Restricted medical discrimination

[Wodka]

As a Class 1 medical holder, I have a permanent OML restriction due to something that happened years ago.

Whilst I am very grateful to be flying, I am finding increasingly that many airlines state - UNRESTRICTED medical only for applications.

I am fit and healthy and operate every day in my existing airline with no issues.

My question - is this unrestricted requirement allowed to be imposed? Is this not discrimination? Especially when all airlines have OML holders within the ranks already operating.

[helimutt]

Have you revisited this OML recently? Often, restrictions are put on medicals from a while back when less was known about a particular restrictive issue. If you can find medical info which helps your case, along with a specialist in the field to argue your case, it has to be worth a try and appeal to CAA to look again into your restriction. Unless its something which will always be a restriction. Check CAA medical web page for more details. Also try asking this in the Medical section. It will probably be moved there anyway. Good luck but don't just accept the present status if theres a fight can be fought.

[this is my username]

I went back to the CAA and challenge an OML and they gave me an additional (though trivial) limitation on top which they had "forgotten" the first time around .....

If you have an OML you don't have a restriction on your medical you have a limitation - so just apply anyway. We work in an industry where definitions are important (eg height vs altitude) so if an aviation recruiter doesn't know the difference then why should you humour them?

[Paul Rice]

Thank you for raising the issue of the OML limitation which from a professional pilots perspective is "a kiss of death" in terms of career development, destroying opportunities to change airlines and aircraft type. Effectively it brings to an end a career as an airline pilot unless the victim who has had it imposed on them is willing and able to continue with their present operator until retirement. By handcuffing the pilot to their present operator by making it impossible to change jobs the limitation can be unsafe by potentially exposing the individual to which it is imposed to further harm. It could be that the present job into which the victim is now handcuffed by the OML, is what provoked the medical condition that gave rise to the OML in the first place. The OML is like having lung condition and then having your aero medical authority impose limitations on you which mean you are forced to continue to smoke.

The Basic Aircrew Regulation requires that medical records be kept confidential yet on a public document the medical certificate, the OML limitation is printed for all and sundry to see. Completely discriminatory. Additionally it is a requirement of the regulations that special consideration be given to not imposing a limitation where an individual fails to meet a requirement but were no flight safety issue is involved. This thought process rarely happens and limitations are imposed inconsistently more often as not as a backside covering exercise. I had a discrete one off medical event in Jan 2016. The AMC says that following this event a pilot should be considered unfit for a period of 3 months. I was grounded for 9 months. My medical was returned with an OML limitation and an OSL limitation which was removed following an argument. A colleague working at the same base as me on the same aircraft as me had the same condition and was returned to flying without an OML being imposed while the aero medical section claim that the regulations tie their hands in terms of its imposition on me. The OML is not an effective medical limitation it is a highly discriminatory restraint of trade.

A flying instructor with an OML can teach a PPL trial lesson to an individual with zero flying hours. In the very same aircraft, at the very same flying school, from the very same airfield, in the very same weather conditions the same instructor is banned by the OML limitation from teaching a 300 hour student with a PPL and an IR on a CPL flying course. Even though the flying instructor holds an ATPL or CPL. This is a restraint of trade and not a medical limitation.

I invite anybody who has had an OML limitation imposed on them against their will who believes that the limitation has been imposed on them in an unsatisfactory way, or who has been discriminated against because of it or who has had their trade restricted as a result to get in touch.

If there is widespread evidence of the unsatisfactory impact of the OML we could perhaps join forces to mitigate this adverse outcome.

[Wodka]

My particular OML is permanent.

My question was more looking at the enforceability of this unrestricted criteria at application stage. If, as a correctly licensed pilot, I am able to do the job in exactly the same way as a fellow unrestricted holder, why am I being discriminated?

Yes I accept that OML places a few limitations on rostering - no OML's together, over 60's etc... However I would argue in the larger airlines this is a non-issue. They have many OML's within the ranks already!

So - I guess what I am saying is... could this recruitment position be legally challenged?

