review of commercial medicals
Thread Starter
review of commercial medicals
I intend to copy this across to the health forum, but to grab a wider audience in the UK:
As of December 2006, mulit crew helicopter pilots over 40 now only need to have 1 x aircrew medical a year. Unfortunately for single pilot operators you will still need to do 2 x year.
Also, if you have corrected vision and wear corrective lenses, you don't need to see an optician again unless your eyesight takes a turn for the worse. So those 2 yearly visits to specsavers is over!
There is hope yet for common sense.
All we in EASA/UK have to do now is concentrate on removing the age barrier for single pilot ops (60) under the age discrimination act
As of December 2006, mulit crew helicopter pilots over 40 now only need to have 1 x aircrew medical a year. Unfortunately for single pilot operators you will still need to do 2 x year.
Also, if you have corrected vision and wear corrective lenses, you don't need to see an optician again unless your eyesight takes a turn for the worse. So those 2 yearly visits to specsavers is over!
There is hope yet for common sense.
All we in EASA/UK have to do now is concentrate on removing the age barrier for single pilot ops (60) under the age discrimination act
Thread Starter
ICAO call the shots with regard to when single pilot commercial operators have to retire their drivers at 60 Vs multi crew continuing to 65.
My research led me to numerous sources, all of which agree that there is NO CONCEIVABLE MEDICAL REASON TO AFFECT THESE CHANGES AT 60 for single crew.
The (relatively) new head of Ops at the CAA cannot see any reason for medically splitting the retirement ages either.
As of October 2006 this practice is now illegal.
However my union lawyers comment that it will take a "class action" to change the legislation and in the UK it should start with the national authority (CAA). However they state that they are not in a financial position to take this forward currently
Out of the 13 states that have signed up to the ICAO convention. Only Australia have no discrimination between multi and single crewing, w.r.t. age. Well done Aussie
In the UK, the only branch of the helicopter industry with a strong union, is the offshore guys (Multi), all the airlines fly multi, who else in the UK can therefore challenge this regulation?
I'm sure the CAA will change it if they get enough pressure.
My research led me to numerous sources, all of which agree that there is NO CONCEIVABLE MEDICAL REASON TO AFFECT THESE CHANGES AT 60 for single crew.
The (relatively) new head of Ops at the CAA cannot see any reason for medically splitting the retirement ages either.
As of October 2006 this practice is now illegal.
However my union lawyers comment that it will take a "class action" to change the legislation and in the UK it should start with the national authority (CAA). However they state that they are not in a financial position to take this forward currently
Out of the 13 states that have signed up to the ICAO convention. Only Australia have no discrimination between multi and single crewing, w.r.t. age. Well done Aussie
In the UK, the only branch of the helicopter industry with a strong union, is the offshore guys (Multi), all the airlines fly multi, who else in the UK can therefore challenge this regulation?
I'm sure the CAA will change it if they get enough pressure.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done Aussie
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please note that I have no knowledge of the UK law whatsoever and what is stated in the message as following should not be considered as any advice whatsoever.
"However my union lawyers comment that it will take a "class action" to change the legislation"
Why do you need to change the legislation itself, as the important matter is the interpretation of the legislation?
If a legislation is stating "within the UK only" which illegally discriminates other EC countries, "within the UK only" shall be interpreted as "within the EC" no matter what the legislation reads.
The same principle should apply to the age discrimination. In order to get a precedent you could either change the ops manual stating that single pilot ops are allowed for pilots up to the age of f.e. 65. If it's not approved the case is appealed to the administrative court. Alternatively, you just continue to fly commercial singel pilot ops after the age of 60 and notify the CAA. If they decide to prosecute they have to convince to court that the "age 60 rule" isn't against any discrimination law.
Pose that no medicals are allowed to be issued to any of the female gender, because the risk of PMS etc could compromise safety. No court would allow any such discrimination. Then why would they allow the discrimination of age when discrimination laws regarding age and gender in many ways are similar?
"However my union lawyers comment that it will take a "class action" to change the legislation"
Why do you need to change the legislation itself, as the important matter is the interpretation of the legislation?
If a legislation is stating "within the UK only" which illegally discriminates other EC countries, "within the UK only" shall be interpreted as "within the EC" no matter what the legislation reads.
