Age Discrimination: Fighting the CAA! (+ update)

[nigelh]

Ian. Just in case i have to dust off the old helmet again in the future ( not that i am anywhere near 60 you understand...:eek:) please pm me details of where , who to etc to send a cheque. Sadly i am away flying in the canadian mountains until 8th but if it is still going then i will turn up to add my considerable weight :ok:

[uncle ian]

Thanks Nigel. You lucky boy; last time I flew in the Canadian Rockies was in an Army Sioux (Bell 47 for the civies) and that WAS some time ago.

Easiest route for the Fund is a cheque made out to CAA Age Fund and sent to Ian Evans at Careflight, Unit 3, Ongar Road Trading Estate, DUNMOW, CM6 1EU. I'll ask Whirlygig to pm account details if telephonic transfer is easier from over there.

Best wishes

Ian

[nigelh]

aghh the old 47 . mine was G-BHKW with the turbocharger . Great machine for spraying but now i think in Cyprus... Anyway cheque for £250 on the way and good luck. As for any ( unlikely) left over , i dont think it makes sense to try to send back pro rata ..what aheadache:ugh: May i suggest that it is either sent to a charity ( helpforheroes??) or kept for the next poor soul that comes up against injustice from the caa ?? Just a thought.

[nigelh]

just keeping it in view !!

[uncle ian]

Thank you for the suggestion.

It is important that nobody thinks there is any hint that I may misuse their money. If there is a substantial amount unused, which will only happen if the Tribunal makes an exceptionally large award in my favour, I must return it even though that might be a bit of a nightmare. I will only do so in easy amounts, though, eg 25%, 30%, 50%, 100%. Any leftovers will go to charity.

Ian

[uncle ian]

Don't forget; the hearing starts next monday 3rd March and is scheduled for 2 weeks. Any day you can get there to show the Court your support for a change in the Law will help the cause.

Ian Evans

[ambidextrous]

Uncle Ian,
I'm unfamiliar with the Law Courts, which court will you be in?
with fraternal greetings,
ambi:ok:

[Whirlygig]

The court room into which huge numbers of reprobates and undesirables will be piling!!! :}

I'm sure there will be lists and staff who could be asked! I'm guessing that the case will be something like I C Evans v Civil Aviation Authority!!

I won't be there the first week as I have my exams on the 10th but I hope to be a cheer-leader the following week if the hearing is still running.

Cheers

Whirls

[uncle ian]

Victory House, 30-34, Kingsway, WC2B 6EX. Right opposite the CAA building.

Nearest tube is Holborn.

[Brilliant Stuff]

Silly question I know but I better ask: Do they break for lunch?

[Whirlygig]

As panic sets in Brilliant Stuff's eyes and his hands begin to shake at the possibility of not getting a decent pie and a pint, Whirls sets his mind at rest in confirming that there will be a lunch break. And possibility tea time!!!

Cheers

Whirls

[Brilliant Stuff]

I was actually more worried of making it there only to arrive when everyone has broken for lunch.

I simply don't know how long it will take me to get there, since I don't know how early I can set off. I am planning to be armed with my own lunch which I can then eat noisily so the tribunal are sure of my participation. :}:}:}:}

I will be on my best behaviour don't sweat it Ian.

[uncle ian]

There are a couple of decent pubs very adjacent to the Court. Sorry but that's not an offer!

Ian

[coorong]

Best of luck on Monday, Ian. Don't let the basket-weavers distract you from the logical solution to this fallacious CAA argument. Hope to meet you there [or in the nearest decent pub at luunch time]

C.

[griffothefog]

Ian,
Don't forget to sleep tonight!!!
Would love to be there for support, but am stuck in the sand.... good luck mate.
GTF.:D

[albatross]

Best of luck.

I hope it doesn't go: A verbis ad verbera :eek:

But in any case: Nill illigitimi carborundum :E

Sorry - could not resist - just found a latin quotes site. :O

[Senior Pilot]

Ian,

Good luck from all of us. If you (or any other attendee) have the opportunity, please keep us up to date with the daily events :ok:

[MBJ]

For those who couldn't make it, Ian's case started late because the tribunal staff had to find extra tables for the 50-odd box files of "Evidence" that the CAA has deemed fit to bring to the court. A central table was piled so high it was barely possible to see the CAA Barrister, Mr McManus QC.

The three tribunal members have to read through this stuff and it is my personal view that it has been deliberately generated in order to muddy the waters and confuse the issue - which is actually ludicrously simple. Are pilots aged over 60 more likely to have an accident than younger ones, however caused?

Answer: No, case closed. Change UK law.

The case was adjourned at lunchtime so the tribunal could get stuck into the paperwork.

Seeing the lengths that the CAA are going to to protect the status quo has conspicuously failed to give me a warm and fluffy feeling today when I realise it will be my (sorry, our!) taxes that are paying Mr McManus wages - and those of his four assistants. Not to mention the two CAA apparatchiks watching.

Moving swiftly on, Ian will be cross-examined on his opening statement tomorrow. The Barrister wants a whole day to do this and it will be fascinating to see where he is going to take it. Any support from those with an interest (Surely all pilots?) will be welcomed by Ian.

More tomorrow...

[Bronx]

No surpise the UKCAA got a team of lawyers, they wanna win.

Has Ian got a lawyer?
A BA pilot told me today he heard Ian fired his lawyer and is fighting the case himself.
Is that true? :eek::uhoh:

Also he said Ian is saying there should be no age limit, period, just passing a medical should be enough.
Is that true? :confused:
Can't see them agreeing no age limit.
More chance of winning single crew allowed until 65.

B.

[Bertie Thruster]

what have you got against 65 year olds, Bronx?!

[Bronx]

Nothing at all Bertie.
But it aint me Ian got to persuade.

[MBJ]

"No surpise the UKCAA got a team of lawyers, they wanna win."

Yup.

It is my personal view that someone senior in the UK CAA is sanctioning this expenditure because they have painted themselves into a corner. Admitting they have little evidence to support their case would constitute an unacceptable loss of face.

Its a natural human reaction - but in a cockpit it would be dangerous and we have a CRM regime to address the problem.

This is not now a practical matter of statistics but a career protection issue. (..and I don't mean the careers of us coal-face pilots!)

[Flying Lawyer]

MBJ

Thanks for posting. I look forward to reading your next instalment.

Just a suggestion, and please don't take offence, but your reports will be even more informative if you can suppress your entirely understandable bias in favour of pilots and try to be more objective about how the proceedings are progressing. I appreciate that won't be easy, but most people in this forum are professional pilots and will be on side anyway.
Some may think age-related concerns could be adequately addressed by regular medical examinations, as they are under the FAA procedure.

Re the CAA barrister:
My advice to barristers I trained was 'Never under-estimate an opponent you don't know.' If he turns out to be good, you'll be ready to deal with him. If he turns out not to be, it's a bonus.
I was never against Richard McManus in a case when I was at the Bar, but I know him by reputation to be extremely able - a clever lawyer, a good advocate and an opponent to be respected.

"It is my personal view ... etc"
Some would say the CAA always fight all their cases without any regard to cost so it's a mistake to make those assumptions. (I'm no longer free to comment.)
Another piece of advice was 'Always believe you can win, but never be over-confident that you will.' ie Assuming your own arguments are unanswerable and that the other side has no good arguments is a recipe for disaster.


Who is the barrister representing Ian?


FL

[JimBall]

The opening day made the BBC R4 news at 1800 Monday - as a sort of "and finally". It's obviously difficult for the media to cover a hearing where day 1 is adjourned for people to consume 50 boxes of "evidence". (Whatever happened to "disclosure" - surely all the CAA material would have been exchanged under disclosure ?).

However, the personal side of this case - the actual age discrimination that is taking away livelihoods - needs pressing on the media whilst the hearing continues.

If you have been affected by this rule, contact your local media - they are always looking for ways of feeding national stories. This is a window of opportunity that will only exist whilst the hearing continues.

There are 2 BBC journalists who should be kept fed: Transport correspondent [email protected] and one who regularly trawls pprune legitimately looking for stories under his own name [email protected]

Don't delay - do it now whilst this story has a flame. See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7275114.stm)

[Brilliant Stuff]

To answer a couple of questions:

Ian is representing himself. That means he is sitting alone in front of the chairman/judge with a wall of folders to his left and right hand side.

You must accept MBJ is "slightly" worked up about all this as we all are ,hence his comments.
The whole thing is such a crying shame. Thankfully we have Ian willing to stand up and be counted therefore the least us pilots young and old can do is at least show some moral support!!!
So please anyone who reads this and would be able to go into London even for just the afternoon would be very welcome. The CAA had 4 people sitting behind them and if we had a similar number or more that would be rather fantastic.

Now if you have never been to such a Tribunal just let me teach you how to suck eggs for a moment.
You will want the Holbron tubestation on the piccadilly line leave through the Kingsway exit/entrance and turn left walk for something like 300yards and you should have passed Africa house by now and be standing in front of a building with big glass windows on the floor level with blue banners on display talking about how you can sort out disputes. Ente building go up to reception say you are here to lend support and sit in the back of Evans v CAA they will ask for your name and give you a tag after which they tell you to walk into the next roomw here you have to pick up a phone which automatically rings someone whom you tell the same thing again. Now you can walk through the next set of doors and turn left. You are looking for court room number 3 which is 4-5 door on your right. Go thorugh those doors and then you are greeted by a stack of boxes pass those and go through the next set of doors and you are in. Sit anywhere you can. It's as easy as pie.:ok:

By the way if youare reading this and your age is below 50 or 40 or 30 you should also make the journey because we all sit in the same boat. Also the CAA need to know us pilots a re a force to be reckoned with.:E

This Tribunal is reckoned to last for 10 working days so if you can not do it this week maybe next week.

Good Luck Ian my thoughts are with you!!!

[heliski22]

As Flying Lawyer said, these matters do follow a very clearly defined path and need to be approached in a fairly clinical manner. Preparation is everything and believing you're right without being cocky is everything else.

There is no doubt that for Ian, or anybody else for that matter, to face down the might of the CAA and its assembled legal eagles, is a pretty daunting challenge and apart from the few bob already proferred, some supporting physical presence would go a long way.

I can't do it myself unfortunately, domiciled outside the jurisdiction at the moment, but I would join with others in urging anybody who can make even a brief appearance to please do so.

Good luck again to Ian

[ambidextrous]

If Uncle Ian is representing himself, does he have a Mackenzie friend to offer support whilst in court?
Would not Flying Lawyer, if he's available be a suitable candidate?:ok:

[DennisK]

As one of the much older guys, it was too many years since I was obliged to stop PT flying, even though I had my own AOC business.

I haven't counted the actual cost of hiring pilots over the fifteen year period since but it would be a pretty hefty sum. I'm still able and legal to do instructional flying and even fly with ab initio students and with a Class One medical and having passed the CAA's 'Stress ECG' thingy twice, I seem to be healthy enough to run a competitive time mile and enter display competitions.

So yes, mine is a biased opinion.

But what does bother me with Ian's brave effort, is that it is considered this case will be influenced by a good lawyer and decided by his presentation!

I'd like to think the case will be decided after a long rational look at the facts no matter how badly presented or how well. Just so long as they are the facts.

I'm sure Ian will be citing Train Drivers, Lorries, taxis etc and had I had the option after 60/65 to fly with an underage pilot, that would have been a start. Falling off one's perch isn't confined to the 60 somethings ... I'm sure you've all read of the 43 year old who died at the controls that was reported just last week. Another personal friend went aged 45, flying a PT Navajo at Blackbushe a few yeas back, I'm sure some of us can remember.

PS. I've had good reason to be grateful for a good lawyer in the past ... but it wasn't for a case so fundamental to the existing iniquitous age discrimination and a pilot's loss of right to employment on account of just his age.

Ian, I'm trying hard to get to Kingsway this week. Friday I hope.

Dennis Kenyon.

