BALPA refuse to help its membership

[What Limits]

So it seems that BALPA refuse to support the challenge to the CAA's Age Discrimination Policy

The June 07 NEC AGREED that this request from the Flight Safety Group ‘to decline to challenge the ban on over 60 single crew commercial helicopter flying’ would be supported.


My resignation is in the post. Perhaps another Union will come along that exists to help its members.

[118.50]

Why would they help, after all the money they pocket from us, how on earth would the CAA and BALPA get their cut.

Such a shame about this industry, maybe try going to IPA.

[ShyTorque]

I've been in this industry for quite some time. I have considered membership a couple of times BUT given the past record on a number of issues, regretfully so far I've decided it just isn't worth it.

[Bertie Thruster]

I've also been in the industry for some time (even working with Shy Torque for a few years) but unlike Shy I thought BALPA membership was worth the cost, even to the level of getting involved....until yesterday..


Regards, BT. Ex-(as of yesterday) PAS BALPA Company Council Chairman.

[Helinut]

I have thought about joining BALPA on a number of occasions. I never have because of things like this.

They are SO biased towards airline plank jockeys and the larger organisations. It makes very little sense for the run of the mill onshore ops pilots. Indeed, on one occasion when I came across them, they have had an adverse effect on my situation.

I can imagine it might be different for the offshore guys and gals.

[Hummingfrog]

BALPA has been very useful in the offshore industry as it has helped unite the pilot work force. This has enabled us to push for better pay and conditions. One allowance has recently been increased by over 300% due to BALPA's support - well worth the subscription.

HF

[Bertie Thruster]

It is not the onshore market itself that The BALPA membership as a whole won't support, its the single pilot ops.

As the final paragraph in the BALPA argument against the age 60+ campaign, sent to the PAS CC, the BALPA Flight Safety Committee quoted BALPA policy:

Their quotation below.... with my 'sic' added!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MINIMUM CREW OF TWO PILOTS
That the policy of the Association be to obtain by all possible means the necessary change in legislation to enforce the requirement that a minimum of two pilots holding current Commercial Licences and Instrument Ratings and qualified on the type should be carried on all fights (sic) under IFR and at night on public transport aircraft, including those certificated for single pilot operation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Very disappointing. I shall have to sit down and compare the remaining benefits (insurance, legal cover) to the new-found downsides (lack of requested support on age-related issues, unrequested requirement for 2-pilot ops) before I decide whether to stay in. BALPA may have been very helpful in the past, but they're only as good as their last campaign. In this case, that equates to not-very-good-at-all.

[Mama Mangrove]

BALPA exists as it always has done, to support its fixed wing members and the bloated adminstrative staff. It, like the CAA, has contributed to the airline industry in UK being a sad shadow of that in the USA. Thank goodness that during my time as a pilot I never contributed one penny to their coffers :mad:

[Thomas coupling]

As expected from an organisation that lost it's way many years ago. BALPA....it's all in the name folks!

A sad society.

[Bertie Thruster]

Thud, you are right; it is very disappointing!

Especially when one considers that one of the factors the BALPA NEC quoted in formulating the "BALPA 2007 Strategic Flightplan" was:

Legislative changes (most topically age discrimination)

[Bertie Thruster]

TC.

I have to admit in this instance I have to totally agree with you!

Regards, BT

[Max_Chat]

Any remarks from BALPA would be appreciated.

[Bertie Thruster]

What BALPA said to PAS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Crew engaged in commercial air transport operations over the Age of 60, BALPA has been asked by Members to challenge this position.


The maximum age limit for the Captain of a multi pilot commercial air transport operations, is, with certain restrictions 65 years, this has been the position in the UK for the last 20 years and it is a position that has now been adopted worldwide via an ICAO SARP. The age limit for single crew commercial air transport operation carrying passengers has remained as age 60.


The current CAA definition makes it clear that winchmen, police observers, paramedics etc. are considered as equivalent to public transport passengers.

Thus single crew helicopter pilots engaged in police, rescue or pipeline observation duties can not be employed beyond the age of 60, in spite of Age Discrimination Legislation now being in place.


Do we wish to challenge this? The Police Air Services CC has asked BALPA to support a 60+ work campaign, the British Helicopter Advisory Board are keen to support the same issue.


At a practical licensing level, it is only flying within the UK which is being considered with ICAO SARPs thus not being relevant and the UK ANO may well be capable of amendment at the present time. However on the adoption by EASA of competency in the fields of operations and licensing, in perhaps eighteen months time, it is unlikely that a dispensation from EASA rules would then be permitted.

