The Dreaded Hi-viz vest

[poetpilot]

Went down to Barton today.

Apparently, the CAA recently recommended that all personnel airside should wear hi-viz vests and so it's been implemented - much to the disgust of all concerned - especially the students, who've all had to fork out and buy one.

So, does that mean that every trial lesson punter that comes along has to buy a hi-viz vest?

What constitutes Hi-viz? If I wear a yellow or orange t-shirt, in ordinary daytime conditions I'm every bit as conspicuous as the next hi-viz person. And in 35 years of airside aviation activities, i've never been hit by a taxiing aircraft. And neither has anyone else at Barton.

This isn't going to stop me walking into a moving propellor though is it (though I suppose it will make my bits more visible to pick up off the apron)?

The world has gone stark staring, cover-its-a**e, insurance company-driven, politically correct, jobsworth, Barking Mad.

How soon before we need one to venture out of our front doors?

How long before I have to buy one for my dog?

Why can't a respectable, comfortable hi-viz vest be made? One that could possibly double for a fashion item?

GGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
:\ :\ :mad:

[pilotwolf]

Hmmm....

Inclined to agree - at least in part.

I regulary work on the motorway and high speed roads - won't be seen without a high viz jacket. Also regularly work airside at LGW - usually with the protection of a high viz vehicle with various flashing lights - still always wear high viz. It's clearly in the (?)bylaws or MDIs for LGW and within my service protocols too.

At the end of the day it might only mean they know which service I work for when scraping the bits up! But unfortunately the crunch is... if I don't make every effort to be seen then the insurance payout WILL be reduced as I would be considered to have contributed to my own demise...

In my previous service we had an officer killed in a road traffic accident - his wife lost 25% of the insurance payout as it was ruled he contributed to his fatal injuries by not wearing a seatbelt.

Besides when you consider the cost of a jacket is under £10.00 - what percentage is that of your overall flying costs - and it never goes out of date...

As to what constitues a High Viz jacket depends on where you intend using it! Not sure which catagory an airfield fits - thing theyare based on type of road on which they will be worn...

[Gertrude the Wombat]

So, does that mean that every trial lesson punter that comes along has to buy a hi-viz vest? Uh? Doesn't the school have a dozen of them on a hook by the door onto the tarmac?

[poetpilot]

gertrude, the layout just ain't like that at Barton!

Airside is not secure and cannot be made secure because there are other businesses on the field who have operated for years and will not be told what to do.

Barton's an original airfield from a time when pilots and groundies alike somehow (I really don't know how) had the sense to realise that noisy things with propellors on the end bit you. And pilots, strangely enough, somehow inherently knew that these strange creatures walking upright on 2 legs were called h-u-m-a-n-s, and were to be avoided.

It seemed to work. I can't understand why though :rolleyes:

[Flyin'Dutch']

PP,

Way of the world these days, I am afraid to say!

They are uncomfortable and do nothing for you street cred.

ISTR that we recently had another thread on this and it was put eloquently that pedestrians had to give way to the aeroplanes and if not we would be worse off in any case.

So far got away with not wearing one but think that it will not last for much longer.

Although I think they are b:mad:x I don't think I can get to head up about it either. Just chuck one in the back of your mount and see how long you can leave it in the wrapper!

FD

[knobbygb]

From the recent club newsletter, the same has apparently been decreed at Sherburn. I haven't been down there since, so I don't know if people are actaully taking notice, but I really hope not. Anyone been recently?

No - the jackets are not expensive, not particularly uncomfortable, but also completley unnecessary! I could understand this if there had been an accident, or even a very slight chance of a near miss even, but as far as I am aware there has been no such incident to prompt this. Perhaps when the shorter nights come and we resume night flying there may then be an excuse.

Anyway, I won't ne wearing one, and if I'm challenged too often, will take my £80/hour elsewhere. Sorry, because this probably isn't the clubs fault, but it's them that will lose out. Perhaps more of us should make a stand on this kind of thing instead of just moaning.

Does anybody have a copy of the CAA recommendation? I'd like to get hold of the study/recearch they've done (if any) to back this up. Just how many lives per year do they predict it'll save? And how much did it cost?

