Clueless Kemble.

[egbt]

A reliable source on another forum reports that Kemble now require hi-vis clothing to be worn airside by passengers and crew. An e-mail from Kemble Ops says:
Passengers are at all times to be escorted by the aircraft commander or crew member who is known to be competent to ensure his/her and the passengers safety. The wearing of high visibility clothing is mandatory.
Aircraft commanders or crew members, as applicable, are responsible for ensuring that a total ban on smoking whilst airside is observed.
The high visibility clothing rule applies to each person airside. One high visibility wearer in a group is non compliant and is not acceptable.

This will be in their AIP entry.

:confused: :uhoh: :mad: :uhoh:

Time to send some e-mails of complaint?

[BEagle]

What utter nonsense!

What is 'airside' at a little aerodrome like Kemble in any case? Seems to me that they're getting ideas beyond their status - why?

Boycott the place until the stupid road-diggers' coats nonsense is sorted out by an adult!

[Sir George Cayley]

Compliant with wot?

Theres nothing in:-

The ANO

CAP168

CAP642

EU Ops 1

ICAO Annex 14

or The Health & Safety at Work etc Act.

so, compliance must be found in their Aerodrome Manual


mustn't it?



Sir George Cayley

[Final 3 Greens]

Its this type of embracing of red tape that makes the UK a detestable place to live in these days.

So I don't anymore.

But its ironic that the tabloids blast Brussels for alleged nonsense, when so many gems are home grown.

[A and C]

And who is the brainless idiot who thinks that this is a good idea?

[Final 3 Greens]

Take your choice from one of the following

- HSE inspector
- Insurance company underwriter
- Lawyer

Of course, it maybe none of the above, but I'd wager a couple of quid on one of them.

[IO540]

In the UK, it is always very easy to find individuals who jump on the smallest opportunity to make a job out of something totally worthless and pointless.

A lot of stupid and ultimately meaningless "standards" originate elsewhere in Europe

ISO9000
CE
RoHS

but the UK is fairly unique in that it has an apparently unlimited number of people who see even the most generally pointless or even damaging measure as a job/business/consultancy opportunity.

I suspect this is not an insurance requirement as such. It is probably some useless little man walking around with a writing pad, who had landed the wonderful job to oversee their health & safety policy and make recommendations, so they can show due diligence if something cropped up.

Imagine the stupid scene where a family of four turns up. They will have had to go to some pilot shop and purchase 2-3 different sizes of these stupid yellow jackets.

[S-Works]

strange as it seems I managed to navigate my way accross europe visiting 8 different airfields in 6 countries and not once did we see a yellow jacket. Allthough I suppose you could say Prague and Frankfurt amongst the bunch are only tiny airfields so dont count......

[pulse1]

This is absolutely crazy. Even Bournemouth only insists on one jacket per group. I have visited Kemble many times and I have never had to park more than twenty five metres or so from the gate by the restaurant. To require up to four yellow jackets to walk twenty metres is absurd. Please tell me this is a wind up.

I was planning to go there for the PFA rally next month. I probably won't now.

[tangovictor]

as the pfa rally is about to be held at Kemble, why not get some stupid hi-viz jackets with " some appropriate" slogan written on the back, I'm more than certain someone can think up something, nasty ?

[wbryce]

whats the problem? they can't see you when you don't wear one! :E

[Final 3 Greens]

wb

The consensus on PPrune seems to be that the opposite case applies :eek:

[egbt]

This is absolutely crazy. [...]. Please tell me this is a wind up.
I was planning to go there for the PFA rally next month. I probably won't now.
Extract from AIP at http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aerodromes/302BP01.PDF
Airport Regulations
a Special procedures are in force for some flying events, details as published by AIC and NOTAM.
b Non-Radio aircraft not excepted.
c While airside each aircraft commander is responsible for the safety of his passengers and other crew members. Passengers are at all times
to be escorted by the aircraft commander or crew member who is known to be competent to ensure his/her and the passengers safety. The
wearing of high visibility clothing is mandatory.
d Aircraft commanders or crew members, as applicable, are responsible for ensuring that a total ban on smoking whilst airside is observed.
Hi-vis IS now mandatory :{ :(

[Whirlybird]

This is ridiculous of course.

But for the family of four, simply check out a couple of pound shops; you can now find hi vis vests in quite a few of them. All one size, not great quality, but who cares - for £4 you can throw them in the back of the aircraft and be legal and worry about more important things.

