The Hi-viz vest

[Mike Cross]

Following an earlier thread which suggested that some aerodrome operators were insisting on Hi-viz vests being worn because "they had been told to". I contacted the CAA's Aerodrome Safety Department to ask about their policy.

I won't reproduce the correspondence here because it's quite long but this is the gist of it.

Firstly this is the CAA's position, the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) are also involved but I haven't been in contact with them.

CAA require the a/d operator to make a risk assessment and to devise a Safety Management System, which includes aerodrome rules.

Some of the requirements are contained in CAP 642, Airside Safety Management (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP642.PDF). These do not include a requirement for Hi-vis clothing for pilots, nor does CAA ASD insist on it.

Now for my own commentary

If you feel that your a/d is imposing an unjustified rule get in touch with the Aerodrome Safety Committee (they're required to have one) and ask for a copy of the risk assessment pertaining to the rule. You should get a good justification or something you can argue with.

If the risk assessment has been properly done then the rules should be appropriate to the particular circumstances at the aerodrome. Something that's appropriate at Heathrow would not automatically be appropriate at Popham because the situation is entirely different.

If the rule is innappropriate then the risk assessment was faulty.

Risk assessments aren't about "is there a possibility?" but "is there a significant risk?"

If you cross the road there is a possibility that you might get knocked down, but if you are sensible the chances of it happening are low so it's an acceptable risk.

We all make a risk assessment every time we fly. I'm strictly a VFR pilot in a VFR airplane. If its a nice day I will go flying. There's a risk invovled but it is an acceptable risk. If it's a foul day with a massive crosswind I don't go flying, the risk is too high.

Unfortunately some people see it as an exercise in covering their backsides rather than one of making a judgement on the level of risk.

Comments?

Mike

[Aim Far]

Part of the problem here is related to how you make a finding of negligence. The airfield operator alleged to be at fault will be measured against the mythical "reasonable" airfield operator. Inevitably, that involves looking at what other airfield operators do in determining whether a particular operator took or did not take enough precautions to protect people who use the airfield from harm. While no other airfield operators were using high-viz vests, then the standard of care required from an ordinary airfield operator probably didn't extend to the wearing of high-viz vests. As they become more widespread, maybe the "reasonable" operator would have used them so the standard changes.

At the end of the day though, its their airfield, they can make you wear bright pink bikinis if they want and if you want to use the airfield. If the operator is a public body and took that decision because it has a thing for bright pink bikinis (rather than on safety grounds), maybe you can get judicial review if you felt so inclined (cheaper to buy a vest though:)). But for a private airfield operator, your remedy is not to go there.

[A and C]

At last well reasoned comment on this issue but dont think that just because what you say makes a lot of sence airfield safety officers will take a blind bit of notice.

Unfortunatly we are dealing with the "safety industry" and this is full of people who are doing the safety officers job because the rest of us cant trust them with a real job !.

The only way that these people can be sure to stay in a job is to invent "safety rules" and make sure that they are the only ones that can inforce them.

Before the HSE forced itself on the aviation industry we were already very safe in the working practices that were in force all we have now is tons more paperwork and to work harder to pay the wages of the non-productive safety oficers.

[vintage ATCO]

Do remember, Mike, that the CAA only regulate licensed aerodromes and it is only likely that licenced aerodromes will have an Aerodrome Safety Committee. Aim Far sums it up very well, over time what became in use at one aerodrome becomes 'best practice' and adopted by others. As Aim Far, it's their airfield and they can impose what ever conditions they like, particulalry if they have an Ordinary Licence.

It does amaze me the amount of heat and light this topic generates. I wouldn't dream of going on the ramp at a large airport without a hi-viz jacket (you are more likely to be run over by a vehicle than an aeroplane) but at small grass airfields all you really need is commonsense. Yes, it is backside covering but what the heck. Always have two or three in the back of the car, if someone says wear one, I do. No hassle.

[wher2guv]

I don't mind them, not very fashionable but in a previous job I had to wear a red boiler suit with a japanese motor manufacturer plastered on the back of it.