[Bronx]

DennisK
But what does bother me with Ian's brave effort, is that it is considered this case will be influenced by a good lawyer and decided by his presentation!
I'd like to think the case will be decided after a long rational look at the facts no matter how badly presented or how well. Just so long as they are the facts. Nobody's saying the case will be decided by a good lawyer's presentation!
But how can Ian's chances of winning NOT be influenced by the CAA having a good lawyer and Ian doing the case himself?
Ian's not gonna be able to cross-examine like a good lawyer can, and he's not gonna be able to argue about the law like a good lawyer can.
As Heliski22 says, cases like this gotta to be approached in a clinical manner and preparation is everything. That needs skill and experience to put your case together and you dont go near a court until you got all the angles covered.
Your one of the top instructors in England, we had a thread last year about if guys like you should be paid more than inexperienced FI's and most folk thought you should because you got years of skill and experience doing the job. If the CAA's lawyer is the equivalent of you, Ian's the equivalent of a 'student-lawyer' at the most. Would you let a student pilot go through the London TMA on his first solo?
You say you got good reason to be grateful for a good lawyer in the past. I remember you saying it and I looked it up, you saidall I can say is his presence in a maelstrom of turbulent water was a most welcome sea of calm. Tudor Owen's advice cut through to the essence of a successful defence in an instant. Thats the point. It's what good lawyers do and you saw it yourself.
As you say, your case wasn't so fundamental to the existing iniquitous age discrimination and a pilot's loss of right to employment on account of just his age. I reckon that's even more reason not to try to do a case like this one yourself.

Don't get me wrong. I wish Ian all the best and I hope he wins. I just cant help being a bit worried for him. But hey, David beat Goliath so maybe ...... :ok:

[MBJ]

FL - I take your point about being dispassionate and I do find it hard. However, I don't mind sticking my head above the parapet on this - The people running the CAA (or any large organisation) at all levels are human beings and subject to the same pressures, ambitions and human factors as anyone else. Positions taken are therefore often the personal views of an individual, backed by his colleagues with their own personal motivations, and then enshrined in law or Fodcom diktat. This does not make such positions right, reasonable or unchallengeable.

I should also emphasize that anything I post is my own view, in my own words.

On to today...

It was spent in cross-examination of Ian's witness statement by the CAA barrister, Mr McManus QC. (The CAA, for brevity)

A large number of graphs and medical studies were referred to by the CAA to undermine Ian's contention that merely using age 60 as a cut-off point was too crude and unthinking an approach to the ageing pilot "problem"

It was interesting to note that some of the statistical evidence was over 40 years old, some related to AOPA in the USA with no information as to maintenance, aircraft or medical standards. One more recent study from Australia between 1986 and 2006 showed 98 cases of in-flight incapacitation, 10 of which were fatal but only one of which was public transport.

A pertinent note here being that the Australian CAA has moved to a risk assessment strategy for medicals and , as I understand it, removed the age 60 rule. (Input from Australia, anyone?)

Risk profiling of older pilots took the afternoon with the CAA implying that it was too unreliable to assess risk through, for example, cholesterol testing, stress ECGs or various forms of tomography or more invasive techniques such as an angiogram. The CAA seems to dismiss family history as a valid indicator of risk despite the questions on the medical form.

It is hard, as a layman, to establish where the CAA's line of argument was leading us. I was not convinced by the integrity of many of the statistics and the lack of single-pilot PT accident figures for over 60's (for obvious reasons)didn't help. I fear that the tribunal may be more impressed with the graphs due to their lack of knowledge of the distinctions between CAT, private/GA/helicopters and so on.


The following is editorial and not reportage..
As an aside, and in relation to my paragraph about risk assessment, when my own routine ECG showed up a lazy T wave some years ago, the CAA were quite happy to accept that the subsequent clean angiogram was perfectly acceptable to permit me to have my licence back. On being told that my parents were both alive in their 80s, my consultant, during preliminary questioning said "Well, there won't be anything wrong with you then" So someone thinks family history is relevant.

Now, when the prospect of Age Discrimination legislation appeared, the CAA could have adopted a responsible and pro-active approach and within Europe, where the legislation applies, lead a coherent response to the changing demographics, increased life-expectancy and enhanced general health amongst a very closely monitored professional pilot population. Useful studies could have been made and relevant statistics gathered.

Instead, it seems clear that they chose to bury their collective head in the sand, rely on ages-old legislation and ignore the realities of change. Would this be the result of idleness, fear of litigation or lack of funds? or all three?

[MBJ]

Anyone who fancies a day in London (or a longer career in aviation) PLEASE turn up and support Ian. I have to work tomorrow so not available but may be able to be there later in the week. DennisK, it would be great to see you there, if you can make it!

[Flying Lawyer]

MBJThis does not make such positions right, reasonable or unchallengeable. I assume you mean not necessarily.
If so, I couldn't agree more. I spent many years challenging them. ;)

It is hard, as a layman, to establish where the CAA's line of argument was leading us. Probably to a proposition that a line has to be drawn somewhere and, based on the CAA's interpretation of such stats as are available, 60 is a reasonable age at which to draw it.
I was not convinced by the integrity of many of the statistics And, as we all know, statistics can be interpreted in many different ways.
Statistics show that of people who eat, very few survive.
the lack of single-pilot PT accident figures for over 60's (for obvious reasons) didn't help. I can't comment on the actual case but I wonder (generally):

Is there any evidence of a safety problem in those countries which do allow pilots over 60 to conduct single-crew PT flights.
What is the evidence regarding 60+ pilots in two-crew ops becoming incapacitated in flight?
Pilots over 60 are permitted to fly privately. Is there any evidence that they have more accidents due to medical incapacitation? (And not forgetting that, unike professional pilots, PPLs don't have to be sufficiently fit to hold a JAR Class 1 medical.)
What percentage of all accidents where a pilot was over 60 have been found to be caused by pilot incapacitation?
Is there any evidence of a difference, or any significant difference, between the 60+ group and those under 60?Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. I expect someone will ask those and similar questions, and I'd be interested to hear the answers.


FL

[Whirlygig]

I wonder what the statistics are for motorists?

Cheers

Whirls

[Flying Lawyer]

Especially those motorists who have to pass a medical in order to drive particular classes of vehicle. eg HGV and public transport.

However, they may be fit enough to pass their required medical but not necessarily sufficiently fit to hold a JAR Class 1 so the comparison would not be like for like.

[chris_h]

Ian needs all the support that can be mustered. Regret I have to go back to work so will be unable to attend any more.
PLEASE - those of you who have the time available get your butts to Kingsway.

[Earpiece]

I have tried to get into London on two occasions but due to other commitments have missed the trains that I feel would have been suitable. However, could someone who has already attended the Tribunal provide some info on the times that the Tribunal sits/adjourns or can one go in and out as one pleases? Any advice would be much appreciated - thanks.

[Brilliant Stuff]

They kick off at 10:00hrs break for lunch around 12:00hrs and I assume they restart 13:00hrs ish. I went on Monday were it all came to a close at 12ish. You can turn up anytime they are sitting and just creep in.

[Earpiece]

That was quick - thank you Brilliant Stuff. I'll get there yet!

[johned0]

Is there any evidence of a difference, or any significant difference, between the 60+ group and those under 60?

Good question FL but I don't think the Criminal Aviation Authority would be bothered with details like that. Do you ?

I don't know how comprehensive the Griffin accident database is (http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk) but I could only find one accident due to pilot incapacitation. It was in 2000 and the pilot was 43 !

I hope the CAA don't want to stop 43 year olds flying cos that's me screwed ;)

John

PS the reason why the pilot was incapacitated - he got stung by a wasp !

[johned0]

Hi Whirls,

I wonder what the statistics are for motorists?

The ONS RTA statistics main page is :
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nscl.asp?ID=8094
but in typical government department tradition, the statistics are not the most detailed I have ever seen. For example for our purposes you can find out how many over sixties died on the roads but not what caused the accident - they may have all been run over by teenage joy riders.

The DFT statistics are located at :

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/tsgb/2007edition/

This includes (of relevence to this thread) transport accident statistics and aviation but I couldn't find anything relevent there either.

John

[DennisK]

Thanks for the further notes.

MBJ. I'm booked at present for Friday, but think it may get cancelled. Shan't know til late Thursday. If at all possible - will be there. If not I'll make it next week for sure.

Please keep the daily reports going.

Dennis K

[VeeAny]

Johned0

The Griffin Database includes all the Uk Accidents and Incidents given to me by the CAA last year, updated in November. I know of at least one which was missing, back in the 80s but didn't involve pilot incapacitiation.

The Accident Factors including Pilot Incapacitation i've added to the database after reading each accident investigation report back to Jan 1998. I will go back further when time permits.

Hope This Helps.

Gary

[Flying Lawyer]

johned0 Good question FL but I don't think the Criminal Aviation Authority would be bothered with details like that. Do you ?You may well be right but, in the present context, it's not the CAA that Ian has to persuade.

FL

[JimBall]

A colleague dropped by the Tribunal today. The listing of "Evans vs CAA" is too simplistic. There's Ian Evans. And then there's the CAA: barrister, junior, 3 assistants, 2 CAA legals, 3 CAA medical witnesses and 19 box files of evidence and witness statements.

Please, please go and show some support for Ian. The man is fighting the fight with adroitness and charm - and looking fitter than just about anyone in the room.

With his cross-ex finished, it's been CAA witness time and Ian's chance to cross-ex them. The one clear thing is that the CAA is not too good at gathering its own data. They keep relying on old stuff from Australia and the USAF. And even one of their own witnesses was doubting some of the CAA evidence put to him.

The CAA's own UK data seems to run out around 1975. Has anyone paid any attention to all the forms we've filled in over the years ?

[DennisK]

Hallo Ian .. if your'e tuned it ... and others in support. Moved my Friday date around and will be at Kingsway tomorrow, Friday.

Dennis K.

[uncle ian]

A brief word of thanks to all those who have attended the tribunal this week to support the cause; faced with the multitude across the floor I can't tell you how much of a prop your presence has been.

I'm not allowed to discuss evidence or, probably, much else but suffice to say we're just about finished with their lay witnesses and only have expert witnesses to go on teusday and wednesday. There's lots of other legal stuff too but that would not bear listening to.

We probably won't have a judgement for some time to come, possibly up to two months, which is disappointing.

It's hard to tell but I don't think I've lost this yet! If I were a betting man I'd place a small wager on Evans to win but, please don't raise your hopes.

Ian

[DennisK]

Good evening Ian ... I know I said it to you at the hearing today, but God bless you for handling OUR case so well ... cos fellow pilot's. This IS OUR case. I know I couldn't have done nearly so well.

For ppruners, yes please try and get there to Kingsway if at all possible ... just give up one day. Ian ... I'm so glad you felt our presence behind you helped today. For my part I'll make it a couple more days next week.

Won't it be grand for me to be able to write-up a success for common sense ... common sense that is lost on a daily basis with each new pronouncement from this thing we have to call a Government.

Oh ... and we had a banner bearer there today!

Dennis K

[Brilliant Stuff]

Yes thank you Ian for keeping the strength up!!!! Now I hope you are having a relaxing weekend to prepare you for the second half.

I am keeping my fingers and toes crossed.

[tonge]

Ian,
I was the bloke in the motorcycle gear today. Sorry I could only make it for an hour, but hopefully you know people from all walks of life are supporting you in your fight.

I'll try and pop in before work next week,

Tonge

[MBJ]

Quick entry to keep this thread close to the top of Prunery. Will be writing to Daily Telegraph today in the hope of publication.

Keep the faith, guys.

[Fareastdriver]

I am too far away to be of physical assistance in this case. Being a public transport pilot in two countries at the age of 68 I would love to pull the rug on the CAA. If only Ian was a diifferent sex, colour and sexual orientation he would have no problem. There would be a regiment of QCs and unlimited legal aid behind him.

[ambidextrous]

Fellow ppruners,
Having been present yesterday (Friday) at the tribunal where Uncle Ian is making an heroic effort against this career shortening edict (unamended since 1960) of the CAA.
It was interesting to discover that this matter may shortly become academic with the transition from national regulators to EASA, beginning in March 2008, note! Both Germany & Switzerland have recently increased the age for single pilot ops to 65 and as members of EASA this will become the norm as there will be no alleviations/differences between member states under EU law, which transcends national law.
Q - Why then are the UK CAA wasting thousands of pounds of yours & my fees/charges on trying to squash this challenge when the matter is shortly going to become academic and a done deal for 65?
Please write to your MP and the abysmal Minister for Transport, Ruth Kelly, to protest at this misuse of the levy on the UK aviation industry.:ok:
with fraternal greetings,
ambi

PS: With the gradual changover to EASA, can we expect a severe pruning of the layers of management within the CAA? Don't all rush with the answer!

[JimBall]

Ambi: whist you state truth with regard to EASA (or whatever it morphs into), you should remember that the CAA are very adept at filing Exceptions to Euro rules.

And they could do so for this matter.