I had a nice little sideline buying these and reselling them on Ebay for a while, but full time instructors don't have time for that kind of stuff in a summer like we're having.

[maxdrypower]

I recently saw a lovely fluorescent sorry hi vis jacket with the slogan on the rear stating " Im wearing this to cover someone elses back " says it all methinks

[chevvron]

The wording is pretty much standard for any licensed airport when required by the CAA.

[Mike Cross]

I think the wording was probably "I'm wearing this to cover someone else's @rse"
Available here. (http://www.flyer.co.uk/shop/product.php?product=15)

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Guys,

I already have a high-vis jacket, but without a slogan.

I'd rather have this one printed with a slogan of my choosing rather than buy one with someone else's slogan.

Does anybody please know anywhere where I can have my preferred slogan printed on my jacket?

Broomstick.

[Whirlybird]

Broomstick Pilot,

Practically any small printing company can do it...the sort of place that prints things on T-shirts etc. It's not very expensive...another little sideline I had on Ebay. :)

[Colonel Panic]

Does anybody please know anywhere where I can have my preferred slogan printed on my jacket?
Just buy a pack of the "iron on" paper made by Hewlett Packhard etc - available at WH Smiths etc - and make it up yourself. I made a couple up, and whilst not very hardwearing, they certainly work well.
The main thing to take care with is the temp of the iron - too hot and you'll melt the hi-vis jacket :ooh:

[Jodelman]

This is absolutely crazy. I was planning to go there for the PFA rally next month. I probably won't now.
You won't HAVE to wear one at the PFA Rally.

[Henry Hallam]

My main gripe is that all these requirements to wear the yellow jackets almost certainly mean more people will be wearing them in the aircraft (it is easy to forget to take it off and I have done so myself a couple of times).

Needless to say this presents a very real safety hazard in the case of fire!

Comparing this to the "improvement" in visibility, I think the overall safety impact of the jackets is probably negative.

[dublinpilot]

Suppose you had an EFATO, and a fire resulted. You or one of your passengers suffered severe burns due to wearing the HVV.

Could Kemble be held partly liable?

Just a thought.

dp

[jayemm]

In the last two weeks I have flown to Exeter, Hawarden (twice) and Leeds Bradford. In every case I was the only one in my party wearing the luminous fashion garment. No problems, all ok.
I just won't bother to go to Kemble. Ludicrous. They'll be calling themselves Swindon International Business Airport next! :ugh:

[Leezyjet]

I'm quite lucky in that I don't have to buy those yellow jackets. I have a plentiful supply of them from work !!. Whenever I need a new one, I keep the old one, throw it in the washing machine to spruce it up a bit, then chuck it in my flight bag. I must look a real tw@t when I get out of a C152 at some small strip somewhere with a yellow jacket on with company logo (airline) and job title splashed all over the back, and passengers wearing a multitude of varying companies logos on tabbards I have aquired along the way !!.

Don't really give a cr@p myself though, they were free and satisfy the jobsworths at these tiny strips.

:}

[tangovictor]

I wonder how many accidents,at airfields have been avoided, cos of hi viz jackets ? surely if you can't see people walking without a hi-viz, you should get your eyes checked out, next thing will be, all private aircraft will have to be painted with hi-viz paint

[Deano777]

Suppose you had an EFATO, and a fire resulted. You or one of your passengers suffered severe burns due to wearing the HVV.

Could Kemble be held partly liable?

Just a thought.

dp

er, Kemble expect you to wear them when "airside" on the airfield, it doesn't say anything about having to wear them inside the aircraft, if you do not take your jacket off when you get in the aircraft and something happens who's fault is that?

[gaxan]

Anyone who requires personalised printing on their H Viz please Pm me. Available in a huge range of colours . Vests also available .

[BroomstickPilot]

Thanks, Guys.

Broomstick.

[muffin]

Just about all the arrivals at the PFA Rally will not have a clue that they are supposed to conform to this. What are they going to do? Not get out of the aircraft? Of course they will and there won't be enough marshallers to stop them. So the whole thing will become unenforceable.

The only way that you can tell who are marshallers there anyway is because they are (were) the only ones in yellow jackets. Now aircraft will be following anybody in yellow who is waving their arms about. Chaos will result when many hundreds of aircraft are parked all over the place.

[Mike Cross]

You won't HAVE to wear one at the PFA Rally.
Perhaps that would be better if it came from Kemble Ops.

