Age Discrimination: Fighting the CAA! (+ update)
If there has never been a reason then why was one instituted?
Agincourt just remind me which planet you come from ? You are either taking the p*ss or dare i say it unbelievably naive !!! A whole stack of rules regarding helicopter aviation in this country have no relevance at all and they were brought in .....
Sorry to hear about the result . Just another good reason to carry on flying ....but make all your flights private and not public transport ......yes i know i am always banging on about it but it has worked very well for me for the last 10 years and it means no floats for battersea and you can fly at night and it opens up hundreds of new landing sites no available to aoc boys.
Rumour has it the whole aoc system is going to be scrapped and some common sense prevail before everyone cancels theirs. I know of at least 3 aoc,s who are now doing more and more leases and intend to go fully that way in next few months . Good on them
Agincourt just remind me which planet you come from ? You are either taking the p*ss or dare i say it unbelievably naive !!! A whole stack of rules regarding helicopter aviation in this country have no relevance at all and they were brought in .....
Sorry to hear about the result . Just another good reason to carry on flying ....but make all your flights private and not public transport ......yes i know i am always banging on about it but it has worked very well for me for the last 10 years and it means no floats for battersea and you can fly at night and it opens up hundreds of new landing sites no available to aoc boys.
Rumour has it the whole aoc system is going to be scrapped and some common sense prevail before everyone cancels theirs. I know of at least 3 aoc,s who are now doing more and more leases and intend to go fully that way in next few months . Good on them
B73, I feel that anyone who has 1000hrs instruction without incident, is quite likely to be okay given a turbine to fly. The IR is the next level I guess but there's not a great deal of it onshore UK really. I bet everyone in and out of Silverstone yesterday was VFR. Can't see instrument let-downs into that site.
One job I applied for was a non starter as they were looking for Captains only!! Eh? Having successfully completed a ME SPIFR flight test on two different types, i'm not considered suitable because i'm presently an offshore co-jo. I keep forgetting, Co-pilots don't fly, they just sit there and look out of the window when not writing figures down.
It is down to operators not willing to employ people with less time. For some reason they think they are high risk. Is there any evidence that this is the case. ?? The only recent accidents I can remember for SPIFR were with high time experienced guys who were pushing the limits. Is that because with age and experience they felt they knew better? Who knows.
As for age, is there evidence that older pilots are safer, or more of a risk? Facts and figures.??
I do think the older pilot workforce is being unfairly treated and good luck to Ian in his fight. It doesn't apply to me just yet and by the time i'm old enough for it to apply, there probably won't be helicopters flying much. ps, i'm not that young either.
One job I applied for was a non starter as they were looking for Captains only!! Eh? Having successfully completed a ME SPIFR flight test on two different types, i'm not considered suitable because i'm presently an offshore co-jo. I keep forgetting, Co-pilots don't fly, they just sit there and look out of the window when not writing figures down.
It is down to operators not willing to employ people with less time. For some reason they think they are high risk. Is there any evidence that this is the case. ?? The only recent accidents I can remember for SPIFR were with high time experienced guys who were pushing the limits. Is that because with age and experience they felt they knew better? Who knows.
As for age, is there evidence that older pilots are safer, or more of a risk? Facts and figures.??
I do think the older pilot workforce is being unfairly treated and good luck to Ian in his fight. It doesn't apply to me just yet and by the time i'm old enough for it to apply, there probably won't be helicopters flying much. ps, i'm not that young either.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: suffolk uk
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Age 60 rule was introduced in the States originally when the airlines, the unions and the FAA agreed the 60 was about right for all interests. This was in the late 60s, some fifteen years later the CAA introduced the same rule amongst unbelievable ineptitude (even back then, so little changes) which delayed its initial introduction by some 5 years. Another two or three years followed before the arbitrarily selected age was "justified" by an doctor Tunstall-Pedoe (honestly) using 1970s cardiac mortality statistics extrapolated to equate to acceptable "risk" ie 1:1,000,000 of a cardiac event in pilots. Since this is unacceptable in large transport aircraft 2 pilots are mandatory. I argued that the figures were no longer accurate and that a much lower "risk" is acceptable in light aircraft charter (as accepted by the FAA in part 145 operations for example).