The same principle should apply to the age discrimination. In order to get a precedent you could either change the ops manual stating that single pilot ops are allowed for pilots up to the age of f.e. 65. If it's not approved the case is appealed to the administrative court. Alternatively, you just continue to fly commercial singel pilot ops after the age of 60 and notify the CAA. If they decide to prosecute they have to convince to court that the "age 60 rule" isn't against any discrimination law.
Pose that no medicals are allowed to be issued to any of the female gender, because the risk of PMS etc could compromise safety. No court would allow any such discrimination. Then why would they allow the discrimination of age when discrimination laws regarding age and gender in many ways are similar?
I'm sure the CAA will change it if they get enough pressure.
In the UK, the only branch of the helicopter industry with a strong union, is the offshore guys (Multi), all the airlines fly multi, who else in the UK can therefore challenge this regulation?
This well organised guys finding more and more "reasons" like higher heart attack risks for over 55 years aged pilots and using their power to force the big airlines to sign special retirement contracts with big gratuities. And in this situation a 60 years age rule is highly welcome. In Germany 3 elder Lufthansa pilots have started proceedings against the big german pilot union "Vereinigung Cockpit" because this union assist the airline in layoffs of over 60 years old pilots, although in Germany the JAA 60 years age rule isn't in national law at the moment. Sure this way isn't the way for us poor rotorheads.
But in the struggle against a dramatic rise of impoverished elderly rotary pilots we are nearly alone and i couldn't see a helicopter operator able to give pilots between 55 and 60 a XXX,XXX€ bonus.
Last edited by tecpilot; 21st Jan 2007 at 19:53.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC,
Am I right in thinking instructors only need one a year? And if my medical expires in February, do I have to renew it, ie does this apply to medicals issued before the change came in?
On second thoughts, if it's easier, could you post the link to the document detailing the changes.
I hope I don't need one; with almost no instructing work recently due to weather etc, I could do with saving £180 quid!!!!
Am I right in thinking instructors only need one a year? And if my medical expires in February, do I have to renew it, ie does this apply to medicals issued before the change came in?
On second thoughts, if it's easier, could you post the link to the document detailing the changes.
I hope I don't need one; with almost no instructing work recently due to weather etc, I could do with saving £180 quid!!!!
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: by the seaside
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how all this affects the UK helo pilots directly employed by the police?
The UK Inland Revenue has stated that these pilots do not work in "commercial air transport passenger carrying operations"!!
The UK Inland Revenue has stated that these pilots do not work in "commercial air transport passenger carrying operations"!!
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Martin1234
Pose that no medicals are allowed to be issued to any of the female gender, because the risk of PMS etc could compromise safety. No court would allow any such discrimination. Then why would they allow the discrimination of age when discrimination laws regarding age and gender in many ways are similar?
They are not similar at all.Most women do not suffer from PMS whereas reaching the age of 60 is pretty much irrefutable.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"They are not similar at all."
The purpose of the EC prohibition against discrimination on grounds of age or sex are similar. Although the latter has been in force for a longer period of time, for the purpose of this discussion they are in many ways similar, apart from the obvious fact that they aim to protect among other things employees on different grounds.
"Most women do not suffer from PMS whereas reaching the age of 60 is pretty much irrefutable."
Getting PMS might compromise safety while only the fact that someone is reaching the age of 60 doesn't.
It must be considered as objective fact that women as opposed to men suffer a statistically higher chance of getting PMS, mood changes due to menstruation as well as pregnancy. All of the aforementioned could compromise safety, especially in the early stages of pregnancy at a time it is unknown and no pertinent medical evaluation has been done by an AME. The first indication of pregnancy, such as vomiting or dizziness, might occur in the cockpit.
All I am saying is that medical standards should be among other things justified and proportionate. They might not be in all aspects which is why we have regulation against among other things discrimination on grounds of age or sex, in order to supersede among other things medical standards if they aren't among other things justified and proportionate.
The purpose of the EC prohibition against discrimination on grounds of age or sex are similar. Although the latter has been in force for a longer period of time, for the purpose of this discussion they are in many ways similar, apart from the obvious fact that they aim to protect among other things employees on different grounds.
"Most women do not suffer from PMS whereas reaching the age of 60 is pretty much irrefutable."
Getting PMS might compromise safety while only the fact that someone is reaching the age of 60 doesn't.
