Pilot Sues For Forced Retirement
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot Sues For Forced Retirement
From the London Times: Here
An airline captain who has been flying for more than 40 years has begun a legal challenge to rules that force commercial pilots to fold their wings for good once they reach 65. Wayne Bayley, who was the first to fly the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner from the UK to Barbados, was forced to retire from TUI Airways last January after clocking up nearly 26,000 flying hours.Captain Bayley’s lawyers are seeking a judicial review of Civil Aviation Authority rules stipulating that UK-registered pilots must retire at 65. Australia and Canada have no upper limit. The legal team will claim in the High Court that the enforced retirement age is arbitrary and constitutes age discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. They say that advances in medical tests and sixtysomethings’ health mean that the rules are outdated. Under CAA rules pilots over 59 must be accompanied in the cockpit by another younger than 60. Simon Elcock, a partner at the law firm DMH Stallard, said that Captain Bayley accepted that there was a “legitimate public interest in safety in evaluating and mitigating the risks of pilot incapacitation in commercial flying” but believed that they were “mitigated by the requirement of having another pilot on the flight deck under 60 and medical examinations”.He added: “Having a blanket ban on commercial pilots flying from their 65th birthday seems arbitrary as it does not take into account the health and fitness of the individual pilot or developments in medical science.” Captain Bayley joined British Island Airways in 1976 and flew 50-seater turboprop flights before moving to Air Europe, where he flew his first jet airliner and piloted transatlantic flights and routes to Asia. He joined TUI in 2000. He aims to fly on into his seventies. “There are pilots flying at that age in Australia,” he said. “Modern flying is not a hair-raising profession.” He did admit that he had been struck by lightning three times in one flight, however.His legal team said that he had passed all his medical and competency examinations — including one just before his last birthday — at an above average level.The CAA declined to comment while legal proceedings were continuing.
This issue is largely, (but not entirely) based on Statistics. Again, largely, based on Heart attack type issues. Generally, the risk of a health issue such as a heart attack, increase with age.
The airlines have always preferred the certainty given by a set age. If this goes forward as a case, the law will probably change, and the airlines will have to start assessing individuals more closely.
All commercial pilots should then expect even more scrutiny about their health for license renewal.
Some 60 year olds will lose their license. Some 69 year olds will keep theirs.
Such is life. Lots more work for the medics at the Belgrano.
The airlines have always preferred the certainty given by a set age. If this goes forward as a case, the law will probably change, and the airlines will have to start assessing individuals more closely.
All commercial pilots should then expect even more scrutiny about their health for license renewal.
Some 60 year olds will lose their license. Some 69 year olds will keep theirs.
Such is life. Lots more work for the medics at the Belgrano.
The airlines have always preferred the certainty given by a set age. If this goes forward as a case, the law will probably change, and the airlines will have to start assessing individuals more closely.]
Why would the airlines need to assess anything? The CAA issue the medical not the airline.
If it is all about statistics then where is the evidence? The deadly fifties is rife with heart attacks but those who live through to mid sixties seem to fare better.
The guys I speak with just find the sim checks and unsociable hours wear them down.
This will force CAA medical to defend an arbitrary age cut off, if they can show the numbers, fine but I sense they cannot, otherwise Australia, Canada etc would follow the same logic.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA will make no effort to defend the actual age. They will simply point out that at present it is an EASA regulation, so outside their control. Even if we leave EASA next year and they reviewed it, any change would be (like the Australian rule mentioned above) only valid in the UK since the age limit is an ICAO standard. I don't know of any airlines that only operate domestic flights, so not much opportunity for jobs even if that happened.
So basically he's just wasting everyone's time. It probably says most about his lawyers that they haven't told him that and are happy to take his money.
So basically he's just wasting everyone's time. It probably says most about his lawyers that they haven't told him that and are happy to take his money.
65 comes from ICAO not the CAA, so is the ability for a state to have pilots flying beyond 65 within their own state.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know of any airlines that only operate domestic flights
In both cases it would flying turboprops in pretty horrendous wx.
70 years old flying into Sum in the middle of winter 3-5 times a week. Sod that for a wind down end of career job.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
65.... Whippersnapper!
I regularly fly with an ex RAF / EAA / multi-airline ATPL / Biz Jet and seaplane instructor who is 87 and who flies (aha) through his medical every year.
Without doubt, he has forgotten more about aviation than many professional pilots will ever know.
65 is the new 50.
Without doubt, he has forgotten more about aviation than many professional pilots will ever know.
65 is the new 50.
Surely fitness to fly and competency should be the two yardsticks by which flightcrew are measured?
I've flown with two gentleman who's capacity to operate deteriorated rapidly in the last few years leading up to 65. As long as the operator has robust enough proficiency check procedures in place, then this should not be an issue to retain some valuable experience. Raising the upper age limit is more suitable in scheduled commercial air transport than non-scheduled, because the simulator duopoly seem to have abrogated themselves of the responsibility of maintaining a sufficient standard across the industry in non-scheduled.