I produced a significant amount of evidence to demonstrate that the benefits of experience can outwiegh the penalties of increrased health risks.
Quite frankly, chaps, I don't understand how I could have lost this verdict but, as I said earlier, perhaps the court is insufficiently robust to challenge the might of the CAA.
I produced a significant amount of evidence to demonstrate that the benefits of experience can outwiegh the penalties of increrased health risks.
Quite frankly, chaps, I don't understand how I could have lost this verdict but, as I said earlier, perhaps the court is insufficiently robust to challenge the might of the CAA.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old proverb 'and this too will change....' comes to mind.
No doubt that eventually the weight of evidence and changing attitudes will see the age limit removed, but it will not happen by itself.
Well done Ian for having the balls to take this on, do not give it up..........it will come together in the end.
No doubt that eventually the weight of evidence and changing attitudes will see the age limit removed, but it will not happen by itself.
Well done Ian for having the balls to take this on, do not give it up..........it will come together in the end.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't read back through the entire thread again but I'm sure somebody must have already pointed out the difficulty of challanging an established statutory position, especially when dealing with a semi-public body or a body vested with responsibility for various aspects of public safety, such as the CAA.
As with the civil/public service, things are rarely done for their own sake. There are no such things as right and wrong, merely positions - and positions taken are determined by positions already taken either by those involved or by others.
This was always going to be a campaign rather than a skirmish.
"Seconds out - Round 2!"
As with the civil/public service, things are rarely done for their own sake. There are no such things as right and wrong, merely positions - and positions taken are determined by positions already taken either by those involved or by others.
This was always going to be a campaign rather than a skirmish.
"Seconds out - Round 2!"
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: suffolk uk
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age Discrimination Update
I finally received the 40 page Judgement of my case against the CAA 10 days ago. I waited until I'd had a meeting with lawyers before bringing colleagues up to date.
I still find it hard to understand how the Tribunal found against me. According to my barrister the weight of evidence on either side was extremely close. My view is that the Tribunal were acting with extreme caution in deciding not to overturn a policy which has such huge health and safety implications. My legal advisers wondered from the start if the Tribunal would be sufficiently "robust" to find against the CAA.
So should I appeal?
Barristers response:-
How much money have you got?
a) not much. Forget it.
b) about £20,000. I'll take the case and give you a 30% chance of success.
c) much more. I'll engage a silk (QC) and together we'll have a much better chance of success.
How did I get to be this old and still believe in Justice in this country?
What I think I must do is use what is left (about £5000) of the contributions so generously made for this fight by PPRuNe readers to take the case to Appeal as a litigant in person once again. I'll use the funds to get my solicitors to lodge the papers and to get advice on my best strategy at Appeal.
If anyone has any ideas on how to obtain the funds I really need or, indeed, a better way to proceed I would be most grateful to hear from you.
I left the Employment Tribunal with high hopes feeling I'd done a fair job of presenting the case against the CAA's Age Discrimination. To all of those who gave me financial and moral support I apologise for not doing better.
Ian Evans
I still find it hard to understand how the Tribunal found against me. According to my barrister the weight of evidence on either side was extremely close. My view is that the Tribunal were acting with extreme caution in deciding not to overturn a policy which has such huge health and safety implications. My legal advisers wondered from the start if the Tribunal would be sufficiently "robust" to find against the CAA.
So should I appeal?
Barristers response:-
How much money have you got?
a) not much. Forget it.
b) about £20,000. I'll take the case and give you a 30% chance of success.
c) much more. I'll engage a silk (QC) and together we'll have a much better chance of success.
How did I get to be this old and still believe in Justice in this country?
What I think I must do is use what is left (about £5000) of the contributions so generously made for this fight by PPRuNe readers to take the case to Appeal as a litigant in person once again. I'll use the funds to get my solicitors to lodge the papers and to get advice on my best strategy at Appeal.
If anyone has any ideas on how to obtain the funds I really need or, indeed, a better way to proceed I would be most grateful to hear from you.
I left the Employment Tribunal with high hopes feeling I'd done a fair job of presenting the case against the CAA's Age Discrimination. To all of those who gave me financial and moral support I apologise for not doing better.
