirls

[Martin1234]

"They are not similar at all."

The purpose of the EC prohibition against discrimination on grounds of age or sex are similar. Although the latter has been in force for a longer period of time, for the purpose of this discussion they are in many ways similar, apart from the obvious fact that they aim to protect among other things employees on different grounds.

"Most women do not suffer from PMS whereas reaching the age of 60 is pretty much irrefutable."

Getting PMS might compromise safety while only the fact that someone is reaching the age of 60 doesn't.

It must be considered as objective fact that women as opposed to men suffer a statistically higher chance of getting PMS, mood changes due to menstruation as well as pregnancy. All of the aforementioned could compromise safety, especially in the early stages of pregnancy at a time it is unknown and no pertinent medical evaluation has been done by an AME. The first indication of pregnancy, such as vomiting or dizziness, might occur in the cockpit.

All I am saying is that medical standards should be among other things justified and proportionate. They might not be in all aspects which is why we have regulation against among other things discrimination on grounds of age or sex, in order to supersede among other things medical standards if they aren't among other things justified and proportionate.

[Whirlygig]

:hmm:

Martin1234, in your first post you postulated that a counterargument would be to not issue medicals to women because they COULD suffer from PMS.

In a court of law (or anywhere else for that matter), that argument is spurrious because not all women suffer from PMS. Some do granted and some do become pregnant.

In the same way, you could say that no medicals should ever be issued to anyone in case they become alcoholic or diabetic or depressed.

I'm not disagreeing with the gist of what you say but your premise is false; age and gender are different issues (as is race and religion).

If you can pass a medical, then you should be able to fly.

Cheers

Whirls

[Martin1234]

"in your first post you postulated that a counterargument would be to not issue medicals to women because they COULD suffer from PMS."

Not really.

I am only saying that if women wouldn't be allowed to fly commercial single pilot ops, this wouldn't be acceptable because the increased risk involved isn't high enough to exclude someone from the aforementioned type of flying.

Now the same principle applies to someone "being too old". If someone aged 60 or more isn't allowed to fly commercial single pilot ops, this wouldn't be acceptable because the possible increased risk involved isn't high enough to exclude someone from conducting the aforementioned type of flying.

Medical standards are all about risk assessment. Some of the medical standards are based on objective grounds, some are based on subjective grounds. Due to anti discrimination laws medical standards regarding age, sex, ethnic groups etcetera need to be based on objective grounds and be justified and proportionate.

I really don't see the difference of accepting the higher risk involved regarding females and the possibly higher risk of someone turning 60.

You are correct that if you possess a medical, you should be allowed to exercise the privileges of the medical certificate. Unfortunately, people are being denied medicals on reasons that might have no or little affect on safety.

I am sure that you would be everything but happy if you were told that you are not allowed to fly commercial single pilot ops because you as someone of the female gender do have a small but measurable increased risk as opposed to men. Why would the 60 year old feel any different, if the possibly increased risk is still small?

You are correct that gender and age "are different issues". However, they have similar legal protection and therefore the same basic principles should apply. It wouldn't be necessary to mention discrimination due to gender at all, since females nor males are illegally discriminated in at least JAR-FCL 3. However, it is so much easier to realise that it is against the purpose of the legislation if you start by applying the basic principle on female vs. male, and then continue on 59 year old vs. 60 year old.

[Whirlybird]

I agree with Martin1234. If I've understood correctly, he is saying that to ban all 60 year olds because some 60 year olds aren't safe due to age related problems, is as ridiculous as it would be to ban all women because some women aren't safe due to PMS-related problems. I absolutely agree. Each individual should be treated...individually. Neither age, nor gender, nor race, nor size, nor any other attribute per se, should stop a person flying. If they can pass a medical, they are safe to fly, and should be allowed to.

[Whirlygig]

Martin1234, I think you've explained yourself better or maybe I've understood better. I thought you were actually suggesting it as part of a potential case against the discrimination.