We anticipate that EASA will adopt JAR OPS, therefore it is relevant to this debate to examine JAR OPS 1.040 which states;

JAR-OPS 1.040 Additional crew members.
An operator shall ensure that crew members who are not required flight or cabin crew members. have also been trained in. and are proficient to perform. their assigned duties.

It seems clear that JAA recognises a category of crew which is neither flight crew nor cabin crew and could perhaps be winchmen, observers etc. If these categories could be reclassified in the view of the CAA as crew rather than passengers, then pilots could continue in employment as single crew beyond the age of 60.

But should these people, some of them BALPA members, be required to accept an increased risk in their employment with an age 60-65 single pilot? They already do accept an increased risk with a less than 60 year old single pilot in comparison with a multi pilot public transport flight. The additional risk is perhaps not large, may indeed have reduced in recent decades and perhaps could be mitigated further by additional medical surveillance as is already the case for Class 1 certificate holders over the age of 70. However there have been two recent fatal accidents involving single crew public transport flights and the risks due to disorientation of a single pilot must be recognised.



Ifalpa policy regarding age 60 remains delicately balanced with the latest statement emphasising that pilots should have access to a full pension at age 60 and leaving the retirement age more open than was previously the case.

Recent acceptance of age 65 by US ALPA suggests that Ifalpa policy may change.

Our own BALPA policy supports universal multi crew operations on a flight safety basis and of course such multi crew public transport helicopter operation continues in the North Sea oilfields.



MINIMUM CREW OF TWO PILOTS

That the policy of the Association be to obtain by all possible means the necessary change in legislation to enforce the requirement that a minimum of two pilots holding current Commercial Licences and Instrument Ratings and qualified on the type should be carried on all fights under IFR and at night on public transport aircraft, including those certificated for single pilot operation.


------------------------------------
The June 07 NEC AGREED that this request from the Flight Safety Group "to decline to challenge the ban on over 60 single crew commercial helicopter flying" would be supported.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[SilsoeSid]

I may join you Bertie, considering the support we had during our recent direct employment issues!......link (http://www.hyaenagallery.com/jimwirt/cblwaste.jpg)

[Helinut]

I suppose it is not surprising really. A Union will always tend to support what it considers are the interests of the majority of its members, as a matter of sef-interest. So they want more two crew flying because that relates to the major employment areas and membership in planks and offshore. As far as they are concerned, we are hardly worth bothering with.

As TC says, it is in the name.

[northseaspray]

If the helicopter pilots around the world had been just a little smarter, and more union minded, the pay and the pensions would've been on a decent level long time ago, with no need to work past 60. For all of us that love aviation also after retirement, there's a flyingclub at every airfield.. think I'll stick to gliders when I get there, very little noise and no vibrations! :ok:

[Thud_and_Blunder]

northseaspray,

Your reply shows exactly the kind of attitude within BALPA that emergency-service/charter helicopter pilots are up against. They (the blinkered-BALPA muppets) must find it hard to believe, as they count the days down to the last flight they have to make to qualify for their pension, that some of us do the job because we genuinely love it. I can see that trudging the same old flight plan day-in, day-out with Ibiza-bound chavs OR neoprene-bound oilers is something you only do for the pay-cheque, but there are those amongst us who wake up each day truly looking forward to flying the businessfolk, bobbies or medics to where they can do something useful. I don't want to join a flying club to burn holes in the sky for my own entertainment - I want to carry on doing something that actually helps improve the lot of folk around me (and gives me a tremendous buzz every time we get it right). Equally, I don't want to stop at some arbitrary age point, and I'm not sure I want to give any more financial support to a representative body that chooses not to see that point of view.

[HeliComparator]

T&B et al

BALPA is not trying to stop you flying at age 60, what it is trying to do is to improve safety in the industry (the onshore branch of which could be said to have a relatively poor record of late) by encouraging operations to switch to 2 pilot (safer and creates more jobs), and by recognising that, despite all the age discrimination legislation you can muster, the probability of sudden incapacitation does unfortunately increase as one gets older.

You can of course argue that the cut-off age should be variable according to the individual. This is true but impossible to work out in advance in practice. Some say "I can pass a medical and an OPC so I should be able to continue" but realists know many die or become incapacitated with a current medical, and OPCs are typically so formulaic that an old hand can pass one with eyes closed, regardless of deteriorating real ability.

Whilst it might suit your personal agenda to carry on flying single pilot until you croak in the cockpit and kill your passengers, BALPA considers that this is not good for the wider industry!