Maybe they could then explain why escorted passengers are so much more vulnerable than unescorted members of the general public.

Heathrow Stansted and Gatwick do not require Pax to wear high vis while on the ground airside.

CAP 642 Airside Safety Management (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP642.PDF) is the document of interest.

It requires Hi-Viz to be worn by pushback crews, those working on foot on the movement area and in freezing conditions.

[chrisbl]

at the end of the day, its Kembles call and if having done a risk assessment they feel its necessary then thats the way it is. everyone can have their own view but as the operator their view counts. If you dont like it go somewhere else.

Personally these tirades about the use of Hi Viz jackets by pilots is pathetic and demonstartes that such pilots have a two faced attitude to safety or perhaps even worse dont have a clue about safety after all.

Not surprising then that some in authority think GA is too much trouble than its worth.

Personally, my view is that if more can be done then it should be done an wearing a hi viz jacket is not unreasonable.

As to the person who suggested that Kemble be held responsible if he sustained injuries whilst inside the aircraft through wearing a hi viz jacket well he should not be flying if he is that stupid.

I suppose aviation will attract its own set of idiots and self professed experts like any other activty who prefer to shoot off their mouths before engaging brain.

[Aussie Andy]

What a load of nonsense. I've been in there 3 times this summer; I have just sent an email to [email protected] to say that unless they rescind these nonsense new regs I, for one, won't be back :(

Andy

[OVC002]

I suppose aviation will attract its own set of idiots and self professed experts like any other activty who prefer to shoot off their mouths before engaging brain.

:rolleyes:

Apparently.

I would be surprised if Kemble's operator felt that GA is more trouble than it's worth. It is, after all, a solely GA field. Unless there is an ulterior motive for the change of course.

Having jumped through the hoops and over the hurdles to obtain the PPL, I suspect that most of us are reasonably well qualified to make an assessment as to when, and to what extent, hi-viz is required. By all means recommend, but compulsion is unnecessary. It displays an ill-mannered, and growing, tendency towards fascism.

IMHO The management should let all those who refuse to wear outlandishly garish clothing suffer the consequences of their foolishishness. I know that I am happy to do that.

Even if I am risking being chopped into little bits by one of those aircraft with the camoflage paint job and the new fangled silent engine/prop combos.

[ShyTorque]

The "Hi-viz" jacket thing has now become overblown, as if it's some magic pill.

It isn't, only common sense is the answer to safety issues. If you can be seen NOT wearing a Hi-viz, what is the point?

My normal apparel is a dark blue uniform. If I get out of the aircraft and put on the jacket, I will immediately put on a Hi-viz if moving from the aircraft. If I get out wearing my sparkling white shirt, I'm already highly visible, as it contrasts strongly with my dark trousers, even in low light conditions. At night I carry a torch and look and listen out.

The authorities will one day have us running round in ever increasing circles until we all disappear up our own jackseys. There will be so much Dayglo green at airports that we will need to have another contrasting colour to be seen. Dark blue, or black, maybe?

Ever tried spotting a "Hi-Viz" yellow aircraft over a countryside full of oilseed blossom? Anyone ever wondered why the military paint their training aircraft black?

Call me an old cynic, if you must. I'm old and cynical but I'm also a practical realist. :)

[Aussie Andy]

There is simply NO EVIDENCE (NONE!) that high-vis jackets have reduced injuries at ANY airfield... plenty of examples where baggage handlers or other ground-crew have been injured DESPITE wearing "high vis" jackets... they do not provide ARMOUR after all! This has been debated at length before.....

The trouble is that health & safety "experts" have set the precedent of high-vis as "de-rigeur" for airfield "safety" despite this lack of evidence, so when you hire such consultants they apparently have a tick-box for air-side safety and high-vis jackets...

Aaargghh!!

:(

[chevvron]

It's a COHSE requirement; has nothing to do with actual incidents, it's just the potential risk identified by a hazard analysis so that they can say 'we told you so'.

[Lower the Nose!]

I suppose aviation will attract its own set of idiots and self professed experts like any other activty who prefer to shoot off their mouths before engaging brain.

You are right here, although perhaps not quite for the reason you intended. If there were any evidence, even one shred, that mandatory wearing of hi viz vests at a small airfield promoted safety, that would be fine. But there isn't.

In itself Kemble's move may be a small inconvenience. But there is a cumulative effect to all these bad news stories which are making GA in the UK less attractive year by year.

