Age Discrimination: Fighting the CAA! (+ update)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You rarely see a more agitated person than my DAME come medical time. He waves his arms around and punches the buttons on his computer. "If only I had a book to look it up," he says in exasperation, then rings some idiot number about three times to get a speaking voice. Crazy stuff - the way they change the rules firstly I get advice don't worry about eyes or fasting for fluids this time but do a Stress ECG anyway cos they load you up with so many points at your age and you will have to. So I ran up that hill and kicked a bit of butt at the top, then get to the Doc, "Oh yeah, now they say eye test too and did you fast?" Drive another 1200 K round trip a few days later for an eye test and then on another day 600K for the blood sucker after fasting.
The real idiot part is this; last year at 65 no eye test for 5 years, this year eye test every 2 years after and including 66th birthday. "Oh, what about every second year from 65 cos I had one then?" Oh No you simpleton, that would be too easy, go figure.
The doc reckons the oldest other Class I medical in this area apart from me is about 20 years my junior, I always tell him, "they're the ones you gotta worry about mate, still wearing brylcreem and ray bans".
The real idiot part is this; last year at 65 no eye test for 5 years, this year eye test every 2 years after and including 66th birthday. "Oh, what about every second year from 65 cos I had one then?" Oh No you simpleton, that would be too easy, go figure.
The doc reckons the oldest other Class I medical in this area apart from me is about 20 years my junior, I always tell him, "they're the ones you gotta worry about mate, still wearing brylcreem and ray bans".
Maybe we'd be better off fighting to get our pensions from the age of 60 instead? Then perhaps the rules might change...!
Of course if they are stopping folk from flying at 60 because of health reasons then surely some pensions schemes will have to pay out based on that anyway?
Of course if they are stopping folk from flying at 60 because of health reasons then surely some pensions schemes will have to pay out based on that anyway?
Tightgit
MrB
Wouldn't that be nice. What's more, now my state pension age has gone up to 66, the impact on the pension of retiring at 60 is even worse! (40% per month worse as opposed to 25% a month).
Funnily enough, it would be easier to accept if it wasn't for the fact that, if I filled my private or aerial work helicopter up with the same number of passengers and flew over the same number of people down below, then that would be perfectly acceptable, even beyond 65 in some cases. However, because my current aircraft is PT, then it isn't.
Wouldn't that be nice. What's more, now my state pension age has gone up to 66, the impact on the pension of retiring at 60 is even worse! (40% per month worse as opposed to 25% a month).
Funnily enough, it would be easier to accept if it wasn't for the fact that, if I filled my private or aerial work helicopter up with the same number of passengers and flew over the same number of people down below, then that would be perfectly acceptable, even beyond 65 in some cases. However, because my current aircraft is PT, then it isn't.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/522...ml#post8135618
I talked about this before, i think you guys are coming at this the wrong way, it's easier to reduce normal retirement age in the pension scheme to 60 than to get the single pilot licencing age increased to 65, especially now we are in EASA
I talked about this before, i think you guys are coming at this the wrong way, it's easier to reduce normal retirement age in the pension scheme to 60 than to get the single pilot licencing age increased to 65, especially now we are in EASA
Camp Freddie: The problem with "inviting" pension administrators to reduce the age of retirement to 60 is that the pension recipient will be penalised by between an 18 - 40% reduction in their pension by taking it early.
Retirement @ 60 i.a.w. FCL is NOT a health limit. It is simply a regulatory limit - thus it canot be construed to form part of a health related redundancy or pension issue.
Pilots in this arena are well and truly screwed from both sides. C.C's do have discretion in these instances but I have yet to hear of even ONE case where he/she has awarded a full pension at age 60 to a serving pilot.
Either way, stopping work on a pension (even a full one) at 60, versus flying on a full salary to 65-66, carries an enormous financial delta.
Handysnaks link to the ECA - to me - suggests the fickleness of it all, as was stated in a later post; for aerial flying in exactly the same flying circumstances, one can legally continue to be gainfully employed. Pathetic jurisdiction if you ask me.
Retirement @ 60 i.a.w. FCL is NOT a health limit. It is simply a regulatory limit - thus it canot be construed to form part of a health related redundancy or pension issue.
Pilots in this arena are well and truly screwed from both sides. C.C's do have discretion in these instances but I have yet to hear of even ONE case where he/she has awarded a full pension at age 60 to a serving pilot.
Either way, stopping work on a pension (even a full one) at 60, versus flying on a full salary to 65-66, carries an enormous financial delta.
Handysnaks link to the ECA - to me - suggests the fickleness of it all, as was stated in a later post; for aerial flying in exactly the same flying circumstances, one can legally continue to be gainfully employed. Pathetic jurisdiction if you ask me.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the normal retirement age of the scheme is 65 and you retire at 60, generally (depending on the scheme) the pension is reduced in 2 ways.
1) 5 years less service to count
2) the actuarial reduction on the reduced pension
If you reduce the normal retirement age to 60, you get rid of 2), therefore don't have a "double whammee"
I am not suggesting you can get rid of 1) but getting rid of 2) can make a big impact.