HC

[northseaspray]

Contrary to what some might believe, pilots wanting to retire at 60 don't hate their jobs (not the ones that I know, anyway), they just know their limitations and want to end the career with a nice soft landing, followed by retirement and a good enough pension, leaving the scene for someone else who is then fortunate enough to get the same excellent opportunity.

The circle of life... or something like that?

[Night Watchman]

Thud_and_Blunder

Bit harsh aren't you on your North Sea brothers and sisters?

I'm an emergency services pilot. I fly for the Coastguard. I enjoy my job and I get the same buzz from doing it as you.

I get the same pay and conditions as my North Sea colleagues and why shouldn't you?

We have been assisted by BALPA a lot recently with the transition from Bristow to CHC both through representation and legal support.

[Thomas coupling]

It's not for BALPA to make a formal statement per se. They are not qualified in this regard and certainly will not be able to defend their stance on the grounds of ill health. ICAO evidence suggests that the time is now to review the medical demographics in light of recent progress regarding life styles and to take into account SPIFR technology.
60 is the new 50.

IF and I repeat - IF pilots want to fly beyond 60 (commercially) and there is NO evidence to support otherwise - let it be. Australia / Japan / Norway / Germany et al have seen the light and it is only a matter of time before the rest fall into sync.

[Sulley]

BALPA will only be of use if you fit their demographic,if you don't then tough.They should represent the views of their membership and should'nt be making statements supporting UK policy that doesn't do that.What's the point if you have a grievance and they just tow the party line !
If the age did change,I wonder how instrumental in it they would've suddenly just become ?

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Night Watchman,

- No disagreement about pay and terms of service (it might attract the ex-mil pilots who flock to the airlines), but the key difference between the aircraft you use to provide an excellent operational service and the ones the onshore folk use is size. A helicopter with a footprint (and downwash) like a 61 simply wouldn't work as an Air Ambulance in the UK. Smaller helis with the ability to use correspondingly-smaller 2D/4D LS, or hover OGE out-of-wind over a police incident, have equally-correspondingly-small payloads. If you have to take out a police officer, medic or a patient in order to be able to carry a second pilot then you have taken away a huge part of the reason for having the helicopter there in the first place. London HEMS may be able to operate with 2 drivers but it's unlikely they need to carry much fuel. Try the same trick in an area like Yorkshire or the Great North and you have a very short-range asset. Charities don't have the funds to buy too many extra helis to cover the gaps, let alone the extra pilots. BALPA's campaign, if successful, would lead to a reduction in coverage of a valuable emergency asset. Safe, but not much use.

Helicomparator, northseaspray

- Interesting perspective - the implication being that I and my colleagues are selfishly acting as dogs-in-mangers to the youngsters struggling to join the industry, while simultaneously setting the scene for our own untimely demise (and that of our passengers, CAA-agreed and otherwise). Unsurprisingly, I do not concur. I have a healthy sense of my own limitations, perhaps amplified by the fact that I'm the only person aboard the aircraft with a stick/vote. My colleagues and I are, arguably, more likely to take ourselves off flying duty if we think safety is compromised. Interestingly, it could be argued that the advent of 2 pilot ops would actually make onshore ops LESS safe and effective; them-and-us relations twixt drivers and CAA-agreed pax leading to poor CRM environment compared to current practice, aircraft operating closer to the boundaries of the flight envelope...

- As for "the onshore branch of which could be said to have a relatively poor record of late", I can only think of the cooking of an engine in NI over the past couple of years. How does that compare to the 2-pilot N Sea ops (at least one 365 lost) - and are such comparisons valid when factoring-in sortie rates, flying hours and the like?

- Youngsters joining the industry - should charities and police services have to foot the bill for bringing pilots unused to low-level, VFR bad-weather ops up to speed?

My employer, PAS, is the only onshore operator which has actively embraced BALPA. The process has been beneficial, in the past, both to the company and the pilot workforce. However, as mentioned earlier, the union is only as good as its last campaign.

It appears from the preceding correspondence that strong opinions about the onshore industry are held by people who aren't actually currently in that industry. When pilots within that onshore "branch" find their wishes and experience ignored, it should not come as a surprise when they look elsewhere for practical support.

[SilsoeSid]

HeliComparator
BALPA is not trying to stop you flying at age 60, what it is trying to do is to improve safety in the industry (the onshore branch of which could be said to have a relatively poor record of late) by encouraging operations to switch to 2 pilot (safer and creates more jobs), and by recognising that, despite all the age discrimination legislation you can muster, the probability of sudden incapacitation does unfortunately increase as one gets older.