Not one airport in the US, as far as I know, has seen fit to impose a restriction like this, including many where traffic is much busier. No evidence that safety is compromised there either.

[Whopity]

Allways though High Vis vests were to stop ground handlers being run over at night by baggage trucks!

There are no baggage trucks at Kemble, no night operations and no ground handlers. So WHY must we wear a non Fire retardant loose fitting jacket near AVGAS and Propellors. Clearly a need for Health and Safety to look into this ridulous practice.

Do all customers at the AV8 on "Airside" have to dine in "YELLOW"?

CRAP breeds CRAP!!!

[Mike Cross]

It's a COHSE requirement; has nothing to do with actual incidents, it's just the potential risk identified by a hazard analysis so that they can say 'we told you so'.
Eh?

COHSE to me is the Confederation of Health Service Employees (a Trade Union)
having looked it up I find it's also the Conceptual Open Hypermedia Services Environment

Neither of which I suspect are involved in this bit of nonsense.

Mike

[chevvron]

OK I meant whatever the Health and Safety Executive are calling themselves this government!

[Barnaby the Bear]

Get over it. So they ask you to where a jacket?
I wonder how many of you will still go to the PFA rally after you have said you won't on this forum?
If all you guys have to moan about is been told to wear a hi-viz jacket, then spare a thought for the people having bombs dropped on their heads. :rolleyes:

[neilmac]

Why are people getting so upset about hi viz jackets! It has been in Kembles' AIP for last 3 months so maybe pilots should have noticed it b4 now, plus loads of other airfields/airports say the same Its not a question of how many incidents are occurring with peeps on airfield, what you want to wait till something does happen? Horse riders are requested I believe now to wear hi viz vests due to a couple of fatal horse riding accidents with low flying mil helos, would wearing them have saved them we will never know but maybe could have? It cannot be enforced but come an incident, god forbid, Kemble have done their bit on the HSE side to prove they are proactive. its just a cover your backs policy that you will find in all other quarters of daily life. It doesnt say wear it flying? so why are you getting on a high horse about what if I had an engine fire and pax got burnt with a hi viz jacket? From what I understand a crew member NOT all pax to wear hi viz. Maybe all this heat gone to everyones head!! Relax go flying and enjoy.......maybe I could set up a high viz jacket business

NM

[shortstripper]

So if I land at Kemble, innocently wander over to pay a landing fee without a high viz jacket, what will happen? Will I be escorted off? Not allowed back to my aircraft? Clapped in irons?

SS

[Jodelman]

Get over it. So they ask you to where a jacket?
I wonder how many of you will still go to the PFA rally after you have said you won't on this forum?

There will be NO requirement for high viz jackets to be worn airside by pilots or passengers during the PFA rally.


Kemble do not operate the airfield for the period of the rally, the PFA does.

[Mike Cross]

While wearing Hi-viz is no big deal and carrying enough for every passenger is also no big deal it is a pain in the @rse. The AIP entry is not 100% unambiguous. If it's good enought for Heathrow Gatwick & Stansted to have pax crossing from terminal or bus to aircraft without hi-viz it ought to be good enough for Kemble.

The problem is that pointless "safety" rules produce a fog that obscures the real issues. Pilots are required to meet a standard of visual acuity that allows them to avoid driving into things. The tower at Kemble is painted a sort of yellow (though I doubt the actual colour complies with BS EN 471) so I suppose we're unlikely to drive into it. The railings round the parking in front of AV8 are deffo non-compliant though. That said, it's Kemble's owner's prerogative to set the terms under which we are permitted to play with his toy.

If he demonstates that he doesn't understand the requirements of CAP 642 then he shouldn't be surprised if people decline to use his facilities.

Mike

[eharding]

Personally, my view is that if more can be done then it should be done an wearing a hi viz jacket is not unreasonable..

If you want to wander round in such attire, nobody is stopping you. What is unreasonable is to foist your paranoia on everyone else.

[VP959]

I once got reprimanded for not wearing one as I clambered out after a cross-channel trip. The gross stupidity of this was that I was wearing a bright orange survival suit plus a life jacket with high vis reflective tape. It didn't stop the barking mad jobsworth from taking a pop though.

Kemble will be fun, as I'm planning to fly in to the PFA Rally by paramotor, weather willing. I'm looking forward to seeing the high-vis jacket Gestapo determine when I'm "in" my aircraft or "out" of it before they pounce. Anyway, there's no way to put on a high-vis jacket before "removing" this type of aircraft from one's back, so the idiotic safety police will just have to do their worst.
VP

[EastMids]

Get over it. So they ask you to where a jacket?