[niknak]

:rolleyes: See and be seen:rolleyes:

They cost very little, can be seen for miles, and are very effective, and if it means someone doesn't have to waste time and money treating your injuries cos' you're a member of the "It'll never happen to me club", I'm all for it.

[Spitoon]

I've worked airside at a large airport and I'm quite happy to wear a yellow vest. It's not so much that I want to be clearly seen by pilots, it's the drivers that scare the willies out of me!

[parris50]

Seems to me that it's a simple precaution, doesn't cost much and might just save you some day without you even knowing it. Is is so important to be chic when going airside?

[MLS-12D]

By all means; truly an excellent idea, and those who think otherwise are irresponsible, reckless reactionary fools who have no business at a dangerous place like an aerodrome.

But why stop here ... let's go one better and mandate the wearing of helmets (http://www.hockeygiant.com/it85comhoche1.html), gloves (http://www.thepenaltybox.com/chris3015hoc.html) and collarbone protectors (http://www.thesportsauthority.com/product/index.jsp?productId=504216). And of course, lace-up footwear is potentially unsafe and should be banned.

Perhaps we should also prohibit the actual flying of those nasty, noisy, environmentally-unfriendly private airplanes. MS Flight Simulator is good enough, and much safer.

knobbygb, hang your head in shame! There is no need for proper risk analysis; as there is the merest chance of perhaps, possibly, maybe saving one human life, we must act now!!!

You just can't be too careful!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[matspart3]

CAP642 Airside Safety Management is the document, Chapter 2 page 2 Section 3.6 refers

We're currently giving them away free at Gloucestershire Airport!!

[High Wing Drifter]

Read in this morning's Metro about a high wire performer who had to wear a hard hat for "Health and Safety" reasons. A Brussles thing apparently.

[Bodie]

Some people just moan about everything. Out great British tradition. Just wear the bl00dy hi vis and shut up.

[Mike Cross]

matspart3

CAP642
The advice and guidance in this document is best described as ‘Accepted Good Practice’ and represents an acceptable way of doing things. It illustrates how risks
might be identified and provides advice about how airside safety can be placed within the context of a systematic and structured management approach – a Safety Management System. It is impossible to guarantee that adherence to the guidance in
this document will always satisfy all regulatory requirements under all possible circumstances nor will it guarantee safety. This is simply because service providers (at every level) themselves are ultimately responsible for deciding on the appropriateness and applicability of any particular safety arrangements with respect to their own specific circumstances and for monitoring the suitability and success of the arrangements.

It is an advisory document and not prescriptive. It is targeted primarily at large airports and deals in large part with the hazards of airside vehicles and contractors plant.

Even so I can find no requirement for wearing Hi-vis clothing other than by push-back crew, and a reference to a requirement to ensure that contractors should be made to adhere to airport regulations if these require the wearing of hi-vis clothing.

That said, I carry a vest in the back of the aircraft and would wear it if I felt it advisable in any particular circumstances. Walking around the apron at night, in the rain, in poor visibility, with vehicles whizzing about being driven by drivers wearing clothing that reflects off their windscreen and makes it difficult to see out might be such a circumstance.

I fly in fine weather in daylight from small fields with few or no airside vehicles.

There is an insidious creeping malaise where people cover their backsides by making rules that have no relevance but are put in place because it is a requires a lot less thought to implement the rule than it does to carry out and record a proper risk assessment. If you want to make a rule it should be on the basis of a proper risk assessment. Anything less devalues the entire process.

Mike

[witchdoctor]

Amazing that these same idiots protesting loudly against the wearing of hi viz vests are also probably those who are totally anal about safety in the air, and complain incessantly about the lack of airmanship of others or the horrible risks they experience at the hands of 'incompetent' ATC sevices. Would be interesting to check their post histories for safety related stories.

You can only imagine how truly dangerous these kn#bs must be if they take the same attitude into the air with them. No transponder operating even though fitted. No contact made with ATC unless they absolutely have to. No anti-collision lights operating. Failing to maintain correct altitudes.

Of course, I'm just being silly because none of these are an imposition on their precious human rights. These things are obviously done as they are required by law, or the CAA has provided the individual concerned with a full beakdown of the statistical research in the area, so of course they are happy to comply.

