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.

albatross

Best of luck.

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

But in any case: Nill illigitimi carborundum

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

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

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?

Also he said Ian is saying there should be no age limit, period, just passing a medical should be enough.
Is that true?
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

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.

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.

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?

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
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 said 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 ......

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?