Not the point. The aircraft has one high-viz jacket in it, the use of which I think is not unreasonable, but on principle am I not going to acquire more to just satisfy the pointless whims of someone at Kemble - and as far as I can tell, only at Kemble, no where else. I do not NEED to go to Kemble, but I have done so on a number of occasions in the past. As with any free-time activity, there are constraints that make us decide whether we want to engage or not. Whilst this rule is in place, I shall not be contributing anything further to the income of Kemble airfield, the shop in the tower, nor the AV8restaurant - sad, but I feel its more their loss than mine as it would cost them nothing to adopt the more reasonable approach that prevails everywhere else.

Andy

[Windy Militant]

Does this mean that the PFA will have to get a load of different colour Hi Viz gear so we can tell the Marshallers from the punters trying to find where they've hidden the booking in tent this year!
An opportunity for Big Red L if he's not flogged all those hooky British Rail Orange ones he had a while back.
Oh yeah it'll be Cirencester International not Swindon. Swindon's too chavy for the Glossy Possie that they're aiming for. ;)
PS Did any one go to RIAT this year the Lions club had some very fetching Pink ones. :yuk:

[BEagle]

Time for the GA world to say ENOUGH OF THIS NONSENSE and have a mass anti road-digger's coat rebellion, I say.

Pile the b£oody things up into a large heap outside the Kemble jobsworth's door.

I go to sensible aerodromes which do not have such silly rules!

[Jodelman]

Does this mean that the PFA will have to get a load of different colour Hi Viz gear so we can tell the Marshallers from the punters Pink ones. :yuk:
Pilots & their passengers WILL NOT be required to wear Hi Viz Jackets airside during the PFA Rally!!

[smarthawke]

At Wycombe Air Park (Booker) we don't have to wear hi-viz jackets despite having one of the busiest 'airside' GA operating areas in the country. It works fine without anyone getting run over, people are just sensible!

A friend of mine landed at Norwich, went through to meet his passenger then wasn't allowed back airside by the security man to his plane because he didn't have a hi-viz jacket.

'How do you know I haven't got one?' he said.

'Because I saw you when you walked in from your plane' came the reply.

'Well if you could see me, I obviously don't need one then do I?'

Conversation ended with a quietened security guard.....

[wsmempson]

Just out of curiousity, can anyone actually remember an incident where an aircraft hit a pedestrian at an airfield?

I can't help but suspect that the hi-viz-vest legislation is something of a perfect solution to a non-existant problem.

[Will Hung]

I work in construction where the health and safety Gestapo are continually thinking of ways to shut down the industry. However, IMHO one of their better regulations is the wearing of Hi-Vis vests. The easier you are to see, the less likely you are to be flattened. I always thought that aviation was very much a "Safety first" industry, clearly, many disagree. At Cranfield the club has Hi-Vis vests (BA Ones !) hanging on the door. It must take at least 10 seconds to take one off the door and put it on. For your free vest bearing the name of my company, PM me !

[Windy Militant]

Jodel Man I was being Ironic ;)
Actually It's given me an idea. Over the years there have been a number of cheapskates who don't book in to avoid paying. To prevent this we should get a sponser to provide a job lot of Hi Viz jackets which would be presented to the Pilots on booking in. Anyone trying to leave without a rally jacket would be impounded until proof of payment had been provided or the appropriate fee had been stillsoned from their wallets. Maybe we've finally discovered a real use for the things at last. :ok:

[Aussie Andy]

I always thought that aviation was very much a "Safety first" industry, clearly, many disagree. Of course we are safety conscious! But there is a belief that there is no safety case associated with the wearing of high-vis jackets at airfields. Building sites where blokes carry planks of wood etc. over their shoulders, cranes operate, power tools are in use, etc. don't to me seem comparable.

Andy :rolleyes:

[Will Hung]

So should we wait for there to be a case ? Do you guys also object to switching on your beacon ?

[terryJones]

Well, I for one would be more than a little concerned sharing the sky (and the road on the way to the airfield) with some-one who cannot see an object the size of a human on the ground in front of him.
The next question, in accidents where humans/aircraft have tried to share the same space time continuum, did the 'plane hit the human, or did the dozy human walk into the aircraft? A hi-vis vest will of course prevent this.