It must be considered as objective fact that women as opposed to men suffer a statistically higher chance of getting PMS, mood changes due to menstruation as well as pregnancy. All of the aforementioned could compromise safety, especially in the early stages of pregnancy at a time it is unknown and no pertinent medical evaluation has been done by an AME. The first indication of pregnancy, such as vomiting or dizziness, might occur in the cockpit.
All I am saying is that medical standards should be among other things justified and proportionate. They might not be in all aspects which is why we have regulation against among other things discrimination on grounds of age or sex, in order to supersede among other things medical standards if they aren't among other things justified and proportionate.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin1234, in your first post you postulated that a counterargument would be to not issue medicals to women because they COULD suffer from PMS.
In a court of law (or anywhere else for that matter), that argument is spurrious because not all women suffer from PMS. Some do granted and some do become pregnant.
In the same way, you could say that no medicals should ever be issued to anyone in case they become alcoholic or diabetic or depressed.
I'm not disagreeing with the gist of what you say but your premise is false; age and gender are different issues (as is race and religion).
If you can pass a medical, then you should be able to fly.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"in your first post you postulated that a counterargument would be to not issue medicals to women because they COULD suffer from PMS."
Not really.
I am only saying that if women wouldn't be allowed to fly commercial single pilot ops, this wouldn't be acceptable because the increased risk involved isn't high enough to exclude someone from the aforementioned type of flying.
Now the same principle applies to someone "being too old". If someone aged 60 or more isn't allowed to fly commercial single pilot ops, this wouldn't be acceptable because the possible increased risk involved isn't high enough to exclude someone from conducting the aforementioned type of flying.
Medical standards are all about risk assessment. Some of the medical standards are based on objective grounds, some are based on subjective grounds. Due to anti discrimination laws medical standards regarding age, sex, ethnic groups etcetera need to be based on objective grounds and be justified and proportionate.
I really don't see the difference of accepting the higher risk involved regarding females and the possibly higher risk of someone turning 60.
You are correct that if you possess a medical, you should be allowed to exercise the privileges of the medical certificate. Unfortunately, people are being denied medicals on reasons that might have no or little affect on safety.
I am sure that you would be everything but happy if you were told that you are not allowed to fly commercial single pilot ops because you as someone of the female gender do have a small but measurable increased risk as opposed to men. Why would the 60 year old feel any different, if the possibly increased risk is still small?
You are correct that gender and age "are different issues". However, they have similar legal protection and therefore the same basic principles should apply. It wouldn't be necessary to mention discrimination due to gender at all, since females nor males are illegally discriminated in at least JAR-FCL 3. However, it is so much easier to realise that it is against the purpose of the legislation if you start by applying the basic principle on female vs. male, and then continue on 59 year old vs. 60 year old.
Not really.
I am only saying that if women wouldn't be allowed to fly commercial single pilot ops, this wouldn't be acceptable because the increased risk involved isn't high enough to exclude someone from the aforementioned type of flying.
Now the same principle applies to someone "being too old". If someone aged 60 or more isn't allowed to fly commercial single pilot ops, this wouldn't be acceptable because the possible increased risk involved isn't high enough to exclude someone from conducting the aforementioned type of flying.
Medical standards are all about risk assessment. Some of the medical standards are based on objective grounds, some are based on subjective grounds. Due to anti discrimination laws medical standards regarding age, sex, ethnic groups etcetera need to be based on objective grounds and be justified and proportionate.
I really don't see the difference of accepting the higher risk involved regarding females and the possibly higher risk of someone turning 60.
You are correct that if you possess a medical, you should be allowed to exercise the privileges of the medical certificate. Unfortunately, people are being denied medicals on reasons that might have no or little affect on safety.
I am sure that you would be everything but happy if you were told that you are not allowed to fly commercial single pilot ops because you as someone of the female gender do have a small but measurable increased risk as opposed to men. Why would the 60 year old feel any different, if the possibly increased risk is still small?