[Mr Wolfie]

I agree with Vintage ATCO - Can't see why people are getting so hot under the collar about such a minor irritation.

Mike - In terms of Risk Management, a Risk Assessment is only half the job. Having assessed a particular risk you have to determine what Control Measures are appropriate (if any) with regard to their effectiveness at reducing the risk and their cost.

I would say that for a small to medium private airfield the proccess would be something like this-

Chance of getting run over or chopped by prop are very low, but consequence of any incident would be high. Overall risk = very low but not insignificant.

Appropriate Control Measures > Introduce 5mph speed limit for all aircraft and vehicles on manouvering area (cost next to nothing) and require all persons airside to wear conspicous clothing (cost of high-viz jacket about a fiver).

You can write to as many Govt agencies and airfield operators as you like, but I think that arguing against a simple control measure costing so little is going to get you nowhere.

Mike, you're better off directing your energies towards the AIS and NOTAMS issues where they are truly merited and well appreciated.

Mr. W

[Gertrude the Wombat]

What on earth is the big deal?

Pick one up from the hook by the door on the way out to the tarmac, try to remember to put it back when you return. So what?

[paulo]

If you are really wanting to face up to the danger of flying lights, read a selection of AAIB or NTSB reports, then decide what you would wear/do to come off less dead or injured.

[Mike Cross]

I wasn't arguing for or against their use, simply trying to put some clarity into a situation whre many have expressed an opinion. I carry a vest in the aircraft and wear it if appropriate.

I run an ISO 9000 registered company and therefore have some experience in these areas. It's tempting to make a rule just to cover your backside, but by doing that you duck your responsibility to properly assess the risk. If you introduce rules which have no proper justification people tend to ignore them and the whole safety management system is degraded.

Some had suggested that a/d operators had been told to mandate the use of vests. I was happy to find that this was untrue and that the CAA's policy is, as it should be, that the rule should result from a risk assessment of the aerodrome.


Mike

[Mike Cross]

An interesting and humourous reply from the CAA:- Dear Mr Cross

Go to Sleap. This is not an instruction to slumber, I am looking at their
hazard analysis and I note that they have identified that people working
frequently airside are more at risk than individual crew and passengers who
simply transit to their aircraft. They have elected a cut off. I agree
with them. Thought you might like that :D :D :D

Mike

[Barnaby the Bear]

At the end of the day it can't be a bad thing to be more visible to a pilot that has restricted views on the ground. And it also 'helps' to spot people that perhaps should not be airside in the first place.:}
It is only an irritation to people that want it to be

[Speedbird252]

Pretty heavy stuff for something that you can buy from Transair for a little over a tenner.

As said by many, if an airfield that you fly into wants you to wear them airside then so what?

or am i missing something here?

Speedy

:confused:

[LowNSlow]

If you look at the previous threads, it's not the hi-viz vests that are the root of the problem, it's the management stance that says "hi-viz vests are good, other airfields have them so we must too" is the problem.

A lot of people don't seem to be safety aware but how many people do you see getting chopped up by props or knocked down by fuel bowsers on GA airfields? It is a semi dangerous environment but we are aware of that and if we have people with us who aren't it is our duty to look after them. This doesn't involve placebos like hi-viz vests which can lull the uneducated into a false sense of security. It involves an understanding of potential problems and what steps to take to avoid them; eg don't walk towards a rotating propellor, don't walk in front of the fuel bowser (just like you wouldn't walk in front of a moving car on the road). I relate hi-viz vests to the current attitude towards road safety. This seems to be wholy orientated around speed. I know of loads of people who don't drive, they operate a vehicle. They have no anticipation, no spatial awareness and a blissful ignorance of what's behind them. Yet they consider themselves "safe" drivers cos they wear a seatbelt and obey the speed limits. Aaaaarrrrgggghhhh.