Cheers

Whirls

[handysnaks]

Two things,

The same principle should apply to the age discrimination. In order to get a precedent you could either change the ops manual stating that single pilot ops are allowed for pilots up to the age of f.e. 65. If it's not approved the case is appealed to the administrative court. Alternatively, you just continue to fly commercial singel pilot ops after the age of 60 and notify the CAA. If they decide to prosecute they have to convince to court that the "age 60 rule" isn't against any discrimination law.
It is the CAA who issue the licence (and a CAA AME who issues the medical). So the court case (whether class action or by individual) would have to be heard first so you could have a valid licence to keep flying!

Second
I wonder how all this affects the UK helo pilots directly employed by the police?

The UK Inland Revenue has stated that these pilots do not work in "commercial air transport passenger carrying operations"!!

Bertie, I suspect you are back on the 'expenses' bit of the tax allowance. You need to change Tax Office ;) . I have just had the flat rate job expenses allowance of £850 (the note says that HM revenue has agreed with the union that £850 is the amount you are likely to have to pay out doing this job). Keep at it!

[Martin1234]

"It is the CAA who issue the licence (and a CAA AME who issues the medical). So the court case (whether class action or by individual) would have to be heard first so you could have a valid licence to keep flying!"

Regarding the change of the ops manual I see no problem, as you wait to start flying "after 60" till you have a won.

Regarding just continue to fly and challenge possible future consequences in court, I doubt that the CAA would revoke someone's licence before the case has gained legal force if the outcome is unclear. If you win, you have done nothing wrong and no revokation can be done. If the licence was revoked before you won, you might be eligible for damage.

Just continuing to fly commercial single pilot ops after the age of 60 sure is risky. Unfortunately, I believe it is the easiest way to try the case. If you just fly once and without passengers and still making it an official commercial single pilot ops, the consequences should be less harsh if you don't gain any success. I believe details regarding how to challenge the legislation should be stated by someone that knows the law in the applicable jurisdiction, as this is very different between individual EC countries.

[Whirlygig]

Aerial work pilots (e.g. instructors) can fly after 60 so flying after 60 with no "passengers" (i.e. operations staff, students) is OK.

The problem with your proposal is that the pilot who DOES take the plunge and take passengers after aged 60 would have to have the backing of his employer, union and benevolent fund in order to fight the case that the CAA would bring. And if he lost, it would be very expensive. I doubt there's many out there who would be prepared to be the guinea pig - hence the requirement for a class action which could still be costly.

Cheers

Whirls

[Martin1234]

"Aerial work pilots (e.g. instructors) can fly after 60 so flying after 60 with no "passengers" (i.e. operations staff, students) is OK."

Repositioning flight for the purpose of picking up passengers? Is that commercial ops? Debatable. Anyhow, just do the startup with a passenger and never lift off.

"I doubt there's many out there who would be prepared to be the guinea pig"

I am! At least in Sweden, where worst case scenario is probably that you need to pay the fines, which shouldn't be much. If the Swedish court is forwarding the matter to the EC court in Luxembourg, the outcome will gain effect in the UK as well. Problem is that firstly I would need a commercial flying job, secondly I would have to hover for 35 years before I might be in breach of the "age 60 rule".

However, changing the ops manual and appeal if it isn't approved should be an easier way to go I suppose. In the UK, do you need to pay anything if you don't gain any success in an administrative court in a case against an authority such as the CAA?

[Whirlygig]

To answer your last question, "yes"! And probably lots!

Cheers

Whirls

[Martin1234]

Well, here we don't but on the other hand the tax burdan is outrageous.

When I come to think about it, here you should be able to ask a question to the CAA how the age 60 rule is applied in the light of the age discrimination laws. If you appeal and lose, you don't need not to pay anything apart from your own costs, if any.

The only problem is that Sweden hasn't implemented the directive regarding discrimination on the grounds of age yet, and will probably not do so until 2008. You might be able to take advantage of the directive even before that date, but personally I have not much to gain even though it would be fun to try the case.

If I got too much time on my hands, would anyone care to provide me details giving reasons that there is no (medical) reason to prohibit 60-65 year olds, that do possess a JAR class 1 medical, from flying commercial single pilot ops?