[this is my username]

Might be possible on age discrimination grounds - no OML = no-one over 60 = age discrimination?

[Wodka]

Yes agree it would not be the way to start a relationship!

Just very frustrating not being able to even apply to an increasing band of airlines because of this - despite being fully qualified in every other aspect!

Maybe the CAA are the route to take?

[Paul Rice]

As we know an OML limitation imposes the following: Valid as or with a qualified co-pilot and requires that a pilot subject to an OML limitation does not fly with another pilot themselves subject to an OML or with another pilot aged over 60 years.

The incapacitation risk is being controlled to less than a 1% risk of in-flight incapacitation per annum for a Class One with an OML and for a "clean" Class One without an OML limitation the perceived risk is being controlled down to less than 0.25% risk of in-flight incapacitation per annum.

Many aircraft are certified for single pilot commercial operations carrying passenger/s and cargo, so clearly cannot be flown by a single pilot with an OML because he/she would not satisfy the with or as a co-pilot requirement. The risk annual risk of incapacitation in-flight being considered unacceptably high between no less than 0.25% and no more than 1% per annum for a Class One with OML.

However, two OMLs are not allowed to fly together but in the case of an aeroplane certified for single pilot commercial operations (Seneca) crewing the aeroplane with two OMLs would produce an inflight incapacitation risk 2500 less than crewing it with a single pilot with a clean class one.

At absolute worse an OML has an in-flight incapacitation risk of 1% per annum and so the risk of two OMLs suffering incapacitation on the same flight in any one flight year would be (1\100) X (1/100) =0.0001%, whereas the risk of a clean class one holder suffering incapacitation in-flight per annum is regulated down to 0.25%.

Two OMLs flying together in an aeroplane certified for single crew operations are 2500 times less likely to suffer a simultaneous incapacitation than is a single pilot with a clean class is likely to suffer an incapacitation on his own.

The ban on two OMLs flying together on commercial operations requiring a Class One medical should be immediately lifted in the case of aeroplanes certified for single crew operations.

Medical risk for nearly all conditions that could give rise to the imposing of an OML increase with age. Pilots with OML limitations will therefore in general be older than pilots without OML limitations.

Initial issue Class One medical certificates will not be issued with an OML limitation, so an OML can only be imposed onto an existing Class One medical certificate the holder of which will by definition be older than he/she was at the time of initial issue. At the point of OML imposition you will always have held a Class One medical certificate at a younger age than you are now. When you were younger you could apply for the job now you are older you cant hence you have been discriminated on the grounds of age which is against the law.

When it comes to recruitment in the UK employers may discriminate on any grounds they like in the recruitment and selection of staff providing there has not been a law passed against doing so. Age, Sex, Disability, and Race Discrimination legislation exists and applies unless it can be demonstrated that there is a genuine occupational qualification for exception e.g. recruiting a man for a job cleaning a male changing room or recruiting an actress to play the lead lady in a film. In the UK we have age discrimination legislation. Most large airlines have existing pilots with OML limitations working to a high standard on flight operations. Holding an OML is hence not a genuine occupational disqualification and so any airline refusing to select pilots holding an OML would be engaging in indirect age discrimination because pilots with an OML will in general be older than pilots not holding an OML.

It is time therefore time to require that the CAA directs that airlines holding a UK AOCs and regulated by them to be fully in compliance with UK anti-discrimination legislation and stop the practice of airlines discriminating against Class One fit pilots. We should expect that BALPA and the IPA to produce a list of shame of discriminatory companies and guide their members accordingly.

[VariablePitchP]

Would be a good argument... except 1% x 1% isn’t 0.0001%.

Things such as asthma can cause an OML, which when flying with a clean pilot, is fine. You would like both pilots to be able to have an OML, what if they both had asthma? What if there was a fumes event? The rule is there so that if an aggravating factor caused incapacitation of one pilot, at the very least it shouldn’t incapacitate the other. To allow it would mean scheduling people with an OML of X variety to only fly with an OML of Y variety and it would be very messy, as I’m sure you can appreciate.