Surely that would be a good case for the CAA to allow Police observers/paramedics etc to be classed as 'crew' and not just Passengers! By doing so, the Police Observer/Paramedic could be officially trained to fly the aircraft to a level proficient enough to land the aircraft in the case of this sudden incapacitation. As opposed to a fully trained and qualified pilot becoming, in effect, a camera operator.

:E They would be also be entitled to wear a 'half wing' which I notice some units allow their observers to wear anyway, when all they really fly is an overtime sheet from folder to in tray! :E

This would be the bean counters ideal, as the additional cost of having to pay for a 2 pilot system would simply not apply, as the trained observer would perhaps only need to be paid a little more to cover insurance premiums and a sweetener to cover for no more overtime allowances, because now they would officially be crew and duty hours would apply.

Wouldn't 2 pilot police ops be a bit OTT ?

[Night Watchman]

My colleagues and I are, arguably, more likely to take ourselves off flying duty if we think safety is compromised.

Interesting point that one and it's one that comes up on our units all the time. I would argue that because you are a SAR/medical/police asset you are in fact under MORE pressure to go on shift particularly if there is no one else to cover for you. In the North Sea I wouldn't think twice about phoning in sick or taking an aircraft off line because a flight to a rig is not that important. But if you know that by not going into work or by snagging an aircraft then your emergency asset is not available then you start questioning yourself as to whether you are sick or not and the old 'It'll be alright' line starts.

Interestingly, it could be argued that the advent of 2 pilot ops would actually make onshore ops LESS safe and effective; them-and-us relations twixt drivers and CAA-agreed pax leading to poor CRM environment compared to current practice, aircraft operating closer to the boundaries of the flight envelope...

Can't agree with that... we operate 4 crew and believe me we operate extremely close to the flight envelope but we work happily as a team without issues.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Night Watchman,

Good points, well made. I can see where you think that an inexperienced pilot might feel pressured to stay at work - you can probably see where this line of argument is going to go re experienced, 60+ years of age pilots! We have nothing left to prove, and we too look forward to getting home to wind down after a hard day.

I would also expect that a SAR crew would be up there with the very best of the aviation community's CRM practitioners - long may you maintain the exemplary standards the rest aspire to! However, you would only be close to the edge of the envelope (note that I'm not including weather, FTL or other crew-related limitations, just a/c) for relatively limited periods in your flight profiles; put 2 pilots into a 135 plus medic/doc/patient or 2 bobbies/full police role and that aircraft is close to its limits throughout the entire sortie.

[Bearintheair]

If I'm not allowed to carry a paramedic or police officer when I reach 60 as this is classed as Public Transport, why should I be permitted to carry out filming or training (possibly with a new student with zero hours) just because this is classed as aerial work? The risk to the person with me due to my potential ill health is unchanged.

[Marco]

Why are we (police) still operating this way then. Surely aerial work would be a better option?

[SilsoeSid]

Good point Marco, after all aren't we really just flying around a cameraman/person and a radio operator/ess?

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summary_of_public_transport.pdf

Rather than give a cut/paste job, as I read it we are only public transport flights only because the observers are passengers.

Further reading on the definition of pax would raise the question that if you are carrying observers who are "authorised to supervise training and carry out tests", then thay would be classed as crew and therefore it would not be a public transport flight.

Solution, make each observer a line trainer. :E:ok:

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Nice one Sid:
Solution, make each observer a line trainer.
...any idea how we can get each air ambo casualty up to the same speed?! :) Mind you, some of the RSI'd folk we carry show as much spark and verve as some line trainers I can think of ;)

[Beaucoup Movement]

I've been a member of balpa for some time now & was wondering if there were any other unions out there & cheaper! I know that you can claim tax relief but I'm interested primarily for legal cover.

Any suggestions/answers?

Cheers,

BM

[SilsoeSid]

...any idea how we can get each air ambo casualty up to the same speed?!

Maybe you don't have to...(exceptions)

...Couldn't air ambulances be classed as charity flights?

5.2 Exception No 2 - Charity flights (Article 159)
A flight will be deemed to be a private flight for all purposes if the only payment is to a registered charity which is not the operator of the aircraft and the flight is made with the permission in writing of the Authority.


But in the case of an air ambulance, perhaps it is down to payment..

3.3 Valuable Consideration
Throughout this paper, the question of whether a flight is public transport or aerial work is discussed in terms of whether "payment" has been given or promised in respect of the flight. In the Order itself instead of "payment" the term which is used is "valuable consideration". This term has a very wide meaning, including the provision of goods and services.

4 How to determine whether or not a flight is public transport.
4.2 Having determined that there is at least one passenger on board, the next question is whether any payment has been given or promised which, if it had not been given or promised would mean that the passengers would not have been carried.