Ever heard of risk assessment people? It is something most responsible organisations do to minimise risk where possible, and it shouldn't require a history of accidents in a particular area to trigger it off.

Personally, I reckon the single biggest safety improvement possible is to ban turkeys like you from airfields altogether, hi viz jackets or not.

[rotorboater]

I always keep one in my nav bag, it folds up quite small and is no hassle to carry all the time.
If you have to wear it you may think you look like a pratt but if you land somewhere without one and they insist on Hi Viz they send somebody out to your aircraft and 'escort' you to and from your aircraft, then you really do look like a Pratt;)

[Bodie]

True rotorboater. Not only that, but at Sheffield city, if you don't have a High Vis they charge you £5 per escort, so that's £5 to the terminal then £5 back to the plane!

[knobbygb]

"protesting loudly against the wearing of hi viz vests" doesn't really give a true picture though. I own such a vest already, and wear it where I consider appropriate (twice so far), so I'm not 'anti-vest', just pro-choice.

The airfields I usually fly to and from are generally small grass fields with one or two aircraft manouvering at any one time. As with Mike C, I fly only in fine weather, and am trained to know where not to stand/walk around these a/c. I do not let any passengers out of arms reach while walking around airside and always give a brief about propellors first.

The arguments above (witchdoctor) (I can't decide if some or all of the post is in jest actually) do hold water to a certain extent but could equally be applied to the crash helmets etc. hinted at by MLS-12D :uhoh:

Any recommendations about wearing hi-viz clothing have probably been in place for a long time yet there are a lot of very clever, well trained and highly experienced pilots on airfields all over the world who have made an informed decision that it isn't always necessary.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

True rotorboater. Not only that, but at Sheffield city, if you don't have a High Vis they charge you £5 per escort, so that's £5 to the terminal then £5 back to the plane!

So that makes it Ok then, Bodie? Proves it's 'A Good Thing'?

There may be locations where these bin-man's jackets are appropriate. Barton ain't one of them.

SSD

[poetpilot]

Interesting responses ;)

Just for the record, I've had a lightweight hiviz vest in my flight bag since 1993. I use it at times and in places where it is a positive aid to safety, not an excuse for a jobsworth to play games of "those are the rules". It's also orange rather than yellow. So I stick out and make myself more visible.

I also take safety airisde and in the air VERY seriously. That's how I've managed to fly for so many years without incurring the wrath of ATCs, CFIs, airport official, etc. Spotless record on that score, thank you. Both my a/c are fitted with txponders & VHFs and I USE THEM.

They key point is that this another blanket directive imposed by authorities & bodies who are scared s:mad: less about liability - yet, as pointed out, I don't recall any cases in GA where lack of a hi viz garment has resulted in a death or injury.

A pilot who failed to notice a two-legged being in his forward field of vision whilst on the ground airside should arguably first go and see an optician and then perhaps gracefully hang up his/her flying boots and take up building airfix kits.

Another recent thread complained about overactive A/G radio emanating from the tower at Barton. Arguably, all these things accumulate to the point where the bureaucratic clutter is so magnified that people WILL start having lapses - because everything is so uniform and regulated.

As I said before, take this to its logical conclusion and we will all have to wear hi-viz to step outside our front doors. Arguably, the car driver/pedestrian mix is a much bigger threat to personal safety. Ooops - better not give the Brusselcrats any good ideas

:8

[Mike Cross]

withdoctor
idiots protesting loudly against the wearing of hi viz vests
I don't think they are protesting about wearing them, I certainly am not. The objection seems to be more about the arbitrary imposition of rules which are out of proportion to the perceived risk and cause inconvenience to users.

These same "idiots", having undergone a syllabus of training and having passed their examinations, are considered by the CAA fit persons to command an aircraft and make decisions on the safe conduct of flight.

If they put a great big fence around the airside at Popham with a security gate, restricted access, and made everyone be escorted to and from aircraft it would be totally out of proportion to the actual risk. Doing the same at Southampton by contrast is sensible.

Personally, I reckon the single biggest safety improvement possible is to ban turkeys like you from airfields altogether, hi viz jackets or not.
Well of course if we banned flying altogether it would eliminate the risk of aircraft accidents.