Edited to add:- Not much sign of them here at the moment
http://www.kemblecam.co.uk/

[Johnm]

Despite the fuss and emotion there is a real issue of principle involved. Safety is a risk management discipline. This means that you assess the likelihood of serious accidents occurring in a specific environment and if that is high, then you look at precautions that would prevent it.

The most dangerous thing you can do in safety management is follow a "tick box " approach, you must assess the specific risk in the specific context.

Hi Viz for Hi Viz sake suggests that we are in tick box not risk assessment mode.

[Will Hung]

I might be wrong, (not for the first time !), but might there be an isurance matter that's worth considering here ? Can any club/airfield operators tell us whether the wearing of Hi-Vis reduces premiums, and hence fees etc. ?

[slim_slag]

Latest accident figures I can find for the USA, where what you wear only really depends on the weather, are from 2001 (PDF) (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/ARG0601.pdf)

From what I can tell, only four people on the ground were killed by collisions with a plane, and only one by contact with a prop/rotor, and that was a security guard who walked into a rotor. One other person was injured. Two were killed in a car hit by a landing overun and would probably not have been saved by wearing a vest. So it would appear that this rule has no demonstrable basis in safety, if it's a safety argument then we should all wear a hi-vis vest when out shopping.

[OVC002]

Get over it. So they ask you to where a jacket?
:rolleyes:

I don't think the debate is about being ASKED to wear a (Hi-Viz) jacket. It is about being COMPELLED to wear a (Hi-Viz) jacket.

My memory is a bit hazy but was it not Edmund Burke who is usually attributed with:

" All that is necessary for Risk Assessment Consultants, CYA Managers and their MWG Jobsworth enforcers to triumph is that good men do nothing"

I don't want to get over it. IMHO it is reasonable to expect that the people who make these rules should be happy to justify their decisions. I have still to see any cogent argument for making Hi-Viz compulsory.

(The quote might not be exactly word for word, but it was something like that.)

[Aussie Andy]

http://www.kemblecam.co.uk/ -- very funny; just saw some people WITHOUT yellow jackets walking from airside to AV8; with three aircraft parked on the grass -- Man, that was close; they could've died!!! Someone had better get out there and get them in yellow jackets to save them - fast! I would hate to be responsible for what happens next otherwise....

Andy :ok:

[dublinpilot]

Andy,

I think you should ring Kemble.....

"Hello. I was just looking at your webcam and saw some people walking from their aircraft to the AV8 restaurant. They weren't wearing their yellow jackets. I just though I should call and let you know! Can't be too careful these days, you know?" :}

I wonder what would they say? ;)

[Aussie Andy]

If I wasn't busy (allegedly) working I might..!

Andy ;)

[Kengineer-130]

Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions? :confused: , i.e DON'T walk infront of a taxying aircraft with a big sharp spinny thing on the front of it? :ugh: I am pretty sure that the dreaded health and safty man has struck again :mad: :ugh:

[pulse1]

The really depressing thing about this is that it isn't motivated by a genuine concern for personnnel safety. It is motivated by the fear of media generated criticism with the benefit of hindsight, should someone be hurt airside. You know the thing - "wasn't even wearing a hi viz jacket". It's the modern hype you get whenever someone gets hurt doing anything. Someone must be to blame and new rules must be written to stop it happening again, or more accurately, to stop me being blamed next time.

It's at times like this when I find myself being not sorry I'm the age I am. It's going to get so much worse.

[distaff_beancounter]

At a MOD airfield (which has a very effective Health & Safety regime) I asked an officer why all the fuel bowsers were painted sludge green and hi-viz jackets were not mandetory for pilots or passengers of light aircraft.

He replied, with a perfectly staight face:-

"Well, we don't want to give our pilots anything to aim at!" :)

[Aussie Andy]

Good point! I regularly fly from RAF base currently, and was many years in the RAAF back home in Australia, and have never ONCE been required to wear high-vis vest in that context!

I guess it'd be the opposite of camouflage ;)

Andy :ok:

[possel]

On the flight line in the RAF the groundcrew all wore the things but of course after two hours they were a funny dark shade of oily black. No-one else bothered (but this was a few years ago)

[kemblejet01]

Thanks for all the inputs. Thread copied and pasted to Airfield Manager. Await reaction with interest

KMB01

[Aussie Andy]

Nice one KJ...!

