Hi all,
1 Background
----------------------------
Just joined pprune a few days ago in research of changing from lawyer to pilot at 31. (erm… was originally IT).
Now, reading this thread through since 2000, I’ve noticed some desire to take CAA/JAA to issue on their unreasonable requirements for colour vision standards.
Unfortunately, nothing has been followed through. If I’m mistaken, please mail me with the relevant links.
2 Plan of attack
----------------------------
In my hope to be a possible catalyst to any action, here’s my thoughts on the action required. You’ll have to correct me if I’ve got some of the technical facts/jargon wrong.
This needs to be a 2 pronged attack.
1. Lobbying.
2. Legal Action.
3 Lobbying
----------------------------
The first is free and would just require some organisation from the members on Pprune.
After a forum/organisation to tackle the lobbying has been created, they would enlist the support of external aviation organisations to emphasise the unreasonable and discriminatory stance adopted by the CAA/JAA.
Organisations including and under the umbrella of International Council of Aircraft Owner and Pilot Associations need to be contacted.
The more signatories you have backing you, by both quantity and quality, the more pressure your lobbying will have on the CAA/JAA.
Local MP's would also need to be taken on board to support the matter and air their concerns both in writing and even raise the issue in a Commons debate.
If the JAA/CAA are alleging that it is unsafe for CVD pilots to fly in European airspace, why do they permit US pilots who would fail the JAA colour vision tests to fly in European airspace.
In addition, experts such as Dr Arthur Pape could be contacted for their technical support. Also, Dr Theresa-Jane Squire (0207 040 0240 /
[email protected]) who undertook research for the CAA on this issue at City University, may prove to be a useful source of argument.
4 Legal Action
----------------------------
Since 2000 and beyond, nobody has taken action against the CAA for what seems to be a rather straight-forward case.
I understand from other posts that the JAA cannot be taken to issue, although the EASA can. Would have to look into this deeper to come to a conclusion.
The reason for inaction is probably due to lack of private funds to pay for the solicitors, barristers, expert witnesses and potential costs if case is lost.
There are solutions to this funding problem.
1. Legal Aid.
2. Insurance
3. Conditional Fee Agreement
4.1 Legal Aid
----------------------------
The area of law we are discussing seems to be employment/aviation law. I am not an expert in this area (erm… no type rating I think you say), as I’m crime/family with a touch of civil.
This would require a single person to take an action against the relevant body. If more people wish to join in the action, that is ok but not completely necessary. However, it may be a consideration that damages by the client may be sought for loss of earnings due to the discriminatory decision taken by the CAA. The likelihood of this happening will depend on the facts of the client and cannot realistically be considered until a much later stage with the expertise of the employment/aviation solicitor.
He/She would go to an employment/aviation solicitor in the UK, providing the background of their complaint and how they have been discriminated against because of their disability, and the unreasonableness of the discrimination.
Information of the unreasonableness can be supported by the FAA and other standards and the fact that the JAA/CAA permit for example, American pilots to fly in UK airspace.
The person should be on income support or a low wage to qualify for legal aid under the means test. In respect of the merit test, I’m not 100% sure if employment law under this category permits legal aid to be granted. This would have to be checked with the employment solicitor. It shouldn’t be a problem to find out, as the initial meeting should be free.
If legal aid can be granted, then the client can employ the solicitor, barristers and expert witnesses all paid for by the legal services commission (i.e. The government).
The solicitor would seek a judicial review of the CAA’s decision on this matter with the supporting evidence/ expert reports. If it is deemed that the appropriate body is European JAA/EASA, then they can be joined in addition or replacement of the CAA. Legal aid will cover the case costs all the way to the European courts.
4.2 Insurance
----------------------------
If the employment solicitor determines that legal aid is not receivable under the circumstances, then the route of insurance can be used.
Here, the relevant background information and arguments supporting your case would be given to the solicitor. He would employ a barrister to prepare an ‘advice’ on this case, with the likelihood of success.
This would cost in the region of £1000.
With this advice, the solicitor would approach certain insurance companies who would view the advice by the barrister and decide whether to enter into a contract with the client.
If they decide to enter a contract, it may be of the type whereby they would pay the total cost of solicitor/barrister/expert witnesses/potential costs for you.
If you win the case, it is likely that all of the costs would be paid by the CAA/JAA. If you lose the case, your costs are covered by the insurance company.
4.3 Conditional Fee Agreement
----------------------------
In addition to 4.2, or in replacement of, a ‘no win, no fee’ agreement may be reached with the solicitor.
If he/she can see that this case is likely to succeed, they may agree not to charge you for the costs of the case if you lose.
If you win, the costs will be taken from the otherside. The exact details of the agreement can be negotiated with them.
5 Conclusion
----------------------------
I hope that the above suggestions are taken on board and this matter progressed further, as the current state of affairs need not be how they are and have been for quite some time to the detriment of many many dreams.
I can’t see any real hindrance to taking the action, with the suggestions outlined above and cannot even see much of a defence by the CAA for their unreasonable and discriminatory stance.
Unfortunately, if this action isn’t taken now, with this current level of support; this issue will continue as it is for no need whatsoever, which will be a real shame.