Could we try to elevate the standard of this debate? Name-calling is never likely to win an argument.

Mike

[Bodie]

Shaggy Sheep Driver

I was merely stating a fact.

Anyway I haven’t heard you give a reason why they aren’t appropriate at Barton.

[poetpilot]

Bodie...

I stated a reason why they are not appropriate at barton before. Please check that post.

[Bodie]

Apparently, the CAA recently recommended that all personnel airside should wear hi-viz vests and so it's been implemented - much to the disgust of all concerned - especially the students, who've all had to fork out and buy one.

They don't have to buy one. If you had checked with the flying school, you will have noticed there are some people can use. Mind you I can see your point - having to "fork out" all of £4 must break the bank for students who can afford £95/hr for a lesson.


So, does that mean that every trial lesson punter that comes along has to buy a hi-viz vest?

Again check your facts. There are around 15 high vis jackets for trial lessons (and their families if they would like to be escorted airside to take pics etc)

What constitutes Hi-viz? If I wear a yellow or orange t-shirt, in ordinary daytime conditions I'm every bit as conspicuous as the next hi-viz person.

So you wear Luminous shirts do you? Nice fashion sense. Its probably easier to impose rules to wear these jackets than to argue these inane petty points with people.

And in 35 years of airside aviation activities, i've never been hit by a taxiing aircraft. And neither has anyone else at Barton.

No, doesnt mean it wont ever happen though does it? My house hasn’t burnt down, not any of my neighbours, so lets get rid of our local fire service shall we?

This isn't going to stop me walking into a moving propeller though is it (though I suppose it will make my bits more visible to pick up off the apron)?

Please don't let it STOP you, will you?

The world has gone stark staring, cover-its-a**e, insurance company-driven, politically correct, jobsworth, Barking Mad.

Its a claim culture. I bet you've claimed whip lash in an accident or something like that, giving rise to these stupid rules in the first place because the insurance companies are paying out so much money, this is their way or clawing some back.

How long before I have to buy one for my dog?

Only when on the apron please.

Why can't a respectable, comfortable hi-viz vest be made? One that could possibly double for a fashion item?

For a man that already seems to own a Luminous shirt, fashion sense isn’t really a problem. They are comfortable, I wore one yesterday for 4hrs without issue.

GGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Impression of your dog being killed by a propeller whilst not wearing a high vis vest?

[Canadian Luscombe]

I venture some comments with trepidation, since people seem to have very strong views on this subject!
Some people just moan about everything. Our great British tradition.Yes, that's probably why "Britain stood alone" during the Second World War! Surely, Bodie, you are not suggesting that people should unquestioningly accept whatever "the authorities" tell them to do?
Just wear the bl00dy hi vis and shut up.Not a very pleasant or constructive suggestion, I'm afraid. Perhaps a brief review of some Dale Carnagie principles might be in order:
#2: Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say "You're wrong".
#4 Begin in a friendly way.
#8 Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view.
#9 Be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desires.P.S. For whatever it may be worth, I have never seen anyone wearing any high visibility clothing at small airports here in North America, and we don't seem to have any problems.

[Mike Cross]

Anyone know how many attended the PFA Rally at Kemble? More people and aircraft than at any other airfield in the UK bar none, and all with airside access.

Some of them weren't even aircrew!

Was it dangerous without high-vis vests?

Just a thought......:E

Mike

[poetpilot]

Bodie, I pity you. Take your personal frustrations out on me if it really helps. Otherwise go and get some help (& don't forget your luminous jacket).

Ridiculing me for exposing a ridiculous culture shows you up, not me.

No, I've NEVER made a claim up. Because I'm quite a safe person, I've never had a crunch in a car, therefore have never had to claim or manufacture a claim for insurance. From the sound of it, Bodie seems to think that we all go round claiming for everything. If that's the case, maybe he has, therefore maybe has contributed to this culture.

Points about the USA are very well made. Claim culture is rife there, they invented it. Yet at GA airfields you do not have to wear a HVV.

I repeat the general observation - the over-regulation culture is becoming ever more pervasive.