Ian Evans
Last edited by uncle ian; 1st Oct 2008 at 18:26.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Far from home, but not far from here
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Ian,
Although I am not one who gave you financial or morale support as I have only come onto this forum recently, I don't think you should be apologising to anyone for what you have done.
Can you please publish on pprune the specific key areas that the Tribunal referred to in coming to its conclusion. Why, in option (b) is your barrister only giving you a 30% chance of success? This is not good odds, I would have thought if he said you have 50/50 chance then I would proceed, but 30%, perhaps it is a lost cause in todays environment. I don't want to sound negative as I think the age limit should be raised, but the UK is the most conservative country I have lived in.
If you can convince me you have a reasonable chance of success at appeal then I will happily donate some funds to the cause, but you should understand, I am a lowly (if ever) paid helicopter pilot.
Although I am not one who gave you financial or morale support as I have only come onto this forum recently, I don't think you should be apologising to anyone for what you have done.
Can you please publish on pprune the specific key areas that the Tribunal referred to in coming to its conclusion. Why, in option (b) is your barrister only giving you a 30% chance of success? This is not good odds, I would have thought if he said you have 50/50 chance then I would proceed, but 30%, perhaps it is a lost cause in todays environment. I don't want to sound negative as I think the age limit should be raised, but the UK is the most conservative country I have lived in.
If you can convince me you have a reasonable chance of success at appeal then I will happily donate some funds to the cause, but you should understand, I am a lowly (if ever) paid helicopter pilot.
There are no limits
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Shrewsbury, England.
Age: 67
Posts: 505
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well we could pass around the hat again or perhaps its time to engage the power of the media to ask why this Government still is openly discriminatory in defiance of UK and European Law.
Lets face it, any excuse to give the current so-called government a good kicking as you approach an election would be attractive to many editors.
Is there any scope to go to the European Court of Human Rights?
Lets face it, any excuse to give the current so-called government a good kicking as you approach an election would be attractive to many editors.
Is there any scope to go to the European Court of Human Rights?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does the court say? Would it be possible to provide a copy of the decision?
As there is EC legislation in regards to age discrimination, has the national court been asked to make a preliminary ruling procedure in order to get the case tried before the European Court of Justice? I think that the ECJ is generally quite sensible.
This requires that all measures to get the case tried at a national level are exhausted, which isn't the case if you don't appeal but have the chance to. Furthermore, it will probably take about 5 years to get a ruling from the ECHR or even more.
Is £20,000 a minimum even if you ask them to give less time on the case even if it decreases your chance to win?
As there is EC legislation in regards to age discrimination, has the national court been asked to make a preliminary ruling procedure in order to get the case tried before the European Court of Justice? I think that the ECJ is generally quite sensible.
Is there any scope to go to the European Court of Human Rights?
Is £20,000 a minimum even if you ask them to give less time on the case even if it decreases your chance to win?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: suffolk uk
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not really feasible to publish the entire document which runs to 40 pages. I'll try to distill the essence of the judgement, though.
"Anything which would reduce the level of safety achieved so far, for example increasing the age of people flying commercially in single pilot operations, would clearly be unacceptable. Accordingly the Tribunal is satisfied that the increased safety achieved by the rule outweighs its discriminatory effects"
The possibility of one or more medical tests giving an absolute guarantee of no sudden incapacitation was then addressed and, not surprisingly, found to be non-existent. Then..........
"Setting that against the risks referred to above, which the CAA has so far successfully addressed, and the fact that the CAA is not out of step with the majority of countries and international organisations, no doubt because of the evidence available to them, the Tribunal has concluded that age 60 policy for single pilots is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of the safety of public transport operations, including such helicopter operations.
Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.
However the Tribunal added as a caveat that the CAA had demonstrated a "lack of rigour in its work in an area (ie the effects of age) which is likely to affect more pilots..................."
It seems to me that conclusions have been reached based on insufficient data (my own data being largely ignored) and more in line with international opinion (ignoring the fact that the only nation with statistically significant data i.e. the USA allows such operations in Part 135 ops). Without intending to libel the Tribunal, who tried to be very fair in their handling of the unequal battle between myself and two highly experienced barristers, I believe they have opted out of making a controversial decision which could rebound on them despite its inherent unfairness.