That’s ignoring the fact that I’d be surprised if there were many people happy to fly if they knew both of their pilots had heart conditions requiring an OML restriction, for example.

I also don’t quite buy the age discrimination argument. Pilots aren’t being discriminated against because of their age, they are being discriminated against (rightly or wrongly) because of their OML. It just so happens that as we age we are more likely to have conditions that would limit our medical, up to the point where at 65 it’s game over for flying (for now - hopefully AUS can change that). The fact that there is natural process of ageing is just life I’m afraid.

[Wodka]

I think the OML system for better or worse does work in that as Bonway says... it allows us to continue to operate within an acceptable risk profile. I am not suggesting a reform of that.

Personally I would like to see some effort from the CAA to dissuade airlines from excluding fully qualified candidates on this basis alone. I think that would be a huge positive step forward.

[Paul Rice]

Bonway hi thank you for correcting my maths you are quite correct I got it wrong "maths in public should never be done" and all that.

Having another crack at it two Class One OMLs flying together in an aeroplane certified for single pilot aeroplanes would be 25 times less likely to both suffer incapacitation on the same flight compared to the incapacitation risk of a single crew Class One pilot flying alone based on the certification risks of 1 % for a Class One OML and 0.25 % for a Class 1. if 100% = 1 then 1% = 0.01. So the risk of two Class Ones being incapacitated on the same flight would be 0.01 X 0.01 = 0.0001. The incapacitation risk for the Class One flying alone is 0.25 % so if 100% =1 then 0.25 % = 0.0025. 0.0001 is 25 times less than 0.0025 so two OMLs together are 25 times safer than single crew. QED OMLs should be allowed to fly together on commercial operations on aeroplanes certified for single crew operation because it brings a much higher level of safety.

Looking at the enhanced incapacitation risk associated with a non normal event is spurious as the total risk of incap by definition in the medical certificate is 1 % per annum Class One OML and 0.25% Class One. For example in respect of the fume event most airliners have 100% oxygen under positive pressure and this would have been taken into account in the granting of the medical certificate and the degree of risk considered acceptable.

In respect of the discrimination point again I agree with Bonway that the intent by some airlines is to directly discriminate against holders of OML limitations. That the airlines which are discriminating against OML holders are not directly intending to discriminate on the basis of age.

However anti discrimination law is much more vigorous than dealing with just direct discrimination and it prevents unintended indirect discrimination as well unless the discrimination is focused around a genuine occupational qualification. We all know most large airlines have many OML pilots working day to day in line operations to a high standard. So being required to not have an OML is not a genuine occupational qualification as a Class One OML is completely qualified to operate in the two crew environment. What the airlines are seeking to do by discriminating against OMLs is to avoid the slight administrative inconvenience of being careful not to roster two OML pilots together.

However because OML pilots will in general be older than non OML pilots discriminating against OML pilots is by definition indirect age discrimination and indirect age discrimination is against the law and there is no genuine occupational qualification factor that would allow you to get away with because by law a pilot with an OML is fully qualified for multi crew operations.

Very clearly indirect age discrimination practised for administrative convenience and it is unlawful.

Dealing with it practically is difficult after all who wants to have a legal dispute with a potential future employer before you have joined. to that end we should be asking the CAA and the pilots unions to remind airlines of the employment law responsibilities and to act accordingly.

I am minded to form a professional association of OML pilots the aim of the association being to collectively tackle discrimination on a class basis for its members when and where it arises and to challenge and question aero medical sections when the imposition of an OML is disputed.

By definition medical developments (new drugs and procedures) always leads the development and redrafting of the EU Aircrew Regulation and the medical AMCs possibly by as much as ten years. Consequently what justified an OML 10 years ago may not justify one now but the aero-medical sections slavishly follow the printed regulations avoiding to think if special considerations would allow them not to do so.

An OML aircrew association could fight discrimination, galvanise the CAA and the unions to tackle it or take class action if necessary and could fight for individual members medical status to be correctly reviewed.