They already only partially recognise JAR OPS-3, even though all UK AOC Holders are forced to operate under these rules. The CAA does not recognise all of JAR OPS-3 - only the bits they like.

[ambidextrous]

Jim Ball,
Yes, I hear you but JAR was never legally binding which is why the CAA could cherry pick!
EASA will be legally binding, there is the difference I believe.
ambi:ok:

[John Eacott]

They keep relying on old stuff from Australia and the USAF

I'm surprised that CAA should rely on data from Australia, considering CASA allow over 60's to continue to operate! It's one of our non-compliance issues with ICAO, and can be found (for Helicopter ATPL's, but other licences have similar wording) here, CAR 1988 5.180 (http://casa.gov.au/download/act_regs/1988.pdf):

5.180 Air transport (helicopter) pilot: requirements if over 60 years old
(1) An air transport (helicopter) pilot who is at least 60 years old must not fly as pilot in command of a helicopter:
(a) that is engaged in commercial operations; and
(b) that is carrying passengers.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(1A) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

(2) Subregulation (1) does not apply to an air transport (helicopter) pilot if:
(a) the pilot flies a helicopter:
(i) that is fitted with fully functioning dual controls; and
(ii) that has an operating crew that includes a qualified pilot who is not the pilot in command; or
(b) in the case of a pilot who is less than 65 years old—within the period of 1 year immediately before the day of the proposed flight the pilot satisfactorily completed a helicopter proficiency check or a helicopter flight review; or
(c) in the case of a pilot who is at least 65 years old—within the period of 6 months immediately before the day of the proposed flight the pilot satisfactorily completed a helicopter proficiency check or a helicopter flight review.

(3) In this regulation:
qualified pilot means an air transport (helicopter) pilot or a commercial (helicopter) pilot who:
(a) holds a command endorsement for the helicopter; and
(b) if an activity for which a flight crew rating is required is to be carried out during the flight—holds a flight crew rating, or grade of flight crew rating, that authorises him or her to carry out the activity as pilot in command of the helicopter; and
(c) either:
(i) is less than 60 years old; or
(ii) satisfies the requirements of paragraph (2) (b) or (c).

As well as this, there are also more stringent medical checks require past the age of 60, eg stress ECG, etc., to ensure the health and fitness of those still exercising their licence privileges. But we can still fly, safely and proficiently :)

Can this be of use, Ian?

[SASless]

Ambi dear lad,

I mean not to take this quote from your post out of context....however I must suggest you could have opened Pandora's Box if you had not been so explicit as to exactly which method/action the CAA had chosen to relieve someone of their personal wealth.


Why then are the UK CAA wasting thousands of pounds of yours & my fees/charges......

[DennisK]

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.

[Ken Wells]

I would much rather have you fly me around, than allow a 73 year old bus driver drive me about on UK roads not knowing if he ever had a medical in the last 10 years. Especailly as he probably has a non UK PSV.

Brian Lacomber once said that he hoped to die in an orange ball of flame on the green fields of England, but not untill he was 110!

[MBJ]

Mr Eacott, nice to hear from you!

I'm surprised that CAA should rely on data from Australia, considering CASA allow over 60's to continue to operate!

Yes, quite! Ian is using the Australian approach to argue his case.

[John Eacott]

BJ ;)

Ian is using the Australian approach to argue his case

Ah, is that the Australian approach of "down the pub, last one standing wins" :ok:

[uncle ian]

Adjourned early today, monday, and not a great deal happened. I did think I lost the session where my accounts were being scrutinised against my claim for lost income. Because I could't give a b*****r about the money I made a bit of a pig's ear of it. Never mind, I think the Tribunal forgave me.

Thanks for all the useful ideas coming this way. I do use what I can when I can.

Brilliant stuff suggested I had a relaxing weekend. I had to do about 4 to 5 hours work on Tribunal stuff; then I set a 6" gate post that needed replacing (it's quite tricky digging a hole 8" square and 2' 6" deep); then I cut a 6" gate post from a tree I felled last year. Sadly this left no time for installing the chair lift I'll be needing shortly or for modifying my motorbike into an invalid carriage.

On we go!

Ian

[Brilliant Stuff]

Sorry to hear that Ian. It's the thought that counts.

I might not be able to join you in body this week but rest assured I am in spirit.:D:D:D:D:D

[Good Vibs]

Since I have a German ATPLH I would like to confirm that its possible to fly helicopters single pilot till 65 in Germany. I am doing it along with many others. This does not seem to be a problem with the LBA (German CAA).

[uncle ian]

Hi Good Vibs,

It has emerged at the hearing that the UK will adopt EASA licensing regs on.......wait for it.........18th March; that's next week not next year. If EASA is adopted Europe wide at that time how can your and Swiss law be compatible with the rest of us? I'm hoping your answer is "it can't be".

Did anyone else know about the EASA thing here?

Ian

[MBJ]

"Did anyone else know about the EASA thing here?"
No! Which makes the CAA case even more absurd.

Good Vibs - As to the situation in Germany, are you flying Commercial Air Transport (Public Transport with passengers) after age 60 or Aerial Work? Do you have that same distinction there?

Sorry, I don't want any thread drift about CAT/Aerial work here, but it may explain why the CAA thought they had a case?

[JimL]

Ian,

Interesting comment from the CAA at the tribunal.

Without being too technical; EASA were given legal competence for Certification and Maintenance some years ago. The second tranche contains Operations and Licensing; this was accepted by the EU parliament in December and - according to what was said in court by the CAA - will become effective on the 18th March. The third tranche will include Aerodromes/Heliports.

From the date that legal competence is assigned, EASA are required to develop and provide Operational and Licensing Implementing Rules together with Acceptable Methods of Compliance and Guidance. These requirements will have to be offered for public comment - along with a Regulatory Impact Analysis and justification. (The terms of reference for the working group states that the operational rules shall be based upon EU-OPS and JAR-OPS 3; therefore at the time that the operational requirements are entered into law, EU-OPS will be revoked)

You can expect that such requirements have been, or are in the process of being, developed. The process of development, public comment, reassessment, issue and implementation has to be completed within four years (the longer the development cycle the shorter the implementation cycle).

Although legal competence has been assigned by the EU; each State is responsible for its own regulations up to the date of implementation. At the date of final implementation, EASA will be responsible for ensuring that the Standards intended are upheld but the States will still be responsible for the day-to-say management of Licensing and Operations.

It is unlikely that any State will be permitted exceptions to the requirement but remember that the rule under scrutiny is that for CAT.

Jim

[manfromuncle]

Blimey! Look how long JAR FCL took to get, err... "sorted", ie - it never did. The CAA will really drag their heels giving up their little empire. There will be consultations, drafts, steering groups, part-implementations, interim systems, exceptions, blah blah...

ie - don't expect anything to change within the next 5 years.

[JimL]

manfromuncle,

This has little or nothing to do with the CAA; their rights were surrended when the agreement to grant EU competence was conceded some time ago.

Jim

[uncle ian]

Thanks for that JimL, clears up a matter that niether I nor the tribunal understood from the evidence offered by the CAA's Licensing witness!

Today, wednesday, was all about my expert witness, Dr Ian Perry. In recovery from a recent medical procedure himself he stood up really well to a sustained and unpleasant attack from the CAA's lawyers. I owe him real debt of gratitude. Whether or not our cause was advanced I can't really tell.

Case`is adjourned until friday when both sides make their final submissions; CAA need a day! to prepare theirs. My case is so simple........the Age 60 Rule is not a proportionate means to achieve the legitimate aim ofr public safety....... that I can do it in a couple of pages. No cross examination so no fireworks but it would still be good to see a turnout of supporters if any of you can make it. Thanks to the chaps, and chapesses, who were there today.

Ian E

[ANOrak]

Thanks for that Uncle Ian and having seen the way the Tribunal operates I take my hat off to you for your perserverence. Unfortunatley I cannot be there for Friday but I know you will do your best. I am told that aviation medical risk is based on the same risk applied to the failure probabilities of component parts (how many of you knew that?). Therefore I hope you will argue for the "on condition" TBOs for over 60's as applied to more and more "healthier" components.

Good luck

ANOrak

[DennisK]

Hi today's ppruners,

I confirm Ian's notes on today's hearing.

Dr Perry is one of the most experienced 'grass roots' AMEs in the UK, maybe in the world. He certainly is used in a consultant capacity by many world organisations. I therefore found it particularly distasteful that the CAA's selected lawyer, chose to conduct a character demolition in an effort to cast doubt on his expert evidence.

Wouldn't it have been nice IF the authority took a different tack and listened and attempted to learn from a medical examiner who probably has as much 'coalface' experience of pilots health as anyone in the industry. Dr Ian thinks it may be circa 60,000 pilot medicals in total.

Were I the Tribunal Chairman, I'd want to listen to an industry acknowledged expert with a massive field of experience behind him rather than the statements of experts of less grass root experience ... who simply produced reams of unsupported facts and figures.

Yes, the legally enforcable EASA rules take effect on 18th March and while this does not affect Ian's case which has to be retrospective, it may well be that under the new regime, the present 'age discrimination' is gone anyway.

It seems to me that our CAA have been less than attentive to this issue over the years, simply carrying on, dinosaur like, with a rule that dates from the 1960s and wasn't even decided for medical reasons. A line in the sand was drawn at age 60 and has been doggedly supported since.

As many of you will know, I have a particularly nasty personal experience of this dinosaur, wait & see attitude, which due to a lack of any responsible action, ultimately resulted in the mid air break up of a Hughes 300.

Today I learned more details of further medical tests that are available, beyond the present 'stress ECG' which I am supposed to call an 'exercise ECG.' But I have never been one for changing perception by use of a different name.

But there are a progression of more accurate medicals available and which have been available for some time. For my part, IF I feel so sure I am medically safe and physically competent to fly at 75, I'd be happy to take and pay for the more rigorous medical and with more frequency. Pre age 60, I have never been offered or advised of such testing.

What I am saying is that instead of solidly pushing for an out of date and arbitrary age limit, our authority could invest a similar amount of time and money in investigating the position as we have it in 2008, and paying more attention to other states such as the USA, Germany, Australia, where there is twenty times as much data available and where the age limit has been upped to a political nudge at age 65.

But I take the view that it isn't sensible even here to fix any brick wall age limit ... it's about time the world's facts were heeded and a pilot ... 'fit for purpose' medical check was employed.

Safety is always a difficult area and it is all too easy to keep the head below the parapet, but I expect our Authority to take a better lead in this area.

On my taxi ride to the station and home, I outlined the aviation age principle to my driver. His immediate response was ... if his industry was deprived of their earnings by such leglislation, he'd have them all out on strike! Apparently he sits on one of the Taxi Driver's committees.

Friday will be for final summaries. The age discrimination principle here is so simple, although it is based on many factors. I can see Ian saying all that needs to be said in thirty minutes. I'll be surprised if the CAA team manage theirs in less than four or five hours!

Finally let no-one fail to appreciate the difficulty of the task for the Tribunal.

If Ian's case succeeds ... What will be our Airlines view? ... Having been obliged to retire experienced pilots at sixty... then having to pay for the training of their replacements.

Then there is the army of pilots like myself alongside Ian, who similarly could demonstrate and claim a massive financial loss. (I guess the PT pilot I needed to hire, cost my firm shall we say, a dozen years at £45,000 per year or so!

Whatever, I feel sure the wisdom of the Tribunal as I saw it, will prevail.

So once again, if you feel you can make it to Kingsway on Friday, lend Ian your support. Victory House, 34 Kingsway, London. Appropriately ... opposite the CAA Building!

Safe flying to you all out there,

Dennis Kenyon.

[MBJ]

Well argued Dennis...and Ian, lots of luck on Friday!

[DennisK]

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.

[pedroalpha]

Dennis,

thank you for your very clear reports on the progress of Ian's Tribunal hearing. Regrettably, ill health prevented me from attending so I am particularly grateful to you. I am also grateful to Dr Ian Perry for giving up his time to support Uncle Ian in this landmark case. We cannot anticipate the outcome but one thing is clear, Ian gave it his best shot and if he succeeds, then industry owes him a huge debt of gratitude for his courage and forebearance, and possibly for their continuing employment beyond 60.

Good luck Ian.

[Brilliant Stuff]

Thank You Captain Ian Evans!!!!!!

[semirigid rotor]

Regardless of the result, many many thanks Ian.

[wassatboing?]

I'll second that! Well done Ian.