[Thomas coupling]

Martin: I'll dig it out when I get back to work.
I have approached the CAA and they are saying - no-one has challenged us yet and until they do, they don't know what will happen:ugh:
Basically - don't unscrew the lid off that can of worms:eek:
Handysnaks - care to extrapolate on this Tax hand out you got for police flying, could we all benefit from this? PM me if necessary.
regards,

[uncle ian]

The dreaded day is only 3 months away for me. I work free-lance only these days and I am advised by my lawyers to wait until I have "suffered a detriment" (i.e. loss of income when my license privileges are withdrawn) then sue the CAA for that loss.

We have looked at a "class action" and agree there is no easy way to fund it and none of my contemporaries is prepared to contribute to a fighting fund. However on a matter of such significance there may well be access to legal aid, for an individual, particularly if any appeal ends up up in the High Court and/or Eurpean Courts (which, of course, it must)

I am determined to fight this issue for as long as I am able. If there is anyone out there who wants and has the means to help or advise me in any way I would be very grateful.

[Thomas coupling]

Uncle Ian: you bet:)
Here is my main reference (more for martin 1234):
www.icao.int

Use the search option and type in 'amendment 167'.

the important bit being: personnel licensing, amendment 167 to annex 1.
If you PM me, I will ship you hard copies of what I have sent our lawyers to date.
Good luck and keep us all informed eh?

[Letsby Avenue]

Handysnacks - Spill the beans with regards to the tax break, sounds to good to be true :) Might even give you a call if I can ever catch you at work :)

[Tranquil]

Maybe its just me but I do not understand the need for people to try and fly as comercial pilots beyond 60/65. Think of the effect on the employment market for the youngsters coming into the industry if all you old f---s try to fly on until altzheimers confuses the cyclic with the collective. If its a financial thing surely we should be ensuring that the industry provides sufficient protection for retirement at a suitible age.

[Whirlygig]

Have you been watching Logan's Run!! :}

The issue of employment for younger pilots is a different matter to whether someone automatically becomes unable to work purely because they have reached a certain age.

Some pilots retire voluntarily before they're 60; others would like to continue. Shouldn't they be allowed, as with other professions, to make that choice rather than have it made for them.

The Alzheimer's comment is irrelevent and crass.

Cheers

Whirls

[Bravo73]

Maybe its just me but I do not understand the need for people to try and fly as comercial pilots beyond 60/65.

I bet you change your tune once you hit 59... :hmm:

[Thomas coupling]

he he tranquil nice try..smoke me a kipper, skipper;)

[Tranquil]

Not sure the alzheimers remark is any more crass than the Logans Run one. However I was under the impression this was a free forum and therefore I was intitled to my point of view.
Although not as relevant to the Rotary world, it really irritates me to hear the airline guys bemoaning there fate at having to retire at 65 after salary's in the 6 figures. Peronally I would not be to enthused to board any aircraft crewed by what I would consider to be geriatrics. I make this statement having been in the industry approaching 30 years and on the wrong side of 50. We all knew what the rules were pertaining to this vocation before entering it.

[Tranquil]

No I am not likely to chang my mind at 59, It has always been my intention to try and retire around 55 although my present company policy is 58 with the option to continue to 60 if its agreeable to both parties. After what will then have been 35 years in the seat I think that wil be more than enough.

[Bravo73]

Oh, the folly of youth... :rolleyes:

[Whirlygig]

Yeah and I said I'd never, ever listen to Radio 2 or wear sensible shoes!

Cheers

Whirls

[Whirlybird]

Tranquil,

What gives you or anyone else the right to decide at what age someone else should want to stop flying? Your Altzeimers comment is stupid, childish, and irrelevant - if you'd actually been reading this thread you would see that no-one is suggesting that someone who can't pass a medical should fly. Frankly, I'd be very worried about YOU being employed as a pilot, considering you seem to be incapable of understanding a simple logical argument, remembering what you read, or putting yourself in someone else's position. I would very, very seriously question your knowledge of human factors and your decision making in the air! If you do fly, do me a favour, keep well away from me, OK!

[Thomas coupling]

Ouch whirlybird.....but well said:)

Tranquil...oh for a tranquil well laid out plan.

