Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Pilot Sues For Forced Retirement

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Pilot Sues For Forced Retirement

Old 31st Aug 2018, 20:36
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Northampton
Age: 63
Posts: 30
Who in the name of all that's holy wants to keep doing it past 60? I wan't to tend to my garden, fix the kitchen and not have to have continual arguments about cost cutting and the ever-increasing crap.
Rabski is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2018, 21:26
  #222 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,491
Originally Posted by Rabski View Post
Who in the name of all that's holy wants to keep doing it past 60? I wan't to tend to my garden, fix the kitchen and not have to have continual arguments about cost cutting and the ever-increasing crap.
Probably far fewer than those who need to. I would have retired at 40 but unfortunately financial reality got in the way.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2018, 22:26
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,903
Docfly, yes Dr Evans' report contains useful evidence: it provided a balanced medical assessment on which the 60-65 increase was based. And it expressly and pointedly advised AGAINST removal of an upper limit. Not that that has stopped Wayne from implying it supported his case. Ditto for the more recent report by Group Captain Timpereley. His report advised a comprehensive series of extra medical checks to be applied at age 60, yet this didn't stop Wayne plucking a figure implying the Gp Cpt says it's safe to fly to 80. (Reality check: average male life-expectancy in U.K. Is 79.2 yrs)
ShotOne is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2018, 23:07
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: horsham
Age: 67
Posts: 25
Shot One
You have not carefully read what I wrote. I stated that the ICAO data used to raise the age limit from 60 to 65 identified that the 1% incapacity threshold occurred beyond 65.
It had to say that other wise the age limit could not have been increased to 65. Think about for a second before you reply......
that was based on data from 2004. That is in Dr Evans evidence. That data is 14 years old. Group Capt Timperley's presentation to the Royal Aeronitical Society pointed to the 1% threshold being breached at 80. There is a growing body of evidence to support his work. It is not peer reviewed. But then there is no data to support the current limit of 65. Just a load of data confirming the limit of 1% occurs AFTER 65.
My challange is quite straight forward. It is that the current limit of 65 is not supported by any effort to "review with rigour and an open mind" areas of Discrimination in Age, Gender, sexual orientation etc. etc. If the regulator has not done that they have failed in their Statutory Obligation.
The statment about 10 countries permitting over 65 pilots to operate isn't central to the challange it just helps to expose the absurdity of the rule.
I have not made any claims which do not stand up to your scrutiny (or anyone elses).
Wayne
w.bayley is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2018, 23:10
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: horsham
Age: 67
Posts: 25
Doc Fly
thanks for the steer to Dr Evans. I am familiar with it. It is quite central to the legal challange.
w.bayley is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2018, 01:55
  #226 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,048
(Reality check: average male life-expectancy in U.K. Is 79.2 yrs)
Which, with respect to commercial pilots, is not reality at all. Reality will be the average life expectancy of commercial PILOTS. Indeed, any figures quoting UK averages for any condition, including heart attacks, are irrelevant if they are not exclusive to commercial pilots.
parabellum is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2018, 03:00
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,706
Quite. The average would be dragged down by all those in the general population who are obese, smokers, stress merchants, drunks, druggies etc, and those with unfortunate genes - many with a combination of these problems.
Pilots SHOULD do better than this average. But not all will, and it is those who don't beat the average that supports the other side's argument. Unfortunately for those wishing to hang in there past 65, I believe that the counter argument will prevail in much the same way as we have ever more prescriptive SOPs and regulations to cater for the the lowest common denominator.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2018, 09:59
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: horsham
Age: 67
Posts: 25
Hi Mach E Avelli
If the counter argument always prevail we would still have Navigators and Flight Engineers in the Flight Deck and only 4 engine planes would cross oceans.
w.bayley is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2018, 11:15
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 1,053
So, after having deemed this 1% to be an acceptable risk level it has been found that, in practice, we have been operating at a lower risk level, which has, on the whole been safe. You now want to increase the risk level in order to make money post 65th birthday. The arbitrary figure of 1% is not as safe as the current, lower, risk level and financial gain is not a suitable argument to increase the risk. There is no bar to flying beyond 65 however, there is no cause to increase the risk to paying passengers who place their trust in the regulators and operators.
beardy is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2018, 12:28
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Northampton
Age: 63
Posts: 30
Cool

Originally Posted by ShyTorque View Post


Probably far fewer than those who need to. I would have retired at 40 but unfortunately financial reality got in the way.