[johnpoole]

How frustrating, I have only just become aware of Ian's case and being of a similar circumstance would have loved to have offered support. Having read this thread and especially Denis's summation I am very gratefull to all those involved, especially Ian. Very good luck with it and if there is anything I can do please let me know. Thanks.

[heliski22]

Wel done, Ian!! Many thanks for single-handedly taking on something that both affects and could benefit all of us. Good luck with the outcome!!

22

[Geoffersincornwall]

I will join the Over 60s Club in May so will be eternally grateful to Ian if he succeeds in extending my career so that, like many others, I can make up for the lack of a decent pension.

G

:ok:

[Whirlygig]

I had a brief chat with Ian on Friday evening and he doesn't think he'll hear the outcome for a few weeks to a month (rather than days). By that reckoning, he should hear by his 61st birthday!

He's away at the moment so can't respond but did have a reasonably optimistic air about him!!

Cheers

Whirls

[DennisK]

Good Sunday morning .. pruners,

I've been tasked by LOOP Publishing to produce a piece on the above 'Age Discrimination' subject and in particular the Captain Ian Evans Tribunal hearing in London.

I'd like to have some 'word-bites' from colleagues who have a rational view, (publishable!) on this subject, especially from those who are affected or will be shortly. I need an indication of the financial implications and domestics of being unable to fly PT and where the next step, if any, for income is likely to be.

Also IF any AME's or medical practices would be willing to offer a view. I won't be averse to contributions from any pprune legal eagles.

I expect most of you know that the 'Over Age 60' ruling originates from the European Council Directive 2000/789/EC which has a cut-off age for single pilot PT ops at 59 years, 364 days, 23 hours and 59 seconds.

You will also know that on 1st October 2006, the EU 'Age Discrimination' Act became law in the UK, but this European Council directive does allow different age treatment by a member state, providing such difference is a "genuine occupation requirement and that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportional."

The CAA take the view that increasing age is a determining factor relative to possible pilot incapacitation but have based this judgment solely on statistics for the general population. The CAA say that a more detailed study of individual aircrew competency, including medical fitness is, "extremely complex and resource intensive." ... and on this basis have decided overall to retain its over 60 rules under the allowed 'different age treatment' of the EU directive.

It is interesting that to comply with the law and following the introduction of the 2006 Age Discrimination Act, the CAA increased its retirement age to 65, including pilot staff.

SO ... I would like to know IF pprune aircrew feel that this CAA position is considered proper or justified OR whether it is felt that the authority has a greater duty to the aviation industry perhaps ... and should embark on such a study.

Do aircrew think for example, that the 'intensive resources' requirement referred to is presently met by the existing CAA medical charges and staff or perhaps could be met by the introduction of a higher charge for a more stringent medical on an individual basis?

I have to note, that there are very many further considerations for both sides, and my intention is to cover these from both positions in the resultant article which will be published in the April issue of LOOP.

I'll be happy to respond privately to any PMs on the subject.

Thanks to all,

Dennis Kenyon.

[heliski22]

Surely there is some merit in the argument for increasingly stringent medical examinations as age increases, the extent of which may be determined by an assessment of risk?

It is clearly ludicrous to suggest that at the aforementioned 59 years, 364 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes one is fit to fly but two mintues later the risk is unacceptable?

[Ken Wells]

Try


Human Rights Abuse,

[DennisK]

Hi Ken,

Thanks for the reminder on the 'Human Rights' possibility ... but the sad fact is that now that the Ian Evans Tribunal hearing is over, until and unless the matter is raised again and at the associated cost, nothing is liable to change, depending of course on the Tribunal's actual decision.

But it may well be that the Tribunal allows Ian's claim which will put the cat among the proverbials. I imagine that whichever way the decision goes, the press may well be able to have some fun with it.

Ken, you may well know there is a succession of increasingly stringent medicals available, but the radioactive Isotope procedure is expensive, say around £1,000. Would/should pilots pay for that?

Views on this and my above post requested please.

Dennis Kenyon.

[Whirlygig]

Surely the CAA Medical Department would have some data from all the over-60 aerial work pilots and instructors?

Cheers

Whirls

[Ken Wells]

If the requirements demand more invasive expensive tests, it should be affordable not prohibited

I have always found it amazing that HGV and PSV drivers have incredible lenient medicals as do Train drivers compared to Pilots.

All tests fees are nominal. and some are even paid for by their Unions and/or employers!!

[DennisK]

Good evening Whirls,

Hard to believe ... but the answer is no!

The CAA only have data from some thirty-five years ago, and the latest general population statistics. Certainly absolutely nothing specific to flyers or the over 60's PT flying and any records of 'over 60' incapacitation at the controls..

I understand with 500,000 licence holders in the USA, there is a massive pool of info over there, but the CAA haven't based their decision on anything other than their medical expert's views and various papers on the subject.

Interestingly, there are some oddball figures thrown up from the general public stats ... such that if they were followed, no-one over thirty would fly!

Keep the comments coming please,

DRK

[DennisK]

Yes Ken, the position of the other 'fare paying passenger' drivers is very much an associated consideration.

A PSV vehicle with 44 pax is capable of a high level of fatalities, and of course a train driver even more. Then we have taxis and lorry drivers who so far have all escaped the over 60 age discrimination 'differences' applied by the CAA to pilots.

I am investigated the requirements for those occupations as I write, but I understand taxi and PSV drivers have their first medical at either 65 or 70 and then have one every 3/4 years. I'll have the correct numbers shortly.

My last London cabbie told me that there is one of his brethren still driving at 92! It seems that the majority view is ... hold the requisite medical and continue to work.

The CAA's view is that the standard medical is not reliable enough, hence my previous note on the more stringent medicals possible and the 1000 numbers sampling on the earlier post.

Thanks to all,

DRK

[Ken Wells]

I wonder what the public would say if the law stated that no one under 4 years of age could be an airline passenger and that no one over 60 could be a passenger just in case the over 60 had a heart attack or was DVT suscepetable and that under 4's had underdeveloped sinus and eardrums that could be affected by pressurisation due to some Daily Mail article!!!

[uncle ian]

I've had no chance since friday to thank all of you who have continued to support the cause with your physical presence in London, your money and your good wishes. With deep irony I was asked to cover a hot news story for one of the TV channels over the weekend........I could hardly say no, could I?

With time to reflect on Fiday's proceedings I am cautiously optomistic. At the very least the fact that no verdict can be reached quickly shows that we have a good case that needed to be brought.

Anyway, until we hear the verdict, thanks very much. I'll publish the result here first but I expect many of you will hear or see it in the news. If I should loose the press will have a field day!

Ian

[Thomas coupling]

Ian: It's not the winning that counts...blah blah.

You took it upon yourself to take one step fwd and you should be very proud of yourself.
Irrespective of the outcome, you have changed the course of aviation law (in no small way) and whether it happens now or 5 yrs from now....IT WILL HAPPEN.
You have generated movement, now get on a plane to barbados and spend all our dosh before it's too late!!

Maintaining a listening watch............................:ok:

[Whirlygig]

now get on a plane to barbados and spend all our dosh before it's too late!!


He can't. I've got it!! :E

Along with a wodge of Counsel's fees to pay!!!!


Cheers

Whirls

[docash1983]

Hi Guys,

First of all I’d like to show my complete support for Ian Evans and wish him all the very best of luck, regarding something which affects current pilots and those like me, looking to start their training and career in the near future. DennisK, I was wondering if it would be at all possible to get the full hearing, if you have it, as I am due to sit an EU Law discrimination paper soon for my final LLB law Exams. I have been following the developments on pprune, and this would be most helpful to me in my forthcoming examinations. My email is below if you are able to forward any more information on the case.

Best

Docash1983

[email protected]

[DennisK]

Hallo Doc,

The Tribunal hearing ran to nine working days and I imagine the full transcript might run to a hundred pages minimum. You'll know better than me but based on other Court cases, I believe the transcript can be purchased, but on a High Court hearing I was involved in a while ago, the figure was several hundred pouns.

I have produced and am attaching a precis that is the basis of the article I am writing for Loop, an aviation newspaper. (April Issue) There'll be a ton of facts & figs that might help your legal studies.

Incidentally, a few accident figures became available at the hearing and I have since researched these a little further.

The CAA list the figures for a twenty year period from 1987 to 2006. In that time a total of 503 reportable accidents were recorded. Of those - 21 were where the Captain was over 59. ie some 4.17%.

Again from CAA published figures. In 2005 there was a grand total of 3,796 helicopter licenced pilots on the CAA database. 322 of these were over 59! ie 8.48%.

So it appears that while the over 60s make up 8.48% of the total pilot force, they are involved in only 4.17% of accidents. (only one of which was fatal)

One might argue that a passenger is 50% less likely to be involved in an accident when flown by one of the old boys!

I haven't yet researched the figures for flying hours, but my experience tells me that the bulk of private pilots fly less than 100 hours per year, whereas professional pilots will normally fly four or five times that amount.

I expect that my further research will reveal that a higher percentage of the older pilots hold professional licences and fly more. But I won't jump to any immediate conclusions. Just hope the CAA will take note and perhaps re-examine their 'age differences' stance.

It may show that unlike fixed wing, perhaps the experience of older pilots is more relevent in rotary flying.

I'll post the better researched figures when I am finished.

Uncle Ian, have a super break and keep off the fags! Booze allowed.

Best wishes to all,

Dennis Kenyon.

[Whirlybird]

One might argue that a passenger is 50% less likely to be involved in an accident when flown by one of the old boys!

Weren't there any "old girls"?

Ok, sorry, I'll get my coat.;)

[DennisK]

Hi Whirly B,

Very simple M'Lady ... there ain't a single ATPL or CPL female over 60.

My records list the oldest at 54. Hope its not you! So 'old boys' it has to remain.

Take care,

Dennis K.

[Whirlybird]

My records list the oldest at 54. Hope its not you!

That one's not me...since I'm considerably (er...well, a little bit) older than 54!!!!! I was born in 1948, so work it out.

So if that's wrong, should we be trusting any of the figures on that list of yours?

[Bertie Thruster]

I've worked it out Whirly; applying the special formula, used when asked to calculate the age of a Lady, makes you 44 years old.

[Whirlybird]

Oooo, I LIKE that special formula, Bertie.

There's just one problem....in that case, what do I do about my 60th Birthday Bash, planned for later this year? :confused:

[heliski22]

Have the bash anyway, then get him to tell you when his formula says you're 60 and have another one then!!!

"Life's too short to drink bad wine!"

[DennisK]

Hi again Whirly B,

Checked my CAA figs again, and they show the highest time lady to be 54 as mentioned in my previous post. The figs were for 2005, so now you've confessed all, that would be your good self. Have a good birthday bash next year!

On the PPL side, they have one at 59, 2 at 60, 1 at 62 and 1 at 63. Nothing private or professional over that. Gay Barrett ... where are you?

The figs can be downloaded from the CAA site. 'Pilot Licence holders by age and sex' who held a valid medical in 2005.

No further notes on Uncle Ian's case here, but thanks all those who have PM'd me with information.

Take care all.

Dennis Kenyon.

PS. And looking round the CAA's DAE meeting today at Old Warden, we sure need to draw in new blood.

[uncle ian]

Disappointing news today. The tribunal will not reconvene until 4th June. I guess the, written, verdict will not hit my desk for another week after that.

I, for one, will be another year older by then. Whirlybird will be joining me for a couple of weeks only! (Or is your birthday much later this year?)

You can be sure I'll post the verdict here as soon as I have it. Fingers crossed everyone but even if it goes against me I doubt this war will be lost; there will surely be more battles ahead.

Ian

[Whirlygig]

That's nearly a whole quarter! Not sure whether that bauds ill or good!

Perhaps I should take a leaf out of Father Ted's books and have the funds "resting" in a high-interest account. :}

Cheers

Whirls

[DennisK]

Ian ... At the Old Warden DAE meeting today, I chatted with four CAA quite senior 'pilot bods' Everyone in their department is rooting for you and wanting a 'yes' decision from the Tribunal.

DRK

[Whirlybird]

Uncle Ian,
I don't hit the big six-oh till August.

Dennis,
I don't want to make too much of this, especially when it involves my age, but neither you nor the CAA can count...I was older than that in 2005. Also, Jennifer Murray must have been at least 64, because she told me she's nearly 68 now. Hmmmm.... Anyway, I have no intention of giving up instructing till they make me, and I don't think Jennifer's giving up flying (even if she says there'll be no more record breaking trips) so those stats will change. :ok:

[uncle ian]

So that makes me TWO YEARS older than Whirlybird. If I loose this case there will be absolutely nothing worth living for!!!!!!!!