If it's not fought against, then the grip slowly tightens and we get to the point where we meekly accept every petty rule that tells us when to breathe in and when to breathe out - just because some erk behind a desk in Whitehall, Kingsway or Brussels has had to think of a new rule today.

I am all for safety but I'm all against loss of personal responsibility and personal freedom.

[Bodie]

Canadian Luscombe
I'll take your comments tongue and cheek manner as my posts so obviously are. Even PoetPilot can see I'm ridiculing him. Mind you, my American friends tell me that Canadians don't have a sense of humour.

[poetpilot]

Ah, a windup merchant. Is it raining where you are Bodie ? :cool:

Tell you what - I'm wearing mine to Tesco's car park today. It's maniacal there.:p

[Dave Gittins]

Hmmmmmmmmm ............ certainly provoked some suprisingly dogmatic responses.

I work in the construction industry where hi-viz (as defined by a particular British Standard for reflectivity and so on) is mandated by most sizeable employers and recommended by the HSE, just like hard hats and toe-tectors and goggles and gloves and other things.

Hi-viz started in construction about 20 years ago and provoked much the same reaction as some of those less willing have displayed here. After a while it became accepted and now putting on a high viz vest is as unconscious a reaction as scratching your nuts.

I flew at Barton for a few years (not in the last three or so) and I wholly sympathise with the difficulties where so many aeroplanes, businesses and vehicles .... as well as people just getting to non-aviation business .... are co-mingled. However if I were to the runway side of the tower I would probably wear high viz because it's now become part of my flying culture too. I am delighted that ther have been no accidents and I hope it stays that way forever.

(My recollection is that the last aircraft/person accident report I read was at Manchester (??) with a marshaller who was wearing Hi-Viz - the accident was unrelated to his visibility but a misinterpreted hand signal).

I worked airside at Luton for a couple of years where the biggest hazard was likely to be the shuttle buses and baggage carts but high viz is certainly mandatory and second nature and I wouldn't have been without it. (Downside is that in the terminal the SLF ask you silly questions)

I now have to wear hi-viz at Fairoaks (which in all honesty isn't a bad thing as our aeroplanes are outside the clubhouse but on the opposite side of the taxiway) and because I keep the waistcoat on in the aeroplane also wore it at Sandown the other day (where I did feel rather conspicuous !!!) where with a total lack of other traffic it was certainly un-necessary.

What the British Safety Council/ HSE / CAA can prove about the improvement in statistics in any industry with the use of HV I don't know - but I'll ask my safety man and perhaps report back.

From my point of view - any unnecessary risk eliminated is the better and I will always wear my vest - even changing a tyre or cutting my hedge on a pavement-less road is bloody dangerous sometimes.

What I think I can say with certainty is ... Stand On Me - in 5 years time, you won't even be able to tramp round your own grass strip without wearing a hi-viz vest.

The possibility that it might save you some day makes it worth it in my book and the downside (other than wounded dignities decrying their lack of personal choice) seems so marginal as hardly to be worth worrying about.

Am I becoming over sensitive or are these forums becoming less polite than before ?? .... I don't think such vilification of a poor defenceless Poet is justified .... I am with Dale Carnegie and Canadian Luscombe - it didn't read tongue in cheek to me - still its PPRuNe not a literary society.

DGG

[maggioneato]

It seems that no one is allowed an opinion , it just ends up one big argument, not a discussion. For what it's worth, I gather the makers of these hi viz contraptions assume women don't need to wear them, just try to buy one that fastens on the other side. I have one in my bag, If a particular airfield insists it's worn, so be it, who cares what it looks like. Bet if they made them with Pilot written on the back, everyone would wear them to go out in. :rolleyes:

[Wide-Body]

Bodie

If you intended to write humorous sarcasm, it did not come across as intended. It looks as though you took an arrogant pill before typing. Hi-viz jackets have their place; I always wear one on the ramp. Lots of trucks and baggage carts out to get you. Not many run over by aircraft. Although seems more common for people to walk/drive into the aircraft. (Paint all a/c Day-Glo!).