Oh, like most here I understand financial reality. The divorce rate and child support arrangements are almost a given frankly. It's part of the way of life in the pilot's world for various reasons. But I want MY life. I downsized, bought a share in a PA28R for fun, and walked away. Stress is a major cause of all sorts of medical issues and the older you get, the greater the likelihood. It's hard to adjust sometimes to not roving the world and all the fun and games. But I quite like my tomatoes and my cumcumbers have done really well this year...
Rabski is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2018, 13:48
  #231 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,491
The divorce rate and child support arrangements are almost a given frankly. It's part of the way of life in the pilot's world for various reasons.
My wife of forty one years says you're talking from your back end.....
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2018, 14:09
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,374
Originally Posted by Rabski View Post
The divorce rate and child support arrangements are almost a given frankly. It's part of the way of life in the pilot's world for various reasons.
An oft-repeated allegation without independent pilot-specifc data to support it. Or at least none I've been able to find.

It'd be interesting to see the statement addressed to substantiate or disprove it.
bafanguy is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2018, 20:24
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
It'd be interesting to see the statement addressed to substantiate or disprove it.
This thread seems remarkably short of hard evidence
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2018, 00:10
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,706
The removal of Navigators and Flight Engineers and creation of ETOPS rules resulted from exponential advances in aircraft design, equipment and engine reliability.
An improvement in lifespan from 70 to 80 over roughly a century is hardly exponential.
Don’t shoot the messenger. I am all for raising the retirement age and indeed, living in Australia am a beneficiary of this. Merely playing devil’s advocate and suggesting the chances of it ever being lifted beyond national borders won’t happen.
Even if it does happen in the U.K. it will be of limited value if you won’t be allowed in European airspace. How would an airline realistically use pilots encumbered with such a restriction? I guess flying a Bongo around the Shetlands could be fun...
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2018, 15:19
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,539
London to/from GLA, EDI, ABZ, INV, NCL, BFS & JER would be fine by me.
Nightstop is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2018, 16:50
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: horsham
Age: 67
Posts: 25
Beard
It is entertaining reading your views. They do bring a smile to my aging face 😀.
let's try this one more time.
The REGULATOR decides what the acceptable level of risk is. It a a black and white value.
Some pilots over 65 meet this level of safety. BUT because of AGE DISCRIMINATION these pilots are prevented from operating and earning a living.
The High Court is being asked to rule as to whether or not the CAA has discharged their Statutary obligation in respect of this discrimination.
It has nothing to do with your arbitrary level of current levels of safety and whether or not they are eroded.
Do you get it now.?
Wayne
w.bayley is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2018, 19:04
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Moon
Posts: 13
@w.bayley What stage are you currently at? Do you have any idea when a judgement is likely to be made? Kr R19
Reacher19 is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2018, 19:58
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: horsham
Age: 67
Posts: 25
Reacher19
The High Court is "a law unto itself" All I can go on is the best guess of the legal team.
They expect the HC to consider the arguments submitted by both sides and during Sept set a date for trial. Then we go to Court and argue. At some stage they give their judgement. One side looses and one side prevails.
There is an option for the CAA to ask to go to arbitration. So working out a "time line" is impossible.
what we have achieved is the CAA cannot "fob us off" They would have had to consider this at Board level. Therefore lower level managers can no longer "kick this can down the road" We have forced the regulator to give this serious consideration.

The fact is that there is no rational justification for defending a rule not supported by evidence. I can only offer an educated guess as to how they will respond?
wayne
w.bayley is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2018, 20:24
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 1,053
Originally Posted by w.bayley View Post
Beard
It is entertaining reading your views. They do bring a smile to my aging face ��.
let's try this one more time.
The REGULATOR decides what the acceptable level of risk is. It a a black and white value.
Some pilots over 65 meet this level of safety. BUT because of AGE DISCRIMINATION these pilots are prevented from operating and earning a living.
The High Court is being asked to rule as to whether or not the CAA has discharged their Statutary obligation in respect of this discrimination.
It has nothing to do with your arbitrary level of current levels of safety and whether or not they are eroded.
Do you get it now.?
Wayne
Yes I do, I got it from the start and I find your sarcasm unbecoming of you.


How is the authority to assess which of those avaricious old men fit his 1% model, a figure which is based on a statistical analysis of a large population and is not applicable to individuals or is that of no concern to the case?

I have no financial interest in the outcome of your court action. I elected to retire at 60 even though I could have carried on.

Last edited by beardy; 2nd Sep 2018 at 22:01.
beardy is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2018, 20:48
  #240 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,491
I elected to retire at 60 even though I could have carried on.
Good for you. Obviously, you would not have done so if your financial situation did not allow it.
ShyTorque is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.