[Whirlygig]

Am I the only mathematician here? I make it 1 year and 4 months??? Could be worse Ian; you could be old enough to be .....

Cheers

Whirls

[Whirlybird]

Thankyou Whirls. :ok: I wasn't going to mention it, having already told Dennis that he and the CAA can't count. Nice to know that even though I'll soon be officially 'old', my brain still works fine. :)

[Whirlygig]

Pr'haps it's a girl thing, this numbers lark!!

Anyway, my theory .... the CAA compile figures based on those who held medicals. However, although the figures are published for 2005, they are probably based on medicals from around three years earlier i.e. 2002 which would work (I think). I'm sorry but I can't imagine that the CAA are that up to date with their data especially after what DRK said about them not even having the figures for post-60 medical holders vs accidents.

Cheers

Whirls

[DennisK]

Ah ... the thing you ladies are forgetting is that we old timers are allowed an age related margin of error .. mine is up to say 5% or perhaps 10%.

So my figures all come right. Or close enough for an 'old timer.'

Anyone want a real laugh .. ask me to relate the heli joke going the rounds of the DA Seminar today.

DRK

[oldgit]

go on then make me laugh!

[ambidextrous]

Come on then Dennis,
Don't keep us all in suspense!
ambi:ok:

[DennisK]

Well, I suppose this yarn should be on another thread, but at least it will keep us on the front row of the pprune grid for a day or so..

The speaker was telling us about his two ten year olds, Jimmy and Mary who were playing in the garden when a super fast helicopter came booming across the rooftop on its way into the nearby airfield.

Jimmy is bored with their usual game so he suggests to Mary that they could play at being a helicopter.

Jimmy searches the garden to find a length of timber for the fuselage. He pulls out his string and conker which he whirls above their heads as he sits astride the make-believe heli.

"Get on board behind me" he invites Mary, and the pair rush around the garden making rotor blade and engine noises.

"We need to make it more realistic" Jimmy says. "We'll climb on the fence for a high hover ... You climb up behind me," he tells Mary.

As she climbs up, sadly Mary slips and falls to the ground.

Mary looks up at Jimmy. ""I've hurt my pussy Jimmy." she says. "Come down and kiss it better please."

"Don't be silly Mary," Jimmy says. "It's just a game and I'm not a real helicopter pilot."

Anyway, it made me laugh.

Best wishes all out there.

DRK

[Bravo73]

I'm not sure if this has already been covered in this thread but do you mind if I confirm something with you, Ian? Is there anything to stop us flying a single-pilot corporate (ie private) aircraft over the age of 60? :confused:

[DennisK]

Hallo Bravo,

I think Ian may be having a well earned break, so I'll reply for him.

In the UK, the over 60 and over 65 rule only applies to public transport pilots. (60 single pilot .. 65 if second pilot under 60.)

So providing your operation IS NOT PT, then at present there are no age limits at all for genuine private flying.

PS. Just be careful though as the Authority can look closely at Corporate flying operations just to ensure that they aren't a cover for PT.

DRK

[K48]

DK et al..
Just to let you 'oldies' in on a secret... don't worry about your medical... there's always paramotoring.... it's medical free flying... there is a CAA exemption for footlaunched a/c ..meaning no licence, no RT and no medical...
It's what got me into flying helicopters..and I absolutely love helicopters.. but Paramotoring is still awesome... you can fly from the back of your car, it's best low and slow, e.g round trees or in formation with friends etc.. - in a breeze of 20knots aloft you can 'hover' too (in relation to the ground). Cost is £5/hr.... it's the closest to being a bird you will ever get... 'real' flying with arms out and wind in your face... you can also climb to cloud base and ride thermals etc.. engine off.. Plus it is a stable craft so inadvertant entry to IMC would be no problem with no instruments.... for me the fact that it is always there is a great stress reliever for that ole pilot's 'medical anxiety syndrome' which we are all victim too.
See a fun vid at: here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGMq0nv6SuM) (not suggesting you do the waterskiing bit...)
In case you think you are too old.... I taught a friend three summers ago... he was 73 then..

Chris
P.s.. 9 pm on Bank Hol Monday night on CH 4 there is a documentary about a good friend of mine who Paramotored over Everest... 28000ft-29000 with 02 and supercharged engine.. you can see what it's about then... Giles taught me to paramotor and I am ever grateful... he make's the paramotors himself.

[Balance!]

Prefer this one though!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pif0Vh6CX8&feature=related

[heliski22]

Actually, Whirlygig, I thought the memorable lines from Father Ted were from old Father Jack hwo just kept repeating "Drink, Arse, ****!" on varaious cues and in various combinations!!!!! He'd fit right in with helicopter pilots, don't you think?

22

[uncle ian]

Whirlygig,

Really! To think I'm trusting you with the Fund!

In May I'll br 61. Young Whirlygirl will be 59. Is that two years older or what!!!

Women!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uncle Ian

[Whirlybird]

OK, Uncle Ian, we give in. For THREE MONTHS you will be two years older than me. :D

[Bravo73]

Thanks for confirming that, Dennis. At least that gives some of us another option to continue flying (if we want to) after 60/65. But it would obviously be much better to have 65 as the cut-off!

Best of luck with your fight, Ian. :D:D:D

[Flashover999]

Is there any news from the powers at be?

When can we expect any form of judgement?

I fly with a 60 plus pilot who seems unable to check PPrune himself and is causing me noise white-out with questions about " when is he going to be able to steal my job?":E

Just wondered........................................

Flash

[topendtorque]

Young Whirlygirl will be 59.


uncle ian -- really? impossible.

[Whirlygig]

60 plus pilot who seems unable to check PPrune

As in doesn't have the facilities or doesn't have the faculties!!! :} :p

The last I heard from Uncle Ian was that the judgment is due mid-June so probably about a month a wait.

Cheers

Whirls

[Bertie Thruster]

In the hopeful anticipation of a successful outcome for Ian next month, and thus the possible chance to earn a living flying single pilot for a few more years, I thought it was a good time last month to address issues (tissues?) that have been "weighing me down" more and more in the last few years........

Aiming for a BMI of 25 max and more importantly (apparently) an 'Ashwell ratio' of 0.5 or less.

3 weeks ago; BMI 28.5 Ashwell 0.56

This morning; BMI 26.4 Ashwell 0.52

This proactive measure has involved a difficult, temporary stoppage in the consumption of 'Broadside' ...but luckily, at the moment, has not had to include any 'exercise'.

[uncle ian]

Just to confirm; the Tribunal will reconvene 3/4 June and issue a writen judgement. I've no idea how long it will take to produce the documents but as it's a government office anything up to a month. Realistically I expect an answer by, say, 15/06.

I will post here immediately but the media will, no doubt, be reporting the outcome extensively (particularly if I loose) so you'll hear pretty quickly.

Ian

P.S. Well done Bertie, keep it up regardles of the outcome. Long life is all well and good but much better if you can stay fit and active!

[Whirlybird]

What's an Ashwell ratio? Is that another number I should be shaking my head and tutting about and aiming to get lower? Or shall I ignore it all and figure that being happy is good for you and lengthens your life...or at least makes it fun for as long as you've got?

[Bertie Thruster]

waist to height ratio. I hadn't heard of it until recently but apparently loads of research since the 90's.

Basically the probability appears to be high that our health will deteriorate much more quickly if our waist measurement is more than half our height.

[Whirlybird]

Oh well, I needn't worry then. But does that work for women, since we are....er...a different shape? Or...is that why women tend to live longer than men?

[heliski22]

Why do married men die younger than married women?

Because they want to..............................

:hmm::hmm::hmm:

[Fly_For_Fun]

Any news yet?

Fingers crossed for a sensible conclusion.

[uncle ian]

A verdict has been reached. The Tribunal reconvened last week and made its decision.

The decision is now in the typing pool which has up to 4 weeks to produce it to the world! I have begged to be alowed a verbal decision but, as yet, have had no response on way or the other.

I can assure PPRuNers that I will post here as soon as I have any news.

Ian Evans

[Whirlygig]

Well, they certainly love to keep you in suspenders eh? :} ;)

Fingers crossed!

Cheers

Whirls

[uncle ian]

The Judgement finally arrived today.

"The unanimous Judgement of the Tribunal is that the claim fails and is dismissed."

No reasons, no explanations, nothing but the bald statement. It's now 15 months since I first filed my complaint. Quite extraordinary.

I have now written asking for reasons (which is, apparently, the correct procedure) before I can decide whether I can and should appeal.

I'm sorry for this setback but I can assure you all I won't let this go if there's any way that I can change it. I'll keep you posted.

Ian Evans

[Whirlygig]

It took a month in the typing pool to get, "The unanimous Judgement of the Tribunal is that the claim fails and is dismissed" transferred onto letterhead?! :rolleyes:

Sorry to hear that Ian - a committee meeting will be convened!

Cheers

Whirls

[Whirlybird]

No reasons given...probably because they don't have any. Prejudice is not a reason. And 'Extraordinary' is far too kind a word.

Good luck if you decide to appeal, Ian, and keep us posted...as I know you will.

[heliski22]

Yes, Ian, please keep us posted - and do let us know if you need annother whip-around!!

Good luck!!

22

[A.Agincourt]

Not a surprise result, then. I suspect a similar one will occur from any appeal. However, I wonder if the oncoming legislation concerning Age Discrimination will offer a new route. [Perhaps not since it seems to apply to employers and not regulatory bodies.] The unassailable fact at present is simply that the number of those who are medically capable at the top end of the age scale is small and as such in the minority percentage. I sincerely doubt any changes to current circumstances until that percentage figure increases to the majority. That will not be any time soon. There are more than enough capable younger crews around, I see no viable reason to increase the age limit to satiate the desires of a small minority - undemocratic.

Best Wishes.

[Whirlybird]

The unassailable fact at present is simply that the number of those who are medically capable at the top end of the age scale is small and as such in the minority percentage.

All available evidence suggests otherwise, as you'll find if you read earlier on in this thread.

I see no viable reason to increase the age limit to satiate the desires of a small minority

There has never been a reason to have an age limit anyway, since we have medical requirements. You might just as well say that no-one under 25 should be allowed to get an ATPL(H), since few of that age can afford to...so why bother with the desires of this small minority.

The world is gradually realising that age discrimination is the same as any other discrimination for no good reason, ie unfair...and it's gradually being made illegal. Just a little too gradually for Ian, me, and MANY others.

History will look back and heads will shake in amazement that so-called intelligent people could make such decisions. :ugh:

[A.Agincourt]

WB:There has never been a reason to have an age limit anyway, since we have medical requirements.

If there has never been a reason then why was one instituted? :ugh:

Best Wishes

[Brilliant Stuff]

The mind boggles.

Thanks Ian for having the gumption.:ok:

[Bertie Thruster]

Mr Agincourt is obviously not aged 59.

[uncle ian]

Agincourt,

I did not spend so much of my time and my supporter's money without first ensuring that the up to date medical evidence demonstrates your position (and that of the CAA) on the fitness of 60+ year olds is at least 20 years out of date.

I am not entirely surprised that the Industrial Tribunal has been insufficiently robust to rule against the CAA and untill I see their reasons (for which I must apply in writing) I won't know how they have ducked the issue. I always thought this process could lead me to the European courts ultimately and that any decision in our (old boys) favour would come too late for me personally.

All the indications I have seen are that many, many pilots of all ages agree with my position and that any blow for personal choice and freedom from an increasingly tyranical state so perfectly represented by the law makers and enforcers that is the unelected body which regulates us is worthwhile.

It's heartening to see that I am being offered moral and, indeed, financial support on this busiest weekend of the helicopter calender. A weekend on which there is such a shortage of suitably qualified aircrew that even I have been pressed into service.

I have no intention of giving up this just fight easily.

Ian Evans

[pedroalpha]

Ian,

I am so very sorry to hear of this result.

Pedro

[heliski22]

Can someone help with the real reason the age limit was introduced in the first place? Was it not something to do with a Fed (FAA official) and a job? Or is my brain playing tricks again - oh, dear, maybe THAT's the reason?!! Doh!

[Whirlybird]

Can someone help with the real reason the age limit was introduced in the first place?

Probably for exactly the same 'reason' that sexist employers could refuse to take women until the Sex Discrimination Act of the 1970s, and job ads way back could legally say "no coloureds".