1) 5 years less service to count
2) the actuarial reduction on the reduced pension
If you reduce the normal retirement age to 60, you get rid of 2), therefore don't have a "double whammee"
I am not suggesting you can get rid of 1) but getting rid of 2) can make a big impact.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you reduce the normal retirement age to 60, you get rid of 2), therefore don't have a "double whammee"
NO! the robbing white-collar crooks will screw you even harder!
their job is to syphon off as much of your contribution as they can get away with, then, fromthe balance, pay as little out as they can get away with, until you croak, whereupon they confiscate the jackpot.
Retire earlier = shorter contribution period = less compound interest accumulating in the pot , before they start sharing it with you.
Earlier retirement = longer retirement = lower pension from the smaller pot.
The THEORY sold to us, was the capital would be repaid as part of the pension, thus, Mr. Average would get a very good return on his notional pot and when he died, the pot would be empty....no capital left and no interest.....But, of course, they realised they could use the system to short-change us and ,Actuaries being what they are, more snuff it leaving a large residue than those who survive over the mean average and start to "win"
Financial services = con-merchants.
Tightgit
it's easier to reduce normal retirement age in the pension scheme to 60 than to get the single pilot licencing age increased to 65, especially now we are in EASA
We are dealing with reality however, and all of the cases above are fraught with difficulty. With regards to the NPAS scheme, it is actually the West Yorks Local Government Scheme, Now there are rules that allow 'early retirement' to be taken with no actuarial reduction, but someone has to foot the bill for that, in our case it would be West Yorkshire Police (or more correctly! All of the members of the general public)! At least (for the moment anyway), the scheme is based on final salary (well, average salary now), but I doubt the likes of cockney Steve will have much sympathy when you look at the even worse situation of endowment policies wrapped up as private pension schemes as described by CS in the previous post!
I say again, the ANO age 60 single pilot age limit is only for public transport. Police flying, now EASA is here, is no longer considered public transport.
On what grounds are the CAA still stopping police pilots flying at 60?
On what grounds are the CAA still stopping police pilots flying at 60?
Tightgit
The ANO also indicates that police flying is public transport.
Police flying is a state operation and therefore not regulated by EASA
Therefore police flying is regulated by the CAA
Return to line 1
Police flying is a state operation and therefore not regulated by EASA
Therefore police flying is regulated by the CAA
Return to line 1
The old 'catch 22' Typical.
But why are they booting the medics off the police aircraft? Is that regulatory or.....just 'npas' efficiency related?
And are you guys still able to still fly police UK on an 'old' UK CAA licence or have you all had to convert?
But why are they booting the medics off the police aircraft? Is that regulatory or.....just 'npas' efficiency related?
And are you guys still able to still fly police UK on an 'old' UK CAA licence or have you all had to convert?
The 'good' thing to note now is that it is 'only' the UK CAA stopping age 60+ single pilot police flying in the UK, rather that the 'might' of EASA regs.
Police AOC holders could apply for exemption for named pilots, (and, I think, be obliged to apply, if requested)
Police AOC holders could apply for exemption for named pilots, (and, I think, be obliged to apply, if requested)
Last edited by Bertie Thruster; 21st Jun 2014 at 13:58.
Tightgit
Bertie, I am not sure you can get an exemption from the law. The law is that under UK regulations single pilot PT stops at 60.
Even to change Poloce Aviation to Aerial Work would require a change in the law. That involves work for someone in authority who would probably rather not do it.
However, should there be a decision some time that TFO's should be re-classified as Technical Crew Members then maybe that would help the cause, on the other hand, our secondary role of casevac may be the sort of thing that means we have to stay as PT.
I suspect that reclassification from PT to something else is our best hope, but I'm not sure it will ever happen, should the opportunity to make the case for it arrive, I will be jumping on that bandwagon and talking long and loud.....
the last word there is known as feeding someone a line
Even to change Poloce Aviation to Aerial Work would require a change in the law. That involves work for someone in authority who would probably rather not do it.
However, should there be a decision some time that TFO's should be re-classified as Technical Crew Members then maybe that would help the cause, on the other hand, our secondary role of casevac may be the sort of thing that means we have to stay as PT.
I suspect that reclassification from PT to something else is our best hope, but I'm not sure it will ever happen, should the opportunity to make the case for it arrive, I will be jumping on that bandwagon and talking long and loud.....
the last word there is known as feeding someone a line
Good man, Handy!
Also note.....the CAA is able, by law, to issue exemptions for AOC holders, from the law of the ANO.
(that's how air ambos get away with what they do)
The CAA can issue exemptions from nearly every part of the ANO (including the PT age 60 bit)
Also note.....the CAA is able, by law, to issue exemptions for AOC holders, from the law of the ANO.
(that's how air ambos get away with what they do)
The CAA can issue exemptions from nearly every part of the ANO (including the PT age 60 bit)
