As we know an OML limitation imposes the following: Valid as or with a qualified co-pilot and requires that a pilot subject to an OML limitation does not fly with another pilot themselves subject to an OML or with another pilot aged over 60 years.
The incapacitation risk is being controlled to less than a 1% risk of in-flight incapacitation per annum for a Class One with an OML and for a "clean" Class One without an OML limitation the perceived risk is being controlled down to less than 0.25% risk of in-flight incapacitation per annum.
Many aircraft are certified for single pilot commercial operations carrying passenger/s and cargo, so clearly cannot be flown by a single pilot with an OML because he/she would not satisfy the with or as a co-pilot requirement. The risk annual risk of incapacitation in-flight being considered unacceptably high between no less than 0.25% and no more than 1% per annum for a Class One with OML.
However, two OMLs are not allowed to fly together but in the case of an aeroplane certified for single pilot commercial operations (Seneca) crewing the aeroplane with two OMLs would produce an inflight incapacitation risk 2500 less than crewing it with a single pilot with a clean class one.
At absolute worse an OML has an in-flight incapacitation risk of 1% per annum and so the risk of two OMLs suffering incapacitation on the same flight in any one flight year would be (1\100) X (1/100) =0.0001%, whereas the risk of a clean class one holder suffering incapacitation in-flight per annum is regulated down to 0.25%.
Two OMLs flying together in an aeroplane certified for single crew operations are 2500 times less likely to suffer a simultaneous incapacitation than is a single pilot with a clean class is likely to suffer an incapacitation on his own.
The ban on two OMLs flying together on commercial operations requiring a Class One medical should be immediately lifted in the case of aeroplanes certified for single crew operations.
Medical risk for nearly all conditions that could give rise to the imposing of an OML increase with age. Pilots with OML limitations will therefore in general be older than pilots without OML limitations.
Initial issue Class One medical certificates will not be issued with an OML limitation, so an OML can only be imposed onto an existing Class One medical certificate the holder of which will by definition be older than he/she was at the time of initial issue. At the point of OML imposition you will always have held a Class One medical certificate at a younger age than you are now. When you were younger you could apply for the job now you are older you cant hence you have been discriminated on the grounds of age which is against the law.
When it comes to recruitment in the UK employers may discriminate on any grounds they like in the recruitment and selection of staff providing there has not been a law passed against doing so. Age, Sex, Disability, and Race Discrimination legislation exists and applies unless it can be demonstrated that there is a genuine occupational qualification for exception e.g. recruiting a man for a job cleaning a male changing room or recruiting an actress to play the lead lady in a film. In the UK we have age discrimination legislation. Most large airlines have existing pilots with OML limitations working to a high standard on flight operations. Holding an OML is hence not a genuine occupational disqualification and so any airline refusing to select pilots holding an OML would be engaging in indirect age discrimination because pilots with an OML will in general be older than pilots not holding an OML.
It is time therefore time to require that the CAA directs that airlines holding a UK AOCs and regulated by them to be fully in compliance with UK anti-discrimination legislation and stop the practice of airlines discriminating against Class One fit pilots. We should expect that BALPA and the IPA to produce a list of shame of discriminatory companies and guide their members accordingly.