[Whirlygig]

Can someone help with the real reason the age limit was introduced in the first place?
Arbitrary prejudice.

Cheers

Whirls

[windowseatplease]

"Shortage of qualified aircrew". Mmm... I'm sure there are PLENTY of 1,000+ hour instructors who would kill at the chance of some real commercial work. There's no shortage of pilots, just a shortage of operators who are unwilling to invest in pilots. They want something for nothing.

[Bravo73]

You're at it again, manfromuncle. :rolleyes: There is definitely a shortage of pilots with relevant experience.

Please accept that a 1000hrs of piston instruction doesn't necessarily mean that you can handle a SPIFR twin turbine. :ugh:

[nigelh]

If there has never been a reason then why was one instituted?
Agincourt just remind me which planet you come from ? You are either taking the p*ss or dare i say it unbelievably naive !!! A whole stack of rules regarding helicopter aviation in this country have no relevance at all and they were brought in .....
Sorry to hear about the result . Just another good reason to carry on flying ....but make all your flights private and not public transport ......yes i know i am always banging on about it but it has worked very well for me for the last 10 years and it means no floats for battersea and you can fly at night and it opens up hundreds of new landing sites no available to aoc boys.

Rumour has it the whole aoc system is going to be scrapped and some common sense prevail before everyone cancels theirs. I know of at least 3 aoc,s who are now doing more and more leases and intend to go fully that way in next few months . Good on them :D

[helimutt]

B73, I feel that anyone who has 1000hrs instruction without incident, is quite likely to be okay given a turbine to fly. The IR is the next level I guess but there's not a great deal of it onshore UK really. I bet everyone in and out of Silverstone yesterday was VFR. Can't see instrument let-downs into that site.
One job I applied for was a non starter as they were looking for Captains only!! Eh? Having successfully completed a ME SPIFR flight test on two different types, i'm not considered suitable because i'm presently an offshore co-jo. I keep forgetting, Co-pilots don't fly, they just sit there and look out of the window when not writing figures down.


It is down to operators not willing to employ people with less time. For some reason they think they are high risk. Is there any evidence that this is the case. ?? The only recent accidents I can remember for SPIFR were with high time experienced guys who were pushing the limits. Is that because with age and experience they felt they knew better? Who knows.

As for age, is there evidence that older pilots are safer, or more of a risk? Facts and figures.??

I do think the older pilot workforce is being unfairly treated and good luck to Ian in his fight. It doesn't apply to me just yet and by the time i'm old enough for it to apply, there probably won't be helicopters flying much. ps, i'm not that young either.

[uncle ian]

The Age 60 rule was introduced in the States originally when the airlines, the unions and the FAA agreed the 60 was about right for all interests. This was in the late 60s, some fifteen years later the CAA introduced the same rule amongst unbelievable ineptitude (even back then, so little changes) which delayed its initial introduction by some 5 years. Another two or three years followed before the arbitrarily selected age was "justified" by an doctor Tunstall-Pedoe (honestly) using 1970s cardiac mortality statistics extrapolated to equate to acceptable "risk" ie 1:1,000,000 of a cardiac event in pilots. Since this is unacceptable in large transport aircraft 2 pilots are mandatory. I argued that the figures were no longer accurate and that a much lower "risk" is acceptable in light aircraft charter (as accepted by the FAA in part 145 operations for example).

I produced a significant amount of evidence to demonstrate that the benefits of experience can outwiegh the penalties of increrased health risks.

Quite frankly, chaps, I don't understand how I could have lost this verdict but, as I said earlier, perhaps the court is insufficiently robust to challenge the might of the CAA.

[Head Bolt]

The old proverb 'and this too will change....' comes to mind.

No doubt that eventually the weight of evidence and changing attitudes will see the age limit removed, but it will not happen by itself.

Well done Ian for having the balls to take this on, do not give it up..........it will come together in the end.

[heliski22]

I haven't read back through the entire thread again but I'm sure somebody must have already pointed out the difficulty of challanging an established statutory position, especially when dealing with a semi-public body or a body vested with responsibility for various aspects of public safety, such as the CAA.

As with the civil/public service, things are rarely done for their own sake. There are no such things as right and wrong, merely positions - and positions taken are determined by positions already taken either by those involved or by others.

This was always going to be a campaign rather than a skirmish.

"Seconds out - Round 2!"

[uncle ian]

I finally received the 40 page Judgement of my case against the CAA 10 days ago. I waited until I'd had a meeting with lawyers before bringing colleagues up to date.

I still find it hard to understand how the Tribunal found against me. According to my barrister the weight of evidence on either side was extremely close. My view is that the Tribunal were acting with extreme caution in deciding not to overturn a policy which has such huge health and safety implications. My legal advisers wondered from the start if the Tribunal would be sufficiently "robust" to find against the CAA.

So should I appeal?

Barristers response:-

How much money have you got?

a) not much. Forget it.

b) about £20,000. I'll take the case and give you a 30% chance of success.

c) much more. I'll engage a silk (QC) and together we'll have a much better chance of success.

How did I get to be this old and still believe in Justice in this country?

What I think I must do is use what is left (about £5000) of the contributions so generously made for this fight by PPRuNe readers to take the case to Appeal as a litigant in person once again. I'll use the funds to get my solicitors to lodge the papers and to get advice on my best strategy at Appeal.

If anyone has any ideas on how to obtain the funds I really need or, indeed, a better way to proceed I would be most grateful to hear from you.

I left the Employment Tribunal with high hopes feeling I'd done a fair job of presenting the case against the CAA's Age Discrimination. To all of those who gave me financial and moral support I apologise for not doing better.

Ian Evans

[ChippyChop]

Hi Ian,

Although I am not one who gave you financial or morale support as I have only come onto this forum recently, I don't think you should be apologising to anyone for what you have done.

Can you please publish on pprune the specific key areas that the Tribunal referred to in coming to its conclusion. Why, in option (b) is your barrister only giving you a 30% chance of success? This is not good odds, I would have thought if he said you have 50/50 chance then I would proceed, but 30%, perhaps it is a lost cause in todays environment. I don't want to sound negative as I think the age limit should be raised, but the UK is the most conservative country I have lived in.

If you can convince me you have a reasonable chance of success at appeal then I will happily donate some funds to the cause, but you should understand, I am a lowly (if ever) paid helicopter pilot.

[What Limits]

Well we could pass around the hat again or perhaps its time to engage the power of the media to ask why this Government still is openly discriminatory in defiance of UK and European Law.

Lets face it, any excuse to give the current so-called government a good kicking as you approach an election would be attractive to many editors.

Is there any scope to go to the European Court of Human Rights?

[Martin1234]

What does the court say? Would it be possible to provide a copy of the decision?

As there is EC legislation in regards to age discrimination, has the national court been asked to make a preliminary ruling procedure in order to get the case tried before the European Court of Justice? I think that the ECJ is generally quite sensible.

Is there any scope to go to the European Court of Human Rights?

This requires that all measures to get the case tried at a national level are exhausted, which isn't the case if you don't appeal but have the chance to. Furthermore, it will probably take about 5 years to get a ruling from the ECHR or even more.

Is £20,000 a minimum even if you ask them to give less time on the case even if it decreases your chance to win?

[uncle ian]

It's not really feasible to publish the entire document which runs to 40 pages. I'll try to distill the essence of the judgement, though.

"Anything which would reduce the level of safety achieved so far, for example increasing the age of people flying commercially in single pilot operations, would clearly be unacceptable. Accordingly the Tribunal is satisfied that the increased safety achieved by the rule outweighs its discriminatory effects"

The possibility of one or more medical tests giving an absolute guarantee of no sudden incapacitation was then addressed and, not surprisingly, found to be non-existent. Then..........

"Setting that against the risks referred to above, which the CAA has so far successfully addressed, and the fact that the CAA is not out of step with the majority of countries and international organisations, no doubt because of the evidence available to them, the Tribunal has concluded that age 60 policy for single pilots is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of the safety of public transport operations, including such helicopter operations.

Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.

However the Tribunal added as a caveat that the CAA had demonstrated a "lack of rigour in its work in an area (ie the effects of age) which is likely to affect more pilots..................."

It seems to me that conclusions have been reached based on insufficient data (my own data being largely ignored) and more in line with international opinion (ignoring the fact that the only nation with statistically significant data i.e. the USA allows such operations in Part 135 ops). Without intending to libel the Tribunal, who tried to be very fair in their handling of the unequal battle between myself and two highly experienced barristers, I believe they have opted out of making a controversial decision which could rebound on them despite its inherent unfairness.

I don't, in all honesty, want to risk any more of people's hard earned cash unless there is a better than 50/50 chance of success. I will use whatever is left in the kitty to take this as far as I can. If, however, there were a single, wealthy benefactor who wanted to help or a good lawyer prepared to work pro bono of course I would be delighted.

I am very conscious of the fact that the medical and legal departments of the CAA will read this with great glee so I say to them "It ain't over till it's over. Spare your celebrations until you know you've exhausted all my resources"

Ian Evans

[Whirlybird]

"Anything which would reduce the level of safety achieved so far, for example increasing the age of people flying commercially in single pilot operations, would clearly be unacceptable. Accordingly the Tribunal is satisfied that the increased safety achieved by the rule outweighs its discriminatory effects"


Translation - we think we can get away with it, and we don't want to rock the boat...after all, it's only old people we're discriminating against, and they don't count.

:{:{:{:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[What Limits]

increased safety achieved by the rule

Thats It !!

You can appeal this and get them to prove how, in the light of current evidence, safety is increased by chopping us old 'uns.

[uncle ian]

If only 'twere that simple.

[Bertie Thruster]

Wonder what the (UK) age limit is for coach and train drivers?

[R22 HEAVY]

Is anyone aware of the different age limits in other countries, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. I have no doubt someone has already looked at this, but if they are above those in the UK perhaps this is a route to go down.

I'm not sure how difficult it would be, but I do think it would be a good idea to get the UK national papers behind your cause.

Additionally I know some BALPA members have contacted their organisations in relation to this subject. Have they given any assistance, financial or otherwise?

Keep fighting the cause and the CAA and best of luck with your endeavours.

Regards :D

[Bertie Thruster]

re BALPA and the single pilot..........

MINIMUM CREW OF TWO PILOTS

That the policy of the Association be to obtain by all possible means the necessary change in legislation to enforce the requirement that a minimum of two pilots holding current Commercial Licences and Instrument Ratings and qualified on the type should be carried on all fights under IFR and at night on public transport aircraft, including those certificated for single pilot operation.

[mg139]

Hey Ian,
you may be aware of, but, in case not, look how pilots in the USA are fighting against the rule of 60 for retirement Air Line Pilots Against Age Sixty - APAAD (http://www.apaad.org/)

Got some news from the Netherlands,... same procedure as in the UK by some KLM pilots against the mandatory retirement age of 60 is running...., same answers from the Court house and the Equal Treatment Law court as in the UK,, nevertheless and FYI, some CHC pilots in the Netherlands have in their CLA secured retirement age at 65 (belonging to a small union), and the majority represented by the big Airline Pilots Union must retire at 60.

At Bristows in the NL ,a pilot (on a freelance basis) can work up to 65, and the same happens at CHC.
So, what's the difference between a 60 + as freelance and one with permanent contract: nothing but that the freelance can be kicked out any moment.
One of the arguments used by the big union in the NL, is that when a pilot continue beyond 60, it becomes a problem for the "promotion policy", in other words a copilot promotion to Captain can be delayed,
as far as I understood, by CHC in the NL, this problem was solved with a short sentence stating that when a Captain decides to continue beyond 60, he's not anymore counting for the 60/40% Captain/copilot equation, and if required a captain position is open immediatelly to be fulfilled .

cheers

[uncle ian]

BALPA is of no use whatsoever to any onshore helicopter pilot. They seem even more opposed to our sort of flying than the CAA. No support for this issue at all!

The coach and train driver argument was used, as was the "other jurisdictions" argument. Many over 60 pilots are flying public transport currently; most obviously in the USA under Part 135 Regs.

As have already said, I find the Court's Judgement hard to understand.

Ian

[Brilliant Stuff]

Ian,

I thank you very much for taking this gargantuan task on on our behalf. To think how much blood and sweat and tears it must have cost you to get this to the tribunal it wants me to bow my head and doss my cap. Thank you.

As for the result and the way the whole affair went, it just beggars belief how they can arrive at such a decision. I can not put into words how maddening this I find.