[Rupert S]

I think you need to start thinking about this in a different way: Yes the aerodrome operator will insist that you wear a high vis jacket because they could be sued for negligence if something does happen to you, but in essence, it is imposed in the interest of your safety. I know they look stupid and are a pain, especially if you forget to take one with you when going to an aerodrome with rules different from your own but they do serve a purpose and they do, to some extend, serve it well. Why not just accept it as something similar to wearing a seat belt in a car?

[Mike Cross]

Some of the posters here have an interesting idea of the definition of negligence.

As far as I recall Negligence is any act or omission that a reasonable person might regard as likely to cause loss or injury.

If you do not insist on people wearing vests do they have a greater than 1 in 2 chance of being injured? The danger must be greater than I thought.

While I am certainly not against wearing a vest, and I do carry one in the aircraft I am very much against the suggestion that wearing one makes you "safe" and not wearing one makes you "unsafe".

Mike

[englishal]

Maybe we should all wear safety glasses as well just in case a fluke bit of dust is whipped up and catches in the eye. Oh and may as well wear safety shoes as well in case you get your toe run over, flame proof overalls in case of a freak fire, and chemical gloves in case or a rougue battery explosion.

Sounds like the idiotic company I work for, and they do it to cover their arse....:hmm:

[LowNSlow]

Rupert S I'm sorry but that is utter cobblers. I'm with Mike Cross on the definition of negligence. The CAA does NOT insist on people wearing hi-viz vests at licensed aerodromes (I like that word). On a busy apron with assorted aircraft, pallets and vehicles around, they make sense. On yer average GA airfield they make no sense at all.

As MC said "While I am certainly not against wearing a vest, and I do carry one in the aircraft I am very much against the suggestion that wearing one makes you "safe" and not wearing one makes you "unsafe". Total agreement on that point. As I've said on other vest threads, I work in the oil & gas industry both onshore and offshore. I have no beef about PPE (Personal Protection Equipment) but it's use needs to be seen to be sensible otherwise the respect for it's function fades rapidly. Then it ends up not being used where it really IS required.

Rant mode OFF :p

[Keef]

And that's the point, isn't it? I don't think many of us care about whether or not we have to wear a vest per se , but if it's clearly not sensible, the requirement to do so makes the whole safety package look stupid, and therefore the whole is treated with scorn. And that could be dangerous.

In my previous working life, I was responsible for security (among other things) at a research establishment. I got rid of all the "silly" security rules, and the "serious" ones started to be observed.

[Fujiflyer]

Interesting, well reasoned comments. Personally I find it difficult to understand how anyone could fail to see somebody in the wide open spaces of an a/d manoeuvring area anyway. That's besides the fact that human colour vision (and therefore the benefit of a hi-vis vest) covers a fairly restricted "cone" where I would expect to see individuals anyway whatever their attire.

Not wanting to hijack the thread but with respect to the subject of airside safety I had an interesting experience a few weeks back (Fri 15th Aug). At my local airfield it was extremely busy - there was an air display and a few members of the public were on the apron. When I was ready to start the engine someone (an oldish bloke) began to walk towards the front of my aircraft so I held off and yelled "Clear Prop" (he was at about 10m away at this point). He continued. I shouted it again. He walked right across the front, within about 1.5m of the prop' - and then turned around and gave a "filthy look."

I'm sure the key to safety whether it be on the ground or elsewhere is to use some sense (common sense???) combined with the aptitude which one would expect of pilots generally. In my experience having rules and procedures for the sake of such tend to undermine their original purpose.

[poetpilot]

So sorry to repeat something I posted on That Other Thread but I'm going to anyway....

There are plenty of accident reports where pilots/pax have suffered head injuries in spamcans when they came to a sudden stop. This is not conjecture, it's fact and the CAA must have statistics somewhere on it.

So why do the CAA not recommend, propose, request or indeed insist on bonedomes being worn when flying ANY aircraft?

If we are going to have regulation, then let's make it regulation with reason, not regulation about something where there is apparently no evidence to suggest that it's been a problem in the past.

That's why I'm p'd off about it. Stupid regulations based on insurance assessors and men with calculators & a**e protectors, not based on facts and the real world.