I don't, in all honesty, want to risk any more of people's hard earned cash unless there is a better than 50/50 chance of success. I will use whatever is left in the kitty to take this as far as I can. If, however, there were a single, wealthy benefactor who wanted to help or a good lawyer prepared to work pro bono of course I would be delighted.
I am very conscious of the fact that the medical and legal departments of the CAA will read this with great glee so I say to them "It ain't over till it's over. Spare your celebrations until you know you've exhausted all my resources"
Ian Evans
"Anything which would reduce the level of safety achieved so far, for example increasing the age of people flying commercially in single pilot operations, would clearly be unacceptable. Accordingly the Tribunal is satisfied that the increased safety achieved by the rule outweighs its discriminatory effects"
The possibility of one or more medical tests giving an absolute guarantee of no sudden incapacitation was then addressed and, not surprisingly, found to be non-existent. Then..........
"Setting that against the risks referred to above, which the CAA has so far successfully addressed, and the fact that the CAA is not out of step with the majority of countries and international organisations, no doubt because of the evidence available to them, the Tribunal has concluded that age 60 policy for single pilots is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of the safety of public transport operations, including such helicopter operations.
Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.
However the Tribunal added as a caveat that the CAA had demonstrated a "lack of rigour in its work in an area (ie the effects of age) which is likely to affect more pilots..................."
It seems to me that conclusions have been reached based on insufficient data (my own data being largely ignored) and more in line with international opinion (ignoring the fact that the only nation with statistically significant data i.e. the USA allows such operations in Part 135 ops). Without intending to libel the Tribunal, who tried to be very fair in their handling of the unequal battle between myself and two highly experienced barristers, I believe they have opted out of making a controversial decision which could rebound on them despite its inherent unfairness.
I don't, in all honesty, want to risk any more of people's hard earned cash unless there is a better than 50/50 chance of success. I will use whatever is left in the kitty to take this as far as I can. If, however, there were a single, wealthy benefactor who wanted to help or a good lawyer prepared to work pro bono of course I would be delighted.
I am very conscious of the fact that the medical and legal departments of the CAA will read this with great glee so I say to them "It ain't over till it's over. Spare your celebrations until you know you've exhausted all my resources"
Ian Evans
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Anything which would reduce the level of safety achieved so far, for example increasing the age of people flying commercially in single pilot operations, would clearly be unacceptable. Accordingly the Tribunal is satisfied that the increased safety achieved by the rule outweighs its discriminatory effects"
There are no limits
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Shrewsbury, England.
Age: 67
Posts: 505
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
increased safety achieved by the rule
You can appeal this and get them to prove how, in the light of current evidence, safety is increased by chopping us old 'uns.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: 6 minutes ahead of the landing 747
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is anyone aware of the different age limits in other countries, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. I have no doubt someone has already looked at this, but if they are above those in the UK perhaps this is a route to go down.
I'm not sure how difficult it would be, but I do think it would be a good idea to get the UK national papers behind your cause.
Additionally I know some BALPA members have contacted their organisations in relation to this subject. Have they given any assistance, financial or otherwise?
Keep fighting the cause and the CAA and best of luck with your endeavours.
Regards
I'm not sure how difficult it would be, but I do think it would be a good idea to get the UK national papers behind your cause.
Additionally I know some BALPA members have contacted their organisations in relation to this subject. Have they given any assistance, financial or otherwise?
Keep fighting the cause and the CAA and best of luck with your endeavours.
Regards
re BALPA and the single pilot..........
MINIMUM CREW OF TWO PILOTS
That the policy of the Association be to obtain by all possible means the necessary change in legislation to enforce the requirement that a minimum of two pilots holding current Commercial Licences and Instrument Ratings and qualified on the type should be carried on all fights under IFR and at night on public transport aircraft, including those certificated for single pilot operation.