I wish I had the money so I could say to you get the biggest guns and appeal to them.Sadly not yet.

[uncle ian]

I now have an electronic version of the Reasons for the Judgement. Anyone wants to see it email me with the request: [email protected]

I tend to overlook PMs on this forum!

[uncle ian]

If you asked for a copy and got something different or nothing, please, email me again. I got mixed up between files on my laptop and PC. Maybe they're right about the age thing after all!

Ian

[uncle ian]

An Appeal will be lodged on Monday. There is enough left in the kitty to do this with professional help. Thereafter I'm on my own again.:uhoh:

[Bertie Thruster]

Thank you Ian and good luck. :ok::ugh::)

[cladosporangium]

Well-done.
All the very best.

Clado.

[Senior Pilot]

Ian,

A similar situation arising in Canada: this thread (http://www.pprune.org/canada/346768-mandatory-retirement-60-a.html) may be of interest?

[uncle ian]

Very interesting but, sorry to say, not particularly relevant to our situation. The Air Canada situation is about employment contracts, Canada has no age discrimination in aviation law as far as I can tell. The pilot contracts were written with the FAA Age 60 Rule for international multi-crew operations in mind as much of Air Canada's business is in the USA.

Thanks for your interest Senior Pilot. I'll keep information on the Appeal up to date as I get it myself.

Ian

[uncle ian]

A number of you requested a copy of the Tribunal's Reasons for their Judgement.

I have just discovered that the electronic copy I requested from the Court was incomplete in that it missed the most important bits, i.e. the Court's reasoning.

I have a pdf copy of the complete document which I'm happy to forward to anyone. Sorry I didn't keep a record of who already requested a copy and got the incomplete version.

Ian

[DennisK]

Hi Ian,

I am looking at doing a third piece on the tribunal's illogical decision.

Can I ask you to PDF the text to me. I might be able to get it into a non aviation newspaper.

Best wishes mate ... and don't forget my earlier offer of help when the time comes

Dennis Kenyon

[uncle ian]

We finally got a date for the Appeal Hearing; 17/18 March.

I've been slow to publish this because of the very recent and very welcome intervention of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) who have agreed to represent me at the Appeal at their expense. This has only just been confirmed.

Given the inadequate level of representation I had at the original hearing, i. e. myself, and realising now how my legal naivety allowed the opposition to easily overcome my arguements I am doubly delighted. First because the CAA's lawyers will have some proper opposition to face but, more importantly, the EHRC have recognised this is a matter of our rights as individuals to live our lives as we wish. This case was always more about rights than money for me and, win or loose, I seem to have been vindicated on that score.

Ian

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Fantastic news, will continue to watch with (close, selfish) interest. Good on you!

[Thud_and_Blunder]

...weird, that last message of mine says it was posted at 0401. It's just past midday here, and my preferences are deffo set to GMT with DST.

[whoateallthepies]

Thud
You could be getting confused. It's a sign of age. :p

[chris_h]

Ian,

Excellent news - well done. Where will the hearing be held? I'll do my best to be there. CH

[uncle ian]

Employment Appeal Tribunal

Audit House
58, Victoria Embankment
EC4Y 0DS

No landing sites nearby, I'm afraid!

Cheers

[helimutt]

Good luck in your quest, but selfishly, I hope not too many old pilots continue to fly beyond 65, giving us younger guys some chance of promotion. !!!

[Marco]

Well done Ian. Glad to see that you are now getting the proper level of support that you deserve. :)

[Whirlygig]

Hi Uncs - are the Great Unwashed permitted to attend?

Great news about the EHRC.

Cheers

Whirls

[uncle ian]

Of course not but as you scrub up very nicely you'll be very wecome.

Seriously, though, I expect this to be a very dry affair with mainly esoteric legal arguements. I guess the public is allowed to watch (not just done but seen to be done) but I'll check and post the answer.

Ian

[Brilliant Stuff]

Ian, those are brilliant news.

Since it looks like we are allowed in You can count on my support on the first day.

[Bertie Thruster]

Excellent news Ian. Thank you for all your hard work. Good luck with the appeal.

[uncle ian]

The Employment Appeal Tribunal tell me that there is seating for about 10 people in their Courts. Obviously these affairs are high in entertainment value!

They will endeavour "to put in a few more chairs" if I give them some warning. So, who's coming?

Let me know here.

Please, don't let anybody feel a moral obligation to come. This really will be a dry legal arguement of interest only to the lawyers involved (except the outcome, of course, and I'll post that as soon as I can). Having said that, for my sake, it would be great to see some of you guys there.

Uncle I

[Brilliant Stuff]

I have made a note to come on the first day. So put a towel down for me if you could please.

[Whirlygig]

I'll also be there for the 17th :ok: BStuff, surely you'll be there first with the towel :}

Cheers

Whirls

[Brilliant Stuff]

I'll put it down the night before.:}:}

[SASless]

I have just discovered that the electronic copy I requested from the Court was incomplete in that it missed the most important bits, i.e. the Court's reasoning.

That part must be some interesting reading!

Give'em Heck Ian!

You prove one person can make a difference in this ol' World!:D

[uncle ian]

Not yet SASless, but watch this space.

[coorong]

I plan to be there on the 18th .......... if you are sure it will go to a second day!


:uhoh:

[heliski22]

Good luck at the Appeal Hearing, Ian!

[MrEdd]

Good luck Ian, wish i could be there. But you do now you will have the suppourt of so many people. Get 'em:D

[uncle ian]

Coorung,

I have no doubt it will go to two days but PM me with your mobile and I'll let you know if it doesn't happen.

Thanks for all the mesages of support chaps, it really does help.

Ian

[Whirlygig]

Not quite the same I know but a victory nevertheless :ok:

BBC NEWS | UK | Air traffic firm ruled 'ageist' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7914073.stm)

Cheers

Whirls

[Whirlybird]

Whirls,
Great news actually. :ok: It proves things are actually changing...

[gla-lax]

Never too old for air traffic control - Transport - Management Today (http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/channel/Finance/news/886210/never-old-air-traffic-control/)

Air traffic controllers discover that even public safety concerns can't trump age discrimination laws...
NATS, the body in charge of the UK’s air traffic control system, has been found guilty of age discrimination after refusing to hire a 50-year-old man. Nats had attempted to argue that it was only trying to provide a safe service for the public – but not surprisingly, the tribunal ruled that its policy of not hiring anyone under the age of 35, on the grounds that people get steadily worse at the job thereafter, wasn’t really in keeping with anti-ageism rules. Fancy that.

In some ways, you can see where Nats is coming from. Air traffic control is one of those professions where you really want people to be on top of their game, given that the alternative is big lumps of aeroplane crashing into each other in the skies above our airports. People want to be confident that their air traffic controllers won’t make mistakes – so if Nats says that people under 35 perform better in the role, we’re sure there’ll be plenty of nervous fliers willing to take them at their word. On the other hand, quite how they expected to get away with this is beyond us. Unless we’re missing something, Nats appears to have argued that this guy was wrong for the job because he was less physically able, less likely to pay back his training costs, and less safe, solely because of his age. Breaches of the age discrimination law don’t get much more blatant than that.

Anyway, the tribunal was having none of it, ruling that their policy was ‘irrational’, ‘confused’ and ‘arbitrary’. Which is fair enough – quite why an extremely healthy 36-year-old with perfect vision should be less suitable for the job than an extremely short-sighted and unhealthy 34 year-old is a bit hard to see. The tribunal also warned that this culture of ageism could be hard to eradicate, and this is an important point: when the people at the top are setting policies like this, everyone in the organisation is taught to think that discriminating on the grounds of age is acceptable. That won’t suddenly change overnight.

Nats will presumably now have to bring in some kind of standard aptitude test (like that of the RAF) to make sure that all applicants are screened equally. Chances are that they’ll probably still end up hiring 98% of the same people they would have done before, after expending considerable amounts of time and taxpayers’ money on a new set-up. Still, the lesson of this little episode is that there’s no good excuse for age discrimination these days; even dark warnings of planes falling out of the sky won’t legitimise bending the rules. So companies need to make sure they shape up – both in terms of policy and practice...

[DennisK]

Ian

Just to say I'd like to be with you at the EHRC hearing on 18th/19th
... Is it first come first gets a seat?

I'd like to cover the item with a further LOOP article.

Its good to know you now have the EHRC big gun lawyers to balance the CAA's ditto. However will any further evidence be presented or is it effectively just a factual revue/possibly challenge of the Kingsway decision?

Take care,

Dennis K

[mickjoebill]

Good luck Ian,


Mickjoebill

[Whirlygig]

Dennis, the hearing is on 17th/18th, not 18th/19th.

Ian, what time's kick-off?

Cheers

Whirls

[uncle ian]

I'm sorry to have to report that I have withdrawn my Appeal.

We were due for a preliminary hearing yesterday (tuesday) to sort out some administrative details and on monday the Equality & Human Rights Commission advised me that, on thorough assessment of all the evidence, they concluded that our chances of success at Appeal were worse that 30%. That being the case they wished to withdraw to avoid further costs to either side.

I had to decide whether or not to continue alone at very short notice. There are two major considerations in reaching the conclusion I have. First, if I fail at Appeal I create a legal precedent making it very difficult for anyone else to bring a successful action after me; as it is the ET's judgement sets no such precedent. Second, by continuing in the knowledge that I had little chance of success the CAA could have made a good case for seeking costs from me. I would estimate those to be tens of thousands of pounds. Much as I'd like to sacrifice my home and what few assets I have I can't do it on a 3 to one shot. I made a condition of my withdrawal that no order for costs to date would be sought.

It goes without saying that I am deeply disappointed with this turn of events. I had thought the EHRC were fully appraised of the situation when they took me on but, of course, it took weeks for their barrister to fully brief himself and he did not finish doing so until the weekend just gone.

On the bright side I would have continued as a litigant in person oblivious of the implications of failure for future litigants so perhaps it's for the best.

Thanks to all of you who have given moral and especially financial support. Whirlygig has a full set of accounts if anyone wants to see where all your money went.

Finally I hope one of you out there will pick up the baton I've dropped and run with it. I made loads of mistakes in representing myself and it's clear to me that my cause is just even if my execution was crap. Please talk to me if you are the one to take this on, I have a wealth of advice from my own mistakes.

Once again, sorry.

Ian

[Whirlygig]

Gutted to hear that Ian and so disappointed for you after all the work you've put.

Cheers

Whirls

[Fly_For_Fun]

Ian, I would like to add my thanks to you, for all your hard work and dedication in trying to change this unjust piece of legislation. If you are ever out and about in Suffolk I would like to buy you a beer (or 2).

[heliski22]

Really sorry to hear that news, Ian! I'm sure it was a tough decision to take, especially when caught a little on the back foot, as it were. Speaking from some fairly bitter personal experiences at the hands of the State, it's hard not to feel sometimes that you're just being ground down. However, as you say, the work you've done won't be for nothing as it will surely be of benefit to others who may follow.

At a time time of increasing life expectancy and a growing clamour about the ability of the state (just pick your country) to provide for its more senior population, it scarcely seems credible that a sector of the workforce that is both highly qualified and subject to regular and reasonably rigourous medical scrutiny is being forced into what in any jurisdiction is effectively early retirement.

Well done and thanks again for all your efforts!

22

[Whirlygig]

This sort of news doesn't help either.

BBC NEWS | Business | EU judges back UK retirement age (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7925203.stm)

Fly for Fun, I think you'll find Uncle Ian will find Suffolk quite convenient!!!

Cheers

Whirls

[uncle ian]

Yes indeed, I live in Suffolk so no getting out of the promise of free beer!

The EHRC was aware of the impending European Court decision on age 65 retirement, they also knew which way it would go but that's European Law for you, and it was a large part of their decision to withdraw from my case.

We will fight on, better for the minor setback!

Ian

[Whirlygig]

As far as I know ... no. Uncle Ian cannot continue as he lost and an appeal would be unlikely to succeed. It will take other people and other cases to continue.

I'm sure Uncle Ian would be glad to help anyone ele to wants to take up the cudgels ... And I'd be more than happy to help with fund-raising!

Cheers

Whirls

[Dennis Kenyon]

So IF another litigant comes on the scene ... will pruners be willing to put up further funds? I'm not sure, but I, for one, would contribute.

Oh and just a silly note. Due to a CAA typing error, my professional licence gives a dob of 1933, when in fact it was 1932. Not that I cared when the ATPL was newly issued in 1974, but there was a tad more significance twenty years later.