On my grass airfield their worth is greatly over valued. If the CAA stated all pilots to wear bone domes I would take the edict more seriously. Just look at how many pilots have died through head injuries. Perhaps the empasis is not placed in the correct direction. Even though I wear a bone dome myself (Yak 52/Chippy), it is personal choice. The decision to wear should be left to the idividuals own risk assesment.

Regards

Wide

:hmm:

[Dave Gittins]

Maggie... you are most likely right.

When I had an airside badge at Luton ("..must be worn at chest height and with name, photograph and job title clearly visible ...") I'd have killed to get one of the nice stripey ones with AIRCREW on, instead of my construction one.

DGG

[poetpilot]

Dave G, no sweat - I've had far worse insults than Bodie's in my time! And it IS pprune, that's the nature of the beast, and the beasties that inhabit it . :p

The fun way to protest would seem to be to introduce humour & individualism onto the <spit> vests (I claim no credit whatsoever for this idea, it's come up elsewhere on a List in a galaxy far, far away...).

Does anyone know who the manufacturers of high viz fabrics are? Note: NOT the ugly garments, the fabrics.

**********************************

Wide Body has a damn good point.

Bodie, hopefully you DO wear your NATO safety bonedome in your spamcan?

Seriously, there is very good evidence in AAIB reports to suggest that lives can be saved if occupants of ALL light aircraft wear a safety helmet.

Just running into a hedge at touchdown speed, or a flip over on landing, can cause serious head injuries. Just because a bonedome in a 152 looks stupid, doesn't mean to say we shouldnt be wearing one. The RAF do/did in their basic trainers.

On this basis,the CAA could be saving lives and doing a proper job by focussing on where the real dangers lie, as evidenced by accident statistics.

[MLS-12D]

Oh no, I hope that we don't go down the route of requiring government-certified helmets!

Personally, I have a hard-shell aviation helmet that I wear occasionally (whenever it seems prudent), but I would hate to have Big Brother step in and tell me that I MUST wear it all the time. Especially since they would no doubt require extensive (i.e., expensive) certification tests that would increase the already high prices; and the standards would almost certainly be constantly revised, thus forcing you to periodically buy a new helmet. I can afford to buy a high-vis vest (unnecessary though they are), but I really can't shell out for a helmet every three years or so. :sad:

[maggioneato]

When skid lids were made compulsary for mopeds, it was considered they looked stupid, now they have been accepted and are the norm and no one thinks anything of them. Maybe one day, bone domes might be introduced for flying light aircraft, then you can all have a gripe about that. Maybe we are all too concerned about our street cred. Poet, don't know the manufactures name of dayglo fabrics, but there's plenty of it in the shops. Are you going to have a hi-viz made to measure? :cool:

[poetpilot]

Maggie, no not for me, I would kill any idea of fashion no matter what I was wearing. :} But as an opportunist I shall explore the commercial possibilities of high-viz garments ! I may moan, but I don't look opportunities in the face and turn away :8 Why not get your sewing machine out and we could miwwionaires this time next year Wodney...

[windsock9]

Self preservation

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

I seem to remember that the CAA recommendation came about after a pilot was killed during his walkround by a drunken airside vehicle driver (Manchester or Liverpool?).

Personally, I echo the sentiments of some above; have one and use some common sense as to where and when to wear it.

[Bodie]

Poet

I'm afraid that my head is full to bursting with sarcastic remarks, and that I am unable to find a Bonedome to fit.

[paulo]

Wide Body has got my vote.

Anyone got a documented accident report where hi-viz vests may have helped (somewhere near zero?)

Any idea how many accident reports mention head injuries (clue: lots).

If certain wearable are to be made mandatory, then surely you start with the highest benefit item? If not, then it's just random rule making.

And the cost argument about helmets just doesn't wash - if a 16 year old moped rider can manage to spend a few tenners on a BS approved helmet, I'm sure we all could do the same in pursuit of our indulgent hobby.

It doesn't have to be a special aviation design standard (i.e silly price), in the same way that the NPPL leverages a driving based medical standard.

[ModernDinosaur]

Most of my flying is at grass airfields. Grass is green. My high-viz jacket is yellow/green. I can see people in black T-shirts (in daytime, obviously!) more easily than I can see the people in high-viz jackets.