I've flown with two gentleman who's capacity to operate deteriorated rapidly in the last few years leading up to 65. As long as the operator has robust enough proficiency check procedures in place, then this should not be an issue to retain some valuable experience. Raising the upper age limit is more suitable in scheduled commercial air transport than non-scheduled, because the simulator duopoly seem to have abrogated themselves of the responsibility of maintaining a sufficient standard across the industry in non-scheduled.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wayne's absolutely right, wherein the present enforced retirement age limit has been arbitrarily selected if only to coincide with the standard pension age of 65... which (from 2019) will increase to 66... and thereafter is set to increase still further. The CAA's position also relies heavily on 'statistical medicine' (and not individual medicine), which is something of a blunt scalpel when it comes to deciding peoples health.
As mentioned this is about the CAA, not the airlines and not the doctors (it wont effect the medical tests one iota).
Some years ago a helicopter pilot took the CAA to an industrial tribunal over being barred from single pilot operations at 60 (more an issue with rotary). The CAA accepted that the risk of incapacitation at 65 was then far far less than the risk of incapacitation at say 50 just a couple of decades before. Therefore raising the age to 65 or 70 etc would actually result in a still lower risk than we had had just a few years before. However, they won because they argued they could not afford to examine the evidence and were not obliged to change rules just because medicine moved on or pilots lived longer.
This is a really unacceptable situation, where an individual's career is cut short simply because of something that applied 30 years ago and where the regulator agrees there is an acceptably low risk and just cant be a@@@@@@@ to do their job ie set rules against facts. It is not the only example where the regulator runs against good medical advice.
I fully accept some want to retire before 65 or even earlier, but nothing will prevent this. It is about the freedom to choose. For others it is their livelihood and not uncommonly they need the extra years to provide financial security in retirement. For the newer generation paying their way through training and with years of low salaries this may be more important than we think.
Some years ago a helicopter pilot took the CAA to an industrial tribunal over being barred from single pilot operations at 60 (more an issue with rotary). The CAA accepted that the risk of incapacitation at 65 was then far far less than the risk of incapacitation at say 50 just a couple of decades before. Therefore raising the age to 65 or 70 etc would actually result in a still lower risk than we had had just a few years before. However, they won because they argued they could not afford to examine the evidence and were not obliged to change rules just because medicine moved on or pilots lived longer.
This is a really unacceptable situation, where an individual's career is cut short simply because of something that applied 30 years ago and where the regulator agrees there is an acceptably low risk and just cant be a@@@@@@@ to do their job ie set rules against facts. It is not the only example where the regulator runs against good medical advice.
I fully accept some want to retire before 65 or even earlier, but nothing will prevent this. It is about the freedom to choose. For others it is their livelihood and not uncommonly they need the extra years to provide financial security in retirement. For the newer generation paying their way through training and with years of low salaries this may be more important than we think.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 72
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct and I personally retired voluntarily at 63. I don’t have a problem with those that wish to continue working at 65 plus if they can pass their medicals etc., however I doubt there would be many that would.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rad girl would you explain that? The probability of a serious health event such as heart attack or stroke is very much higher at 65 than 50, and the curve gets steeper still into the 70's This is not a matter of opinion; you seem to be disputing this basic fact of life.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
70 years old flying into Sum in the middle of winter 3-5 times a week. Sod that for a wind down end of career job.
She argued that the risk now at age 65 was less than the risk at age 50 had been a couple of decades ago but yet that was considered acceptable then. The point being that things have moved on in terms of lifestyle, fitness and medical oversight since the age limits were established yet the rules have not taken account of the changes.
I've flown with people on the cusp of forced retirement who are still razor sharp and light years ahead of some of the doddery old buffers who still have another five years to go and massively fitter than the obese 45 year old heart attack waiting for a place to happen that can hardly get into the aircraft and certainly could not get out in a hurry.
I've known a 50 year old drop dead two days after a class 1 medical. I've known a 60 year old diagnosed with advanced Alzheimers the month after he retired.
It should be about proper medical supervision that allows the people who are fit and wish to remain flying to do so and identifies those who are not fit and puts them on the ground.
The limit is arbitrary and therefore unfair and therefore discriminatory. But I don't believe for a second it's going to change any time soon.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: sleeping right seat
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Applied for a single engine job in Papua: sorry sorry too old with 60. Can not do!
When I see the young pilots who can't even pass their medical in their 20's! they already struggle for a class 1 medical.
Then the airline pilots from the national airline, who are almost collapsing on the threadmill.
They will never make it to retirement.
The law is the law but the law is not right.
Hahhahahhahahah
When I see the young pilots who can't even pass their medical in their 20's! they already struggle for a class 1 medical.
Then the airline pilots from the national airline, who are almost collapsing on the threadmill.
They will never make it to retirement.
The law is the law but the law is not right.
Hahhahahhahahah
Last edited by Love PanAm; 9th Jul 2018 at 22:03. Reason: adding