Andy :ok:

[airborne_artist]

You could just get a hi-viz poloshirt as being modeled below:

http://www.hivis.net/ProductImages/220.jpg

Saves having to stuff the waistcoast somewhere, though I can't see where you could attach epaulettes :cool:

[Pitts2112]

though I can't see where you could attach epaulettes :cool:

:ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

That poor guy's catching hell in this place and, as far as we know, he hasn't even worn the epaulettes yet! But that has been one of the funniest threads I've seen in a long time! Nice to see the humour crossing posts!

Pitts2112

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Quote:

" Thanks for all the inputs. Thread copied and pasted to Airfield Manager. Await reaction with interest "

You are assuming that he/she can read of course?

I'm afraid that the lunitics are truly running the asylum at airports in this new age world.

Chuck E.

[BEagle]

airborne_artist, presumably a strategically sewn in piece of velcro is all that is keeping that polo shirt decent......

[Flap40]

For those that do not see the PFA website forum, they have confirmed that Hi-Vis vests will NOT be required for the Rally.

[Rod1]

If you want to know what he actualy said.....
----------------------------------
Graham Newby
Administrator
Member # 26123629

posted 28 July, 2006 10:16 AM

All
For anybody who is worried by uninformed postings on a non PFA forum, hi viz jackets will not be needed by pilots at the PFA rally.

Graham
----------------------------------

If you want to know what he actualy said.....

Rod1

[Windy Militant]

Never Mind the Hi Viz can we have an embargo on the tasteless Shorts! :eek:

[Mike Cross]

I spoke today to Mike Sparrow, Ops Manager at Kemble. He has confirmed that the info about everyone wearing hi-viz was sent to based operators only and does not apply to visitors.

For visitors he wants one person in the group to be wearing hi-viz while airside and he wants them to keep the group together. His concern has been that in the past groups of "escorted" visitors have not been kept togther and have straggled all over the place. You can see that a group of schoolkids or (even worse) photocopier salesmen on a corporate jolly being walked between AV8 and the hangars could cause some worry as they pass the fuel point and taxying aircraft or helos with rotors turning.

I've suggested that he needs to deal with the problem using different wording and by changing teh rules relating to groups. After all hi-viz won't prevent someone who is going to walk into rotating machinery from doing so.

Constructive suggestions to [email protected] (sending abuse will only prevent the good ideas from being seen)

Personally I don't think it should be necessary for pilots or passengers to wear hi-viz while transferring from aircraft to landside and vice versa. However if someone wants to go further than that, e.g. to do some photography with permission then I don't think it unreasonable that they should be suitably attired to improve their visibility from the tower.

[Daifly]

When I viewed this forum the ad at the bottom was for Hi-Viz waistcoats - PPRuNe? I hope this isn't a money making scam!! ;)

[Aussie Andy]

email sent.... :ok:

[ShyTorque]

"For visitors he wants one person in the group to be wearing hi-viz while airside and he wants them to keep the group together. His concern has been that in the past groups of "escorted" visitors have not been kept togther and have straggled all over the place. You can see that a group of schoolkids or (even worse) photocopier salesmen on a corporate jolly being walked between AV8 and the hangars could cause some worry as they pass the fuel point and taxying aircraft or helos with rotors turning."

Seems to me that keeping people in one group has little to do wiith the requirement to wear hi-viz vests!

[tangovictor]

maybe they are expecting lots of japanese tourists, all follow the leader who has a hi-viz umbrella

[Aussie Andy]

An I bet that the visitors / groups / Japanese tourists / Brownie packs etc they are thinking of don't even read the AIP, so why publish a regulation to deal with the safety of that audience in EGBP AD 2.20 http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aerodromes/302BP01.PDF -- how many girl guides read that then!?

Andy :cool:

[ShouldItDoThat]

There's a wedding on at AV8 today, that should make for some nice pictures. Hope the bride doesn't forget something old, something new, something borrowed, something in fetching Dayglo Yellow:O

[ShyTorque]

:ok: Nice one!

[dublinpilot]

something old, something new, something borrowed, something in fetching Dayglo Yellow

I think she could manage:
something old
something borrowed
something in fetching dayglo yellow


all in one ;)

She mightn't be too happy about it though.

dp

[Chuck Ellsworth]

" So should we wait for there to be a case ? Do you guys also object to switching on your beacon ? "

A beacon is effective during low light and night time operations.

During bright daylight hours the airplane will be visable long before you see the beacon.

Chuck E.

[JW411]

I am having difficulty trying to understand the vehemence and vitriol that is being expressed on this thread about the wearing of high visibility jackets.