You are correct that gender and age "are different issues". However, they have similar legal protection and therefore the same basic principles should apply. It wouldn't be necessary to mention discrimination due to gender at all, since females nor males are illegally discriminated in at least JAR-FCL 3. However, it is so much easier to realise that it is against the purpose of the legislation if you start by applying the basic principle on female vs. male, and then continue on 59 year old vs. 60 year old.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Martin1234. If I've understood correctly, he is saying that to ban all 60 year olds because some 60 year olds aren't safe due to age related problems, is as ridiculous as it would be to ban all women because some women aren't safe due to PMS-related problems. I absolutely agree. Each individual should be treated...individually. Neither age, nor gender, nor race, nor size, nor any other attribute per se, should stop a person flying. If they can pass a medical, they are safe to fly, and should be allowed to.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin1234, I think you've explained yourself better or maybe I've understood better. I thought you were actually suggesting it as part of a potential case against the discrimination.
Cheers
Whirls
Cheers
Whirls
Tightgit
Two things,
It is the CAA who issue the licence (and a CAA AME who issues the medical). So the court case (whether class action or by individual) would have to be heard first so you could have a valid licence to keep flying!
Second
Bertie, I suspect you are back on the 'expenses' bit of the tax allowance. You need to change Tax Office 
. I have just had the flat rate job expenses allowance of £850 (the note says that HM revenue has agreed with the union that £850 is the amount you are likely to have to pay out doing this job). Keep at it!
The same principle should apply to the age discrimination. In order to get a precedent you could either change the ops manual stating that single pilot ops are allowed for pilots up to the age of f.e. 65. If it's not approved the case is appealed to the administrative court. Alternatively, you just continue to fly commercial singel pilot ops after the age of 60 and notify the CAA. If they decide to prosecute they have to convince to court that the "age 60 rule" isn't against any discrimination law.
Second
I wonder how all this affects the UK helo pilots directly employed by the police?
The UK Inland Revenue has stated that these pilots do not work in "commercial air transport passenger carrying operations"!!
The UK Inland Revenue has stated that these pilots do not work in "commercial air transport passenger carrying operations"!!
. I have just had the flat rate job expenses allowance of £850 (the note says that HM revenue has agreed with the union that £850 is the amount you are likely to have to pay out doing this job). Keep at it!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It is the CAA who issue the licence (and a CAA AME who issues the medical). So the court case (whether class action or by individual) would have to be heard first so you could have a valid licence to keep flying!"
Regarding the change of the ops manual I see no problem, as you wait to start flying "after 60" till you have a won.
Regarding just continue to fly and challenge possible future consequences in court, I doubt that the CAA would revoke someone's licence before the case has gained legal force if the outcome is unclear. If you win, you have done nothing wrong and no revokation can be done. If the licence was revoked before you won, you might be eligible for damage.
Just continuing to fly commercial single pilot ops after the age of 60 sure is risky. Unfortunately, I believe it is the easiest way to try the case. If you just fly once and without passengers and still making it an official commercial single pilot ops, the consequences should be less harsh if you don't gain any success. I believe details regarding how to challenge the legislation should be stated by someone that knows the law in the applicable jurisdiction, as this is very different between individual EC countries.
Regarding the change of the ops manual I see no problem, as you wait to start flying "after 60" till you have a won.
Regarding just continue to fly and challenge possible future consequences in court, I doubt that the CAA would revoke someone's licence before the case has gained legal force if the outcome is unclear. If you win, you have done nothing wrong and no revokation can be done. If the licence was revoked before you won, you might be eligible for damage.
Just continuing to fly commercial single pilot ops after the age of 60 sure is risky. Unfortunately, I believe it is the easiest way to try the case. If you just fly once and without passengers and still making it an official commercial single pilot ops, the consequences should be less harsh if you don't gain any success. I believe details regarding how to challenge the legislation should be stated by someone that knows the law in the applicable jurisdiction, as this is very different between individual EC countries.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerial work pilots (e.g. instructors) can fly after 60 so flying after 60 with no "passengers" (i.e. operations staff, students) is OK.
The problem with your proposal is that the pilot who DOES take the plunge and take passengers after aged 60 would have to have the backing of his employer, union and benevolent fund in order to fight the case that the CAA would bring. And if he lost, it would be very expensive. I doubt there's many out there who would be prepared to be the guinea pig - hence the requirement for a class action which could still be costly.
Cheers
Whirls
The problem with your proposal is that the pilot who DOES take the plunge and take passengers after aged 60 would have to have the backing of his employer, union and benevolent fund in order to fight the case that the CAA would bring. And if he lost, it would be very expensive. I doubt there's many out there who would be prepared to be the guinea pig - hence the requirement for a class action which could still be costly.
Cheers
Whirls