Age PLus etc
Like most of we old uns .. I am following Uncle Ian's well presented Tribunal case on a day to day basis.
For what my view is worth - and judging by the nature of the questions and the associated inflections, it seemed to me that that the tribunal were somewhat sympathetic to Ian's claim.
But I don't want to see the issue side-tracked. I believe the only sensible position is surely to have one's ability to work at any age based on that well used phrase ... 'fitness for purpose' or in this case, 'medical fitness to do the job.'
Personally, I wouldn't care how stringent each medical was, providing it accurately reflected my ability to be safe when working. (None of us want to die at 1,000 feet)
On my last 'stress ECG' the CAA's de-briefing CMO told me there are more accurate medicals available, albeit costing around a grand or so.
If any new regulations were framed, this more rigourous medical could be available for pilot's who believed they were fit enough to continue beyond the EASA's under 65 SP rule. (CAA presently 60)
It was noted at Ian's hearing that the existing age rules are a continuation from no less than the 1960s, but I felt there was little evidence provided of actual pilot incapacitation related to increasing age. Indeed it was stated at the hearing that the last major public transport fatalities due to pilot incapacitation were more than forty years ago with the BA Trident, 'PI' crash at Staines.
Overall, and I know it is a simplification, but if an individual is assessed as sufficiently 'fit' for a particular task, it is a discrimination to arbitrarily impose any age cut-off point. However for expediency, I do appreciate smaller bites of the cherry are more likely to succeed in the current case.
On the famous 1% principle, I accept that today, at 75, it probably isn't a good idea to leave me in charge on a routine basis of an aircraft with public transport pax ... but I sure remember how resentful I felt in 1993, flying my last ever Silverstone shuttle, having been fit enough to participate in a world championship display event less than ten months earlier.
Ian, our good wishes and support are with you, and a thousand thanks from us all for your brave attempt to put right a major wrong in this industry.
I'll be sitting behind you again on a couple of days next week. (hopefully Weds & Friday) especially the final Friday for the claimant and defendant summaries.
Pruners should know the Tribunal's decision is not likely to be known for circa three months or so.
Safe flying to you all out there,
Dennis Kenyon.