Apart from the fact that some people are actually still raring to go at 60 and actually may feel very alive and keen to work a decent days labour..


there's the principle of the matter. What gave ICAO the right to decide that 60 year old's are any less safe than 65 year old's???

Go whilry go whirly go go go:D

[Tranquil]

Wow,
Whirlybird,
I don't think I said I had the right to decide, I purely expressed an opinion. With regard to your comment "Frankly, I'd be very worried about YOU being employed as a pilot, considering you seem to be incapable of understanding a simple logical argument," I would suggest you look at your own comments with the same logic. Please do not worry I will do my best to avoid being anywhere in your vicinity because as such an obviously calm, collected and extremely profesional person I would not want to be responsible for upsetting you.

[Whirlybird]

Tranquil,

Expressing an opinion is saying, "I don't think 60 year olds....etc etc etc, because...etc etc. But what you said was Think of the effect on the employment market for the youngsters coming into the industry if all you old f---s try to fly on until altzheimers confuses the cyclic with the collective. That is equivalent to saying that anyone over 60 shouldn't be flying. It's also rude, inaccurate, and unproven...what effect on the employment market?

Now that I've explained, perhaps you'd be so kind as to tell me what you meant by I would suggest you look at your own comments with the same logic. Or give me an example. If you can, which I very much doubt, because you wouldn't know a logical argument from a bacon buttie.

As for your final sentence...grow up! Bu I'm glad you're agreeing to keep away from me at least. :ok:

[Tranquil]

Ok,
While I am sure you will see it as a victory I see no point in continuing this as you are the one incapable of seeing other points of view.

[Tranquil]

Ok,
I see no point in continuing this.

[Letsby Avenue]

Hey, take heart Tranquil - I know where you're coming from... I can't see me flying past 55 let alone 60 - 65? you're having a laugh :uhoh:

My problem is that I lose 30% of my pension because I have to retire before 65 - I love joined up NuLab government:ugh:

[handysnaks]

excuse the slight thread creep but for Chris H, your e-mail address keeps being rejected! PM me or try a different address (or call me at WMIDS)
andy
:ok:

[uncle ian]

I must just add to the arguements put forward by Thomas and the whirlies that, in my 59th year after 20 odd years as a free-lance helicopter pilot, I am in my most lucrative year ever.

Any provision I have made for retirement has nothing to do with any of my employers over the years and everything to do with taking care of myself.........just like many of us in this niche market for pilots. My regular clients are horrified at the prospect of my forced retirement as there are not enough helicopter pilots of any age to undertake all the work avilable. I want to continue to fly and, although the rules were always there, there is now another law, about age discrimination, which should take precedence. I, for one, intend to use it.

Another aspect you may have missed, Tranquil, is that it is almost unique to rotary operations that single pilot commercial operations are prefered to multi pilot commercial operations for reasons which I don't suppose I need to spell out.

Best wishes.

[Tranquil]

Uncle Ian,
No I don't think I missed the uniqueness of the rotary situation. However all I was attempting to do was put my point of view. Of course anyone is free to use any legal avenue open to them and I would defend their right to do so. But I do not have to agree with the principle. I am not sure about the "no Pilots of any age" as there inumerable threads on here of youngsters trying to get their feet in the door. I accept they may not all have the desired experience but that is a catch 22 situation. If you don't give them a start how do they get the experience.
Having said all that good luck to you.

[uncle ian]

Tranquil,

I take your point but the way to gain experience is the way most of us have done it...... unattractive jobs for poor remuneration.

Only in the past 10 years or so have I been actively sought for my range of skills. That's 25 years learning the trade. No wonder I'm a little hacked off that I may have to stop doing it just as I've learned how and I've absolutely no sympathy with the whingers who have no experience but a wealth of expectation about their value in the marketplace.

Best wishes.

[Whirlybird]

No wonder I'm a little hacked off that I may have to stop doing it just as I've learned how

And why should your employers, who want maturity and experience, be forced to take some young, inexperienced wet-behind-the-ears new pilot, when they'd prefer to have you?