Age Discrimination: Fighting the CAA! (+ update)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kings Caple, Ross-on-Wye.orPiccots End. Hertfordshire
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian and age
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kings Caple, Ross-on-Wye.orPiccots End. Hertfordshire
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tribunal Hearing Friday's Close
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Longitude Zero
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Romsey
Age: 78
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
22
Last edited by heliski22; 15th Mar 2008 at 23:30.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
G
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
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
He's away at the moment so can't respond but did have a reasonably optimistic air about him!!
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kings Caple, Ross-on-Wye.orPiccots End. Hertfordshire
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age discrimination
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kings Caple, Ross-on-Wye.orPiccots End. Hertfordshire
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age Discrimination in flying
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.
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.
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
Surely the CAA Medical Department would have some data from all the over-60 aerial work pilots and instructors?
Cheers
Whirls
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: BERKSHIRE
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kings Caple, Ross-on-Wye.orPiccots End. Hertfordshire
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age and flying
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kings Caple, Ross-on-Wye.orPiccots End. Hertfordshire
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply to Ken Wells.
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: BERKSHIRE
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!