Tribunal Hearing Friday's Close
From Dennis K at Victory House, Ian Evans v CAA
Last day report from Age Discrimination Tribunal,
Today, Friday, was to hear the Tribunal parties summaries.
My forecast of a four hour Respondent, (CAA) marathon summary proved wrong. Mr Richard Mc Manus whisked quite smartly through his summary of the CAA's response, highlighting the evidence of Professors Camm & Joy, plus the current CAA's CMO ... all in exactly one hour.
He gave an exceptionally clear and comprehensive summary of the evidence presented in the eight days of Ian Evans' hearing.
Major submissions emphasised were the medical opinion of the CAA's experts, the oft quoted proportional factor, and the known figures of the overall health of the general population. Whilst no actual figures for 'over 60' pilots incapacitation due to cardio vascular or other incapacitation were available anywhere in the world, Mr McManus maintained the general principle of increased risk with age had been firmly established over the years via the many experts opinions and of medical papers published on the subject.
The Tribunal was told it was the CAA's duty to maintain existing rules based oin their interpretation of current medical statistics, and pending emergence and acceptance of contra data, of which none were in the public domain. Secondly, it was their duty to comply with the ICAO requirements and with JARs, and thirdly ... the CAA's position should remain unchanged pending imposition of European law and changes required to the ANO.
The respondents, (CAA) defence team advised that continuous or even more frequent or more stringent medical examination could not be relied on as prevention of possible future pilot incapacitation. Nor could the family history issue that had been referred to by the claimant be considered acceptable evidence of a lower risk in aviation terms.
The evidence of the claimants medical expert, (Dr Ian Perry) were submitted to be inconclusive and while his wide general experience was acknowledged, it was not backed by empirical data and had not proved conclusive under cross examination.
The Tribunal was remindedthat 'decades of study' had resulted in the CAA decision to maintain the 60 plus rule, and that it might not be proper for the Tribunal to recommend by way of a verdict a rule change with the benefit of just a nine-day hearing.
It was affirmed that the CAA remit was essentially one of safety for the paying public and the evidence presented had shown that the authority acted properly in maintaining the age 60 and over single pilot rule, and that the claimant's application should be denied.
Ian Evans then commenced his summary, saying that there was Prima Facie evidence that age discrimination had been applied by the CAA and that they had failed to show sufficient empirical evidence that single pilot operations over age sixty are unsafe ... that there was sufficient international data available that met the CAA's ten million hours requirement sample via USA, Australia ans two major European countries.
Ian next reminded the Tribunal that as a sixty year old he was not allowed to fly a fare paying passenger, yet was deemed leagal to fly a camera equipped helicopter and a cameraman over the Palace of Westminster, Buckingham Palace, or over the building where the Tribunal was presently sitting! He submitted that the carriage of fare-paying passengers was permitted by many major countries throughout the world, and in particular by Germany and Switzerland, being EASA members who had changed their rules to permit over 60 single pilot public transport operations.
It was noted that as yet, EASA had no legal status in the UK, but this was about to change on the 18th March 2008. Ian further cited that expanded medical testing could be shown to be of benefit by taking say a sample of 1000 'over 60' pilots with perhaps 10% failing, thereby reducing the incapacitation risk of the remaining 900. If then the 100 failures were prepared to be submitted to a more invasive and more accruate examination, it might be that a further 50% pass the higher standard of medical, further reducing the risk of the remaining 950 pilots. A further, even more stringent, examination would progress the principle and result in a final number of pilots with a significantly lower overall risk than the original 1000 pilot sample.
Ian Evans also maintained that with the introduction of the October 2006 Age Discrimination legislation, the burden of proof of 'fitness to fly' now rested with the CAA to prove such flying was unsafe. He noted that following the 2006 Act, the CAA had raised its staff retirement age to 65. even for its pilot staff.
Ian related his earlier experience with a former CAA CMO, (Dr Janvrin) who advised him in writing, that there was no evidence either from the UK or overseas to support the 'over 60' ruling, and that he was therefore entitled to accept this authoritative view, which he considered was germane to bringing his present claim before the Tribunal.
Ian closed averring that the age 60 rule was dramatically out of date, which in recent years, the CAA had conceded by being known to have considered a more rational and comprehensive way of determining medical fitness by examining population and health trends since the 1960s, when the original over 60 ruling originated. However, they had not done so. He noted that the ruling was also in violation of the 2006 Age Discrimination Act and the CAA had produced no solid medical or empirical evidence to support over 60 ruling even though there was now a burden on them to do so.
The Tribunal closed for today at mid-day and the affable Chairman Mr Carstairs announced a decision was possible within days, but might possibly take several weeks.
Space on Prune obliges me to drastically condense today's hearing but a fuller report will appear in the LOOP aviation newspaper in the April edition.
I must say that for me the might of the CAA team was more than daunting, and I cannot help feeling that the massive support, both financially and emotionally, that originated from this site more than helped Ian Evans to stand tall before the Tribunal and present his ... and our case so well.
Should he succeed, it will be in no small way due to the support of Ppruners.
It was the Cheltenham races today so I'll offer odds of 'Four to Six' on!
Dennis Kenyon.