Bonway hi thank you for correcting my maths you are quite correct I got it wrong "maths in public should never be done" and all that.
Having another crack at it two Class One OMLs flying together in an aeroplane certified for single pilot aeroplanes would be 25 times less likely to both suffer incapacitation on the same flight compared to the incapacitation risk of a single crew Class One pilot flying alone based on the certification risks of 1 % for a Class One OML and 0.25 % for a Class 1. if 100% = 1 then 1% = 0.01. So the risk of two Class Ones being incapacitated on the same flight would be 0.01 X 0.01 = 0.0001. The incapacitation risk for the Class One flying alone is 0.25 % so if 100% =1 then 0.25 % = 0.0025. 0.0001 is 25 times less than 0.0025 so two OMLs together are 25 times safer than single crew. QED OMLs should be allowed to fly together on commercial operations on aeroplanes certified for single crew operation because it brings a much higher level of safety.
Looking at the enhanced incapacitation risk associated with a non normal event is spurious as the total risk of incap by definition in the medical certificate is 1 % per annum Class One OML and 0.25% Class One. For example in respect of the fume event most airliners have 100% oxygen under positive pressure and this would have been taken into account in the granting of the medical certificate and the degree of risk considered acceptable.
In respect of the discrimination point again I agree with Bonway that the intent by some airlines is to directly discriminate against holders of OML limitations. That the airlines which are discriminating against OML holders are not directly intending to discriminate on the basis of age.
However anti discrimination law is much more vigorous than dealing with just direct discrimination and it prevents unintended indirect discrimination as well unless the discrimination is focused around a genuine occupational qualification. We all know most large airlines have many OML pilots working day to day in line operations to a high standard. So being required to not have an OML is not a genuine occupational qualification as a Class One OML is completely qualified to operate in the two crew environment. What the airlines are seeking to do by discriminating against OMLs is to avoid the slight administrative inconvenience of being careful not to roster two OML pilots together.
However because OML pilots will in general be older than non OML pilots discriminating against OML pilots is by definition indirect age discrimination and indirect age discrimination is against the law and there is no genuine occupational qualification factor that would allow you to get away with because by law a pilot with an OML is fully qualified for multi crew operations.
Very clearly indirect age discrimination practised for administrative convenience and it is unlawful.
Dealing with it practically is difficult after all who wants to have a legal dispute with a potential future employer before you have joined. to that end we should be asking the CAA and the pilots unions to remind airlines of the employment law responsibilities and to act accordingly.
I am minded to form a professional association of OML pilots the aim of the association being to collectively tackle discrimination on a class basis for its members when and where it arises and to challenge and question aero medical sections when the imposition of an OML is disputed.
By definition medical developments (new drugs and procedures) always leads the development and redrafting of the EU Aircrew Regulation and the medical AMCs possibly by as much as ten years. Consequently what justified an OML 10 years ago may not justify one now but the aero-medical sections slavishly follow the printed regulations avoiding to think if special considerations would allow them not to do so.
An OML aircrew association could fight discrimination, galvanise the CAA and the unions to tackle it or take class action if necessary and could fight for individual members medical status to be correctly reviewed.