I have been required to wear a high visibility jacket when airside on most major airports that I have operated into and out of for the last 10 or 15 years so I suppose it has become second nature.

At first I thought it was a bit of an imposition but my opinion got changed when three colleagues got mowed down by a van on the ramp at Brussels one night. They were wearing black uniforms. They were all badly hurt and the captain never flew again.

Now I agree that this happened at night on a busy ramp on an international airfield but the fact that the captain had his flying career cut short by this struck a note with me.

I have loved flying aeroplanes ever since I went solo in 1957 and if wearing a bit of dayglo keeps me just a little bit safer and helps me to carry on flying privately then I will wear it happily even if a little bit reluctantly.

[A and C]

The HI-Vis thing Will have no efect in the day time and will only lul you into a false sence of security.

I speak as one who had NO hi-vis for 10 years on the ramp at LHR night and day for 10 years without incident. Then the first day that the H & S gods make me put one of these miracle anti accident vests on I come very close to getting run down as JSY at 0600 on a sunday (day light).

I think that after dark and in poor vis these things have there place but dont fool your self that on a nice day the hi-vis is worth the effort of putting it on.

I like the greek islands.......... real flying and no one gives a flying f**k about the H&S bull !!.

[pulse1]

JW411,

I can't speak for anyone else but my particular bit of "vitriol" is based on the Kemble requirement that ALL occupants of an aircraft have to wear dayglo. This at a place where most visiting aircraft park within a few yards of the gate. If you want to go off somewhere for the day you have to carry them around, a lot of inconvenience for no real benefit.

If you don't all wear them in the aircraft, in the time it takes to get everyone out and suitably clothed, you could be waiting for your coffee in the restaurant.

Anyway, I am not going to equip the aircraft with more than one jacket just so that I can go to Kemble (I know of nowhere else I am likely to go who has this ridiculous rule) so I guess it will be off limits for me.

[hoodie]

...got mowed down by a van on the ramp at Brussels one night. They were wearing black uniforms.

Horses for courses. Daylight (i.e. the great majority of the time) at a GA airfield is an entirely different situation.

One thing that grips me is seeing all these GA aircrew wearing the nice flammable bits of dayglo nylon when in the aircraft. Frankly, that seems a hazard they could do without.

[Twiddle]

Dropped into Kemble for go go juice, whereas normally you'd never notice, my eyes were fixated upon the piles of hi-viz's waiting for happy shoppers!

Not sure whether the marquee was left over from a wedding or a dayglo catwalk show?

[OVC002]

I am having difficulty trying to understand the vehemence and vitriol that is being expressed on this thread about the wearing of high visibility jackets.

At first I thought it was a bit of an imposition but my opinion got changed when three colleagues got mowed down by a van on the ramp at Brussels one night.

You are, of course, entitled to your view that the issue is relatively unimportant. I disagree. IMHO everyone should have the freedom to choose what works for them, provided it does not impinge upon others safety. I make safety decisions every time I go flying, and feel perfectly cabable of assessing the merits, or otherwise, of wearing Hi-Vis. It is very sad when people are hurt by machines, but, for me, this debate is about whether the loss of personal freedom is outweighed by the improvement, if any, in safety.

Given the tragedy you describe can happen to anyone, anywhere, at anytime, presumably you are an advocate of the compulsory wearing of Hi-Vis by everyone, everywhere, at all times.

[Aussie Andy]

I received a very nice email reply from the chaps at Kemble giving their perspective, and saying that they hope I will visit again. I have undertaken not to copy/paste the email here but suffice to say I think the issue has more to do with how they have communicated than what they intend, which seems not to be as draconian as the amended AIP entry makes it sound.

Anyway, I am very pleased with the responsiveness to my email and so, in a spirit of goodwill, I intend to call by for brunch and a chat on Saturday on my way down to the west country.

Andy :ok:

[wsmempson]

Are they asking you to wear a day-glo blouse.....?

Seriously though, I can see where this has come from, in this most litigious age. I can only hope that things calm down a bit over the next few months and this issue simply fades away.

Andy, I see you fly with BAFC where I learnt a few summes back. I've now bought G-AYIG which is northside; I'm trying to find some flying buddies in that part of the world, so let me know if you want to meet for a beer some time.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

This is a serious result of EU/UK HASW paranoia; coupled with the "I will sue the bum off you mentality". For this to be a serious expectation at an aerodrome is a sad reflection of the society we seem to have voted for.