Keep them Zimmers airborne! DRK.

[Fareastdriver]

I had to bail out of the UK system in 2005 when I became sixty five. I went to Australia and got an ATPL(H) which has no age limit. As time went on I gained a Chinese ATPL(H) at sixty six years old; that again has no age limit.

[Bertie Thruster]

Apparently we get much fitter once we leave the UK!

[Bertie Thruster]

Had my Class 1 med renewed yesterday. Flying colours as usual in all respects.

It is very frustrating that the "single pilot air transport carrying passengers" box on the certificate gives a new 6 month validity.

The AME confirmed; "Not a medical decision, Bertie." :(

[helispeediii]

as a 64yr old rotary person i know who ide sooner be flying with when the donkey gives up , ill take dennis k with or without the zimmer any day , helispeediii :ugh:

[Bertie Thruster]

Seems daft that I'm 'too old' be paid to fly around with a doctor and paramedic in a mini flying A+E unit, literally only 10 minutes from a hospital, yet young enough be paid to fly around here, where the nearest medical assistance is 1500Km away (4 days sailing, if there is a vessel available)........

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/PanoramaOfSouthGeorgia.jpg

[Whirlygig]

Bertie darling ... the whole bloomin' thing is daft ... you're young enough to instruct a crap and unpredictable pilot like me ;) but not to fly my grandmother on a pleasure flight. Bonkers.

Have a great time down south Thruster :ok:

Cheers

Whirls

[Bertie Thruster]

Will do, Whirls!

The panorama from Sir Ernest Shackleton's book, 'South' (I didn't spot the two climbers at first)

Here's a more colourful one:

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/travel-blog/tip-article/wordpress_uploads/2012/06/Antarctic2.jpg

[spencer17]

@ Bertie
Yepp, it's stupid. I fly all kinds of external load in really tricky conditions, pulling the pilot line to towers, long lining close to live lines etc. etc.
but can not fly the workforce to their places because it's public transport what :mad::mad::mad: nonsense.

[Dennis Kenyon]

Thanks William ... 'tis nice to think I could still be wanted even if it has to be when we're in trouble! Dennis K.

PS. You obviously remember the Enstrom motor letting go on one of our dual sorties ... along by the river circa 1995 or so I seem to recall.

[helispeediii]

hi den its chris, but i do remember many eol and trfailure with you cs

[Dennis Kenyon]

Hi Chris ... I thought the HS bit was for BL Drop me a PM so we can do a 'catch-up'. Regards. DRK

[uncle ian]

I don't think so. EASA may be even more restrictive, at least that was the feeling way back when I went to Court. But..........

I wish someone new would take up the fight. There may be some give in the CAA/EASA now.

In Court I argued that taking cardiac event statistics from the general public (ie British Heart Foundation data) was inappropriate for one of the most medically tested sectors of the general population. Two Barristers, two professors of cardiology supported by three solicitors, the CAA's chief medical officer and her deputy argued the converse.

At 65 I was invited to undergo a "stress" ECG (they measure parameters while you jog on a treadmill). I was told I would need to do that every two years to maintain my Class 1 medical. This year (two years later) when I went for my medical I asked the regular doc when my stress ECG was required. "Oh, not for another two years." he said "CAA have conceded that the pilot population is so heavily monitored that there's no need to do it more frequently."

You couldn't make it up, could you?

I am still flying; aerial work only, of course, but I don't have the resources to return to the fray.

Will someone, please, take them on?

[pedroalpha]

The action is far from over.

The EASA Advisory Board (with one exception) unanimously supported an approach to EASA on this matter and wrote accordingly.

The European Helicopter Association too supports an extension of mandatory pilot retirement age (subject to enhanced medical and continuing operational competence checks). If you would like to learn more, visit the EHA forum at Helitech International, RAI Amsterdam on 15 October.

Pedro

[uncle ian]

I was not aware. Are BHA supporting EHA in this matter?

I won't be able to attend in October but I'd be grateful for updates on this forum.

Thanks for responding

[misterbonkers]

I've just read the recent edition of the CAAs Clued Up - a small article in there mentions that the CAA are exploring increasing the age limit for Commercial Balloon Pilots to beyond 65. Whilst I appreciate a balloon may or not be more benign, it will be interesting to see what data it's based upon.

[Bertie Thruster]

Renewed my class one again last week. (62 now and quite pleased with my non medicated BP of 120/70.)

I enjoyed the aerial work in S Georgia last year. Now I'm a HEMS crewmember (LHS, non flying) and NVG technical crewmember, on a part time basis.

plus any paid aerial/private single pilot flying that's needed.

No single seat HEMS or police flying possible, even though the police flying isn't 'public transport' any more, under EASA rules, (due UK CAA intransigence)

Maintaining a class 1 med I wonder if I can sue for loss of earnings, backdated to age 60, if they amend the 'single pilot age 60 public transport' rule?? ;)

[Sloppy Link]

BT, a little gem of a one liner, can you expand on Police no longer being Public Transport?

[topendtorque]

You rarely see a more agitated person than my DAME come medical time. He waves his arms around and punches the buttons on his computer. "If only I had a book to look it up," he says in exasperation, then rings some idiot number about three times to get a speaking voice. Crazy stuff - the way they change the rules firstly I get advice don't worry about eyes or fasting for fluids this time but do a Stress ECG anyway cos they load you up with so many points at your age and you will have to. So I ran up that hill and kicked a bit of butt at the top, then get to the Doc, "Oh yeah, now they say eye test too and did you fast?" Drive another 1200 K round trip a few days later for an eye test and then on another day 600K for the blood sucker after fasting.

The real idiot part is this; last year at 65 no eye test for 5 years, this year eye test every 2 years after and including 66th birthday. "Oh, what about every second year from 65 cos I had one then?" Oh No you simpleton, that would be too easy, go figure.

The doc reckons the oldest other Class I medical in this area apart from me is about 20 years my junior, I always tell him, "they're the ones you gotta worry about mate, still wearing brylcreem and ray bans".

[pedroalpha]

Uncle Ian,

please PM me.

Pedro

[pedroalpha]

The BHA initiated this and will continue to press the matter on behalf of the industry in Europe.
Pedro

[Bertie Thruster]

SL: PM'd! :)

[handysnaks]

https://www.eurocockpit.be/stories/20140505/eca-position-paper-age-60-for-single-pilot-hems
A little reading to cheer you up.........or not!

[misterbonkers]

Maybe we'd be better off fighting to get our pensions from the age of 60 instead? Then perhaps the rules might change...!

Of course if they are stopping folk from flying at 60 because of health reasons then surely some pensions schemes will have to pay out based on that anyway?

[handysnaks]

MrB
Wouldn't that be nice. What's more, now my state pension age has gone up to 66, the impact on the pension of retiring at 60 is even worse! (40% per month worse as opposed to 25% a month).
Funnily enough, it would be easier to accept if it wasn't for the fact that, if I filled my private or aerial work helicopter up with the same number of passengers and flew over the same number of people down below, then that would be perfectly acceptable, even beyond 65 in some cases. However, because my current aircraft is PT, then it isn't. :ugh:

[Camp Freddie]

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/522908-actuarial-reductions-lgps-advice-post8135618.html#post8135618

I talked about this before, i think you guys are coming at this the wrong way, it's easier to reduce normal retirement age in the pension scheme to 60 than to get the single pilot licencing age increased to 65, especially now we are in EASA

[misterbonkers]

Camp Freddie - agreed. I guess for the NPAS boys it would be even easier now as if they are all employed by West Yorks then they just have the one fund to tackle?

[Thomas coupling]

Camp Freddie: The problem with "inviting" pension administrators to reduce the age of retirement to 60 is that the pension recipient will be penalised by between an 18 - 40% reduction in their pension by taking it early.

Retirement @ 60 i.a.w. FCL is NOT a health limit. It is simply a regulatory limit - thus it canot be construed to form part of a health related redundancy or pension issue.

Pilots in this arena are well and truly screwed from both sides. C.C's do have discretion in these instances but I have yet to hear of even ONE case where he/she has awarded a full pension at age 60 to a serving pilot.

Either way, stopping work on a pension (even a full one) at 60, versus flying on a full salary to 65-66, carries an enormous financial delta.

Handysnaks link to the ECA - to me - suggests the fickleness of it all, as was stated in a later post; for aerial flying in exactly the same flying circumstances, one can legally continue to be gainfully employed. Pathetic jurisdiction if you ask me.

:ugh:

[Camp Freddie]

If the normal retirement age of the scheme is 65 and you retire at 60, generally (depending on the scheme) the pension is reduced in 2 ways.

1) 5 years less service to count
2) the actuarial reduction on the reduced pension

If you reduce the normal retirement age to 60, you get rid of 2), therefore don't have a "double whammee"

I am not suggesting you can get rid of 1) but getting rid of 2) can make a big impact.

[cockney steve]

If you reduce the normal retirement age to 60, you get rid of 2), therefore don't have a "double whammee"
You believe in Faries as well?

NO! the robbing white-collar crooks will screw you even harder!
their job is to syphon off as much of your contribution as they can get away with, then, fromthe balance, pay as little out as they can get away with, until you croak, whereupon they confiscate the jackpot.
Retire earlier = shorter contribution period = less compound interest accumulating in the pot , before they start sharing it with you.
Earlier retirement = longer retirement = lower pension from the smaller pot.
The THEORY sold to us, was the capital would be repaid as part of the pension, thus, Mr. Average would get a very good return on his notional pot and when he died, the pot would be empty....no capital left and no interest.....But, of course, they realised they could use the system to short-change us and ,Actuaries being what they are, more snuff it leaving a large residue than those who survive over the mean average and start to "win"
Financial services = con-merchants.

[handysnaks]

it's easier to reduce normal retirement age in the pension scheme to 60 than to get the single pilot licencing age increased to 65, especially now we are in EASA


Technically speaking you are correct, unfortunately, technically speaking, it is easier to kill a particularly morose wolf with your bare hands rather than a belligerent lion!
:)
We are dealing with reality however, and all of the cases above are fraught with difficulty. With regards to the NPAS scheme, it is actually the West Yorks Local Government Scheme, Now there are rules that allow 'early retirement' to be taken with no actuarial reduction, but someone has to foot the bill for that, in our case it would be West Yorkshire Police (or more correctly! All of the members of the general public)! At least (for the moment anyway), the scheme is based on final salary (well, average salary now), but I doubt the likes of cockney Steve will have much sympathy when you look at the even worse situation of endowment policies wrapped up as private pension schemes as described by CS in the previous post!

[Bertie Thruster]

I say again, the ANO age 60 single pilot age limit is only for public transport. Police flying, now EASA is here, is no longer considered public transport.

On what grounds are the CAA still stopping police pilots flying at 60?

[handysnaks]

The ANO also indicates that police flying is public transport.
Police flying is a state operation and therefore not regulated by EASA
Therefore police flying is regulated by the CAA
Return to line 1

[Bertie Thruster]

The old 'catch 22' Typical.

But why are they booting the medics off the police aircraft? Is that regulatory or.....just 'npas' efficiency related?

And are you guys still able to still fly police UK on an 'old' UK CAA licence or have you all had to convert?

[Bertie Thruster]

The 'good' thing to note now is that it is 'only' the UK CAA stopping age 60+ single pilot police flying in the UK, rather that the 'might' of EASA regs.

Police AOC holders could apply for exemption for named pilots, (and, I think, be obliged to apply, if requested)

[handysnaks]

Bertie, I am not sure you can get an exemption from the law. The law is that under UK regulations single pilot PT stops at 60.
Even to change Poloce Aviation to Aerial Work would require a change in the law. That involves work for someone in authority who would probably rather not do it.
However, should there be a decision some time that TFO's should be re-classified as Technical Crew Members then maybe that would help the cause, on the other hand, our secondary role of casevac may be the sort of thing that means we have to stay as PT.

I suspect that reclassification from PT to something else is our best hope, but I'm not sure it will ever happen, should the opportunity to make the case for it arrive, I will be jumping on that bandwagon and talking long and loud.....
the last word there is known as feeding someone a line

[Bertie Thruster]

Good man, Handy!

Also note.....the CAA is able, by law, to issue exemptions for AOC holders, from the law of the ANO.

(that's how air ambos get away with what they do)

The CAA can issue exemptions from nearly every part of the ANO (including the PT age 60 bit)

:ok: