Pilot Sues For Forced Retirement
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was @ easy some time ago, there was a generally held view from certain managers that over 60s were cognitively dysfunctional and even after the retirement age was put up that they were allowed to leave. On a scientific basis of course this view was complete bolleaux or at the very least to be more polite, unproven. Certain high calibre individuals were then forced to retire and merely jumped ship to Ryanair who took a more pragmatic view. The point would be that disinformation was used to suit political agendae. I say, go Wayne. The devil is in the detail as always and if the only logical argument is unproven, i.e. the risk of incapacitation in flight, then this is discrimination in the guise of ageism. Not the sexiest ism but ism it is.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SHOT-ONE way off again.Safety critical component is the pilot. Safety critical component is, also, many mechanical units. Extending the life of a hydraulic pump because of heartfelt issues in the pump department has nothing to do with this discussion. Extending the employment life of a pilot because of heartfelt issues has nothing to do with this discussion and has been, by many posters,clarified. Indeed, by openly discussing "heartfelt" issues, light is thrown only upon the reasons why some pilots might welcome an extention to the retirement age but would never be the reason for doing so. You are missing the point that the current, REGULATORY retirement age is 65 and it definitely Is ARBITRARY. You claim that risk of medical issues etc increase rapidly after age 65. Really ? Show us the evidence as related to PROFESSIONAL PILOTS who are very carefully monitored, TWICE a year, medically and extensively monitored in terms of competence throughout the year. To bring you back to the point, THAT is Captain Bayley's case. Having shut-down his engines on his swan-song, why, on earth is he barred from doing the same trip, the very next day, just because he is 65 ? Oh, it is, because, as you claim, not arbitrary but based on deep study showing that his chances of medical issues affecting his licence capability increase after age 65. Nope, see no evidence in the case of highly monitored professional pilots. Now, do calm yourself and focus.
There have been several posts indicating there is no medical indication ie evidence to support this arbitrary regulation. And at least one pilot wishes to continue to fly beyond the cut off. That answers your question about evidence. And it is unfair.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age matters. The likelihood of having a stroke nearly doubles every 10 years after age 55.
Because the buildup of fatty deposits continues throughout life, the risk of coronary artery disease and heart attack increases with age for both sexes. Eighty percent of heart attack deaths occur after age 65.
And again, is crowd funding allowed using PPRuNe? I don't support this cause at all.
Do you really, honestly take postings on this site as evidence or lack of evidence of empirical statistical observations upon which to base safety? If you do I would seriously doubt your judgement since absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Fairness? It's a lot more complicated than that.
Last edited by beardy; 30th Aug 2018 at 11:25.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: horsham
Age: 70
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"W Bayley
May I ask if You were a Union member before You retired?
I will take no response as a yes."
Hi Capt B
I was and still a union member. Not sure how that impacts the debate?
There is a growing body of evidence to show that the 1% pilot incapacition rate (scientifically set by the regulator) is not breached until 80 years of age.
Group Capt Timperly RAF presented data at the Royal Aeronautical Society in Dec 2017 showing data which supports this evidence.
Even the 2004 data used by ICAO to justify moving the limit from 60 to 65 showed that the 1% threshold was not breached until over 65.
On evidence avialable today the 65 year limit is flawed. Australia Canada, New Zealand, Japan and 6 other countries produced data to support their decision to permit operations beyond 65.
How much more evidence is needed to demonstrate that 65 cut off is not supported by any data?
Wayne
May I ask if You were a Union member before You retired?
I will take no response as a yes."
Hi Capt B
I was and still a union member. Not sure how that impacts the debate?
There is a growing body of evidence to show that the 1% pilot incapacition rate (scientifically set by the regulator) is not breached until 80 years of age.
Group Capt Timperly RAF presented data at the Royal Aeronautical Society in Dec 2017 showing data which supports this evidence.
Even the 2004 data used by ICAO to justify moving the limit from 60 to 65 showed that the 1% threshold was not breached until over 65.
On evidence avialable today the 65 year limit is flawed. Australia Canada, New Zealand, Japan and 6 other countries produced data to support their decision to permit operations beyond 65.
How much more evidence is needed to demonstrate that 65 cut off is not supported by any data?
Wayne
absence of proof is not proof of absence
Fair point Beardy, but we do have a lot of data on death and pathology. This was presented at an employment tribunal and examined by many barristers. The CAA admitted the risk of incapacitation had fallen so as to make the current limits nonsensical on medical grounds - ie the risk was well below the level of risk they have set as a cut off. I dont think the risk is debated between the parties, although it my be on this thread. It is a question of whether the regulator is required to change the rules when the facts change, and whether the rule should be changed
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: horsham
Age: 70
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi beard,
This challange is the first of its kind and nothing to do with a tribunal which deals with employment issues.
This is the first challange of the regulator. The scientific evidence is avialable and published. You have a reference in my previous post. Google Grp Pct Timperely. No lawyer has argued this in Court. The data from 2004 is published by ICAO in their evidence for a change from 60 to 65.
The 1% incapacitation threshold is published. The age at which pilots can be expected to cross that threshold is 80 according to the avialable data.
Apart from that there are 10 countries where over 65 year old pilots are operating. What more evidence is needed?
This challange is the first of its kind and nothing to do with a tribunal which deals with employment issues.
This is the first challange of the regulator. The scientific evidence is avialable and published. You have a reference in my previous post. Google Grp Pct Timperely. No lawyer has argued this in Court. The data from 2004 is published by ICAO in their evidence for a change from 60 to 65.
The 1% incapacitation threshold is published. The age at which pilots can be expected to cross that threshold is 80 according to the avialable data.
Apart from that there are 10 countries where over 65 year old pilots are operating. What more evidence is needed?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full of half-truths, Wayne: The ICAO data you are quoting does NOT support removing the age limit. Dr Evans discussed and considered this but expressly rejected removing it. Of those countries Japan has NOT scrapped its limit, just allowed a two year extension and only domestic Australia/NZ pilots can fly on. The total of over-65's flying is still a tiny statistical sample. "Safe" to fly to 80. Seriously? That's more than average life-span in many countries. The next big challenge we face will be a well-funded lobby towards single-pilot ops. If it's nodded through on similarly scanty "evidence" our profession has lost that battle already!
There is an 'urban legend,' and I have no idea of its veracity, that the earlier a pilot retires, the longer they live. Could this be a factor in the health of older (past retirement age) pilots? Of course mortality is one thing to look at, what other factors are relevant? Cognitive decline has been mentioned, the natural bias that increases with age to not admit fault, gradual (between medicals) as well as sudden in capitation, they all spring to mind without any deep analysis.
On a personal level I found that after 20 years in the RAF, commercial flying was well paid but unrewarding most of the time, the level of thrill was rarely there. As soon as it became financially viable I left. I still fly, but how and when I want and frequently upside down!
From a philosophical point of view I can understand what is essentially an Anarchic argument against a blanket rule, but I can also see that from a Utilitarian point there is little, if any, progress toward a greater benefit for the greatest number of people.
On a personal level I found that after 20 years in the RAF, commercial flying was well paid but unrewarding most of the time, the level of thrill was rarely there. As soon as it became financially viable I left. I still fly, but how and when I want and frequently upside down!
From a philosophical point of view I can understand what is essentially an Anarchic argument against a blanket rule, but I can also see that from a Utilitarian point there is little, if any, progress toward a greater benefit for the greatest number of people.
Last edited by beardy; 31st Aug 2018 at 08:02.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunnydale
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Study here Ephrem:
My opposition to this is not whether or not a pilot keels over mid flight. It’s the slow incipient loss of mental acuity that isn’t caught by a medical as we age. There is no adequate test for that and until there is the retirement age should not be scrapped
My opposition to this is not whether or not a pilot keels over mid flight. It’s the slow incipient loss of mental acuity that isn’t caught by a medical as we age. There is no adequate test for that and until there is the retirement age should not be scrapped
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The scientific evidence is avialable and published. You have a reference in my previous post. Google Grp Pct Timperely.
The 2002 Ephrem study is interesting in its prediction of death within two years if you defer retirement to 65. That may have been applicable early last century but today is clearly nonsense.
More likely, overwrought executives and pilots croak simply because they stress too much, accept too much work (either from greed or ambition), eat too much, drink too much and maybe were smokers for too many years.
There is enough theory floating around now to recommend that we keep working at least part time for as long as we are able. Provided we keep reasonably fit and follow a sensible diet, working at something we enjoy apparently staves off dementia and death.
But I don't see long haul flying as either healthy or enjoyable, so absolutely see where ICAO is coming from. Domestic-only flying could be different, subject to fitness, rosters and workload. As for cognitive decline - isn't that why we do regular simulator checks?
I have seen pilots in their early 50s well on the way to senility while others in their 70s still sharp. When under the pump in the simulator what the good old ones lack in reflexes they make up for in rat cunning.
Interestingly the senile ones were overweight; the sharp ones slim - so perhaps there is a correlation there too? Though I also know a couple of slim ones who had unexpected heart attacks at an early age, but maybe there was family history. Surely risk can be mitigated by a diligent medical examination every six months.
Having said all of the above, from an industrial/fairness angle long haul pilots should NOT be able to return to domestic short haul and displace or disadvantage those who chose the domestic path.
More likely, overwrought executives and pilots croak simply because they stress too much, accept too much work (either from greed or ambition), eat too much, drink too much and maybe were smokers for too many years.
There is enough theory floating around now to recommend that we keep working at least part time for as long as we are able. Provided we keep reasonably fit and follow a sensible diet, working at something we enjoy apparently staves off dementia and death.
But I don't see long haul flying as either healthy or enjoyable, so absolutely see where ICAO is coming from. Domestic-only flying could be different, subject to fitness, rosters and workload. As for cognitive decline - isn't that why we do regular simulator checks?
I have seen pilots in their early 50s well on the way to senility while others in their 70s still sharp. When under the pump in the simulator what the good old ones lack in reflexes they make up for in rat cunning.
Interestingly the senile ones were overweight; the sharp ones slim - so perhaps there is a correlation there too? Though I also know a couple of slim ones who had unexpected heart attacks at an early age, but maybe there was family history. Surely risk can be mitigated by a diligent medical examination every six months.
Having said all of the above, from an industrial/fairness angle long haul pilots should NOT be able to return to domestic short haul and displace or disadvantage those who chose the domestic path.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Schloss Neuschwanstein
Posts: 4,048
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I am 59 and retirement approaches. I have loved my working life but will be glad to slow down as working low cost is pretty tiring (it is probably is tiring for nearly everyone these days). As I read the comments of a younger generation on here, the message is very clear - 'Move over you old git and let us all advance on up the ladder'. My lifelong observation of the pilot community is that they are some of the most selfish and self-centered group of employees in the labour market today. The very same people who opposed rights for women pilots having children (a vital necessity to produce the next generation) and who stuffed their Dan Air colleagues now want rights to work as long as they want. Needless to say, the people who will be disadvantaged by that (FOs waiting to get commands in a seniority system) are up in arms. In a growing population of older people it is inevitable that people work longer. This is compounded by changes in family practices in our society - divorce was very rare a generation ago, but is sadly the norm today. Many pilots have had to pay for 3 houses, often entirely because of their own follies in their personal lives. Nonetheless, I see no credible argument to kick a pilot out on the basis of age along, subject to medical tests and simulator assessments etc. I think that morally this chap will win the argument, but in reality it will effect very few people. I wish him success to cater for those few brave souls who need to carry on a bit longer.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
COUNT, liked the bit about the old gits. Had to laugh during a Line Check when Examiner turned on very young FO and said ;"Right, Boss in the LHS has just developed chronic flatulence,uncontrolled vomiting, grabbing at his own chest (for a change) and has now passed out. What do you do ?" Expecting the text-book Pilot incapacity drill, FO replied ; " I would call up the CA and tell her to get that fat bastard out of MY seat !
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t know if you seen this presentation from 2011 by Dr Tony Evans Wayne. If not then it contains some useful evidence.
https://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/...ICAO-Evans.pdf
https://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/...ICAO-Evans.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 32°55'22"S 151°46'56"E
Age: 39
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of curiosity, have there been any studies into the gradual deterioration of cognitive ability over the age of 60 for pilots? I appreciate it will affect people differently, but it's something that cannot be ignored.