Oh, and if I catch myself with a HVV whilst inspecting an aircraft, can I sue the CAA or the Airfield safety Committee? No, I thought not....

:ouch:

[Gertrude the Wombat]

So why do the CAA not recommend, propose, request or indeed insist on bonedomes being worn when flying ANY aircraft? They're actually, and quite sensibly, fairly averse to making regulations which would ground large numbers of aircraft and/or pilots. In my case, as for many other pilots, there isn't room between the top of my head and the ceiling of yer average spamcan for a helmet.

[Keef]

Gertrude, the temptation is immense! I only just managed to resist it...

[Evo]

There are plenty of accident reports where pilots/pax have suffered head injuries in spamcans when they came to a sudden stop. This is not conjecture, it's fact and the CAA must have statistics somewhere on it.

So why do the CAA not recommend, propose, request or indeed insist on bonedomes being worn when flying ANY aircraft?


This is a good point, and something I've wondered about - but wouldn't a better solution be to require a decent harness in the aeroplane, rather than the crappy Piper/Cessna 3-pointer (or even crappier lapstrap)?

[bluskis]

I cant see bone domes improving lookout or cockpit communications and paperhandling.

As to all that extra momentum applied to the neck in the event of an abrupt reduction in forward speed, may be a neck strap will have to be added to harnesses.

As far as I know the military wear them for protection during ejection, not for crash protection.

[knobbygb]

Don't want to get back into the debate on should we/shouldn't we, but just wanted to say thanks to Mike for finding out a few of the facts on this.

My biggest gripe with the whole situation (apart from the vest itself, of course) was that many people were unhappy yet none seemed willing to even ask a few simple questions of those in power. I wrote to the aerodrome operators and got a reply that was polite but told me nothing. Apparently I was the only person out of 750 or so members that had made any adverse comment about the policy. I find that extremley worrying. These are all intelligent people who have been trained to make important command decisions when in an aircraft, yet can't even ask "why?" when sat drinking tea in the clubhouse. I do wonder how many of them now wonder blindly across the apron feeling ultra-safe in ther shiny new jackets (Yes, they are nearly all brand new - I think that shows what the true feeling about the need to wear a jacket is among the masses).

Anyway, at least this sheds a bit more light on the matter. Thanks Mike. If everybody who's unhappy speaks up each time they feel things are being done wrong, then probably nothing will change for ages - BUT maybe my kids won't have to wear bonedomes and fireproof clothing when I can afford flying lessons for them.

[down&out]

Blueski

Having been in the mil (UAS), we wore bonedomes in Bulldogs, Gazelles, Pumas & Sea-Kings - none of which you can eject from! They are definitely worn for protection against the sudden stop - just like a biker - a bit of whiplash is better than an open skull+ plus you get eye protection against a bird strike through the wind shield!

Oh - and wrt "lookout or cockpit communications and paper handling" they are just fine - no different to headsets - as long as everyone has one.

But I do agree about the headroom issue, that was one of the design changes from a Pup to a Bulldog, to give the pilots more headroom. Plus I think regular pax would probably think it well over the top to have to put one on in the back of a regular 4/6 seater spam cam!

Edited to add:
Evo - I do agree with you

There was an accident a number of years ago. A UAS student stuffed a Bulldog into a beach. The 5 point harness held him tight into the seat, but the seat back pin failed and so he smacked his head (inside a bonedome) on the cockpit. He was unconscious, but the a/c caught fire. Locals on the scene unfortunately could not get him out in time.
After that, they strengthened the seats with seat back straps to hold the seat back in place in an accident.

So I agree - the No1 priority has to be a decent harness that really will hold, then a bone dome can help, but I would only consider it in limited no of civil a/c.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Regarding helmets (I wear one in the Chippy, BTW), I think it's true that far more motorists suffer serious and often fatal head injuries than pre-helmet-law bikers ever did. So there is a stronger case for legislating on helemt use in cars than there is for bikes - but it would be politaclly very unpopular so to do.

'Safety legislation' is driven by more complex issues than 'what is safe and what isn't'.

SSD