MINIMUM CREW OF TWO PILOTS
That the policy of the Association be to obtain by all possible means the necessary change in legislation to enforce the requirement that a minimum of two pilots holding current Commercial Licences and Instrument Ratings and qualified on the type should be carried on all fights under IFR and at night on public transport aircraft, including those certificated for single pilot operation.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APAAD
Hey Ian,
you may be aware of, but, in case not, look how pilots in the USA are fighting against the rule of 60 for retirement Air Line Pilots Against Age Sixty - APAAD
Got some news from the Netherlands,... same procedure as in the UK by some KLM pilots against the mandatory retirement age of 60 is running...., same answers from the Court house and the Equal Treatment Law court as in the UK,, nevertheless and FYI, some CHC pilots in the Netherlands have in their CLA secured retirement age at 65 (belonging to a small union), and the majority represented by the big Airline Pilots Union must retire at 60.
At Bristows in the NL ,a pilot (on a freelance basis) can work up to 65, and the same happens at CHC.
So, what's the difference between a 60 + as freelance and one with permanent contract: nothing but that the freelance can be kicked out any moment.
One of the arguments used by the big union in the NL, is that when a pilot continue beyond 60, it becomes a problem for the "promotion policy", in other words a copilot promotion to Captain can be delayed,
as far as I understood, by CHC in the NL, this problem was solved with a short sentence stating that when a Captain decides to continue beyond 60, he's not anymore counting for the 60/40% Captain/copilot equation, and if required a captain position is open immediatelly to be fulfilled .
cheers
you may be aware of, but, in case not, look how pilots in the USA are fighting against the rule of 60 for retirement Air Line Pilots Against Age Sixty - APAAD
Got some news from the Netherlands,... same procedure as in the UK by some KLM pilots against the mandatory retirement age of 60 is running...., same answers from the Court house and the Equal Treatment Law court as in the UK,, nevertheless and FYI, some CHC pilots in the Netherlands have in their CLA secured retirement age at 65 (belonging to a small union), and the majority represented by the big Airline Pilots Union must retire at 60.
At Bristows in the NL ,a pilot (on a freelance basis) can work up to 65, and the same happens at CHC.
So, what's the difference between a 60 + as freelance and one with permanent contract: nothing but that the freelance can be kicked out any moment.
One of the arguments used by the big union in the NL, is that when a pilot continue beyond 60, it becomes a problem for the "promotion policy", in other words a copilot promotion to Captain can be delayed,
as far as I understood, by CHC in the NL, this problem was solved with a short sentence stating that when a Captain decides to continue beyond 60, he's not anymore counting for the 60/40% Captain/copilot equation, and if required a captain position is open immediatelly to be fulfilled .
cheers
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: suffolk uk
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALPA is of no use whatsoever to any onshore helicopter pilot. They seem even more opposed to our sort of flying than the CAA. No support for this issue at all!
The coach and train driver argument was used, as was the "other jurisdictions" argument. Many over 60 pilots are flying public transport currently; most obviously in the USA under Part 135 Regs.
As have already said, I find the Court's Judgement hard to understand.
Ian
The coach and train driver argument was used, as was the "other jurisdictions" argument. Many over 60 pilots are flying public transport currently; most obviously in the USA under Part 135 Regs.
As have already said, I find the Court's Judgement hard to understand.
Ian
Last edited by uncle ian; 6th Oct 2008 at 07:37.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian,
I thank you very much for taking this gargantuan task on on our behalf. To think how much blood and sweat and tears it must have cost you to get this to the tribunal it wants me to bow my head and doss my cap. Thank you.
As for the result and the way the whole affair went, it just beggars belief how they can arrive at such a decision. I can not put into words how maddening this I find.
I wish I had the money so I could say to you get the biggest guns and appeal to them.Sadly not yet.
I thank you very much for taking this gargantuan task on on our behalf. To think how much blood and sweat and tears it must have cost you to get this to the tribunal it wants me to bow my head and doss my cap. Thank you.
As for the result and the way the whole affair went, it just beggars belief how they can arrive at such a decision. I can not put into words how maddening this I find.
I wish I had the money so I could say to you get the biggest guns and appeal to them.Sadly not yet.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: suffolk uk
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I now have an electronic version of the Reasons for the Judgement. Anyone wants to see it email me with the request: [email protected]
I tend to overlook PMs on this forum!
I tend to overlook PMs on this forum!