Age Discrimination: Fighting the CAA! (+ update)
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.
Age 60+ discrim!
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.
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!
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.
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!
Last edited by ambidextrous; 8th Mar 2008 at 13:12.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Jim Ball
They keep relying on old stuff from Australia and the USAF
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).
(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).
Can this be of use, Ian?
Last edited by John Eacott; 8th Mar 2008 at 22:03.
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.
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......
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kings Caple, Ross-on-Wye.orPiccots End. Hertfordshire
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age PLus etc
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: BERKSHIRE
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: suffolk uk
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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).
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: suffolk uk
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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?
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?
EASA and Licensing
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
ie - don't expect anything to change within the next 5 years.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: suffolk uk
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: England,Scotland,Wales and Northern Ireland
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Good luck
ANOrak