Different story on tarmac and at night, though. Perhaps one size doesn't fit all after all...

MD.

[poetpilot]

Bodie, it's snot that you can't find one to fit.

It's your eyesight that's been ruined by gazing at Hi Viz garments.
A bit like losing your night vision, only more dangerous, 'cos it happens in daylight.

I recommend lying down in a darkened room, let your eyesight settle down a bit, then you'll be able to locate and try on a helmet that will fit you.

Alternatively, I have a pot of Isopon resin in the garage, which, when mixed with hardener and poured over one's head will provide a guaranteed tailormade fit. Just make sure you get a comprehensive No.1 haircut and a liberal dusting of chalk dust before we try it
:O

Bit of verbal sparring never hurts. No hard feelings Bodie, hopefully mutual?
:ok:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I wear a helmet in the Chippy out of choice. I bought it for use when doing vigorous aeros in the Yak 52 and needed something to stop my headset flying off. It has the added advantage of giving some bonce protection should I need it. But compulsory? Never!

Just think how many car occupants would be saved from death if helmets were compulsory for drivers and passengers. Far, far more than the same rule for aeroplanes would save. Will it happen? No!

Just to illustrate how daft these safety rules can be, and the double standards that apply, I remember a cycleway that opened in Bristol a few years ago. It used part of a railway trackbed where the track had been lifted and tarmac layed instead. Trouble was, one track, a way off to the side, was still in use, once a day, by a very slow goods train. So the local authority decreed that the cycleway must not be used until a substantial and very expensive fence between it and the railway line had been erected along the entire length.

What a load of bol*cks! It was quite OK to cycle along any main road in Bristol, with massive HGVs raising the hairs on your legs as they thundered past, mere inches away, steered by humans subject to all the distractions, tiredness, and stupidity that humans suffer. Yet a slow and easily seen train, several yards away, steered by its rails so it ain't going to veer off course, and which appeared once a day at the same time, was considered an unnacceptable threat to the safety of cyclists.

Please don't just accept that because someone has made out a safety case for implementing protective measures, that such measures are in the least realistic in proportion to the actual risk.

SSD

[poetpilot]

SSD and myself can be found holding a protest sit-in, in front of the Tower at Barton.

We're the two ageing hippies. The Little & Large of the aviation world.;)

Oh, by the way, we promise to use Hi-Viz placards protesting our case. Just in case any pilots don't spot us. :E


(this post has been dumbed down to satisfy our aviation insurers & the CAA. Any aggressive comments will be removed in case they result in permanent disability or injury to third parties. No civil servants were harmed in the making of this thread)

[gingernut]

Weighing it up in terms of cost/benefit, (yes I know I'm beginning to sound like them), it will be a bit of a pain obtaining/remembering said item, but at the end of the day, its not really going to spoil our fun that much, is it ?

Just for the record, a dog has been killed at Barton, decapitated by a prop. many years ago, so I've been told.

[poetpilot]

Yep. 90% correct. It was actually killed by the then CFI after it had walked into the prop. He finished it off with his gun. So I've been told.

I believe though, the dog went for the propellor of a stationery aircraft, rather than the pilot not seeing the dog.

There is no evidence to suggest that if the canine had been wearing a HVV it would have been any less badly injured. Certainly the HVV would not have protected it from the CFI's gun.




:ooh:

[flyingwelshman]

All,

Come into this discussion a bit late..... but after scanning though the posts, there seams to be some discussion as to when/where/how there has been/could have been an acciddent.

Surely the point of wearing a hiviz vest to prevent.... if there hasnt been an accident in the past, then great! Lets make sure we dont have one in the future!

Its the same argument that people give for buying a bulglar alarm.... "well we have never been robbed before so why do we need one??????......"

Unltimatly, and unfortuantly, there is normally a first time - we can always try to postpone that occasion. Wearing a hiviz vest whilst airside, outside the aircraft, does not hamper your flying experiance - so be safe!

Proactive not reactive.

Be safe lovely people.

FW

[2Donkeys]

Great Logic there Welshman

The argument against Yellow Jackets has been that "there has never been an accident in the UK in living memory, on an airfield, that would have been prevented by one party or another wearing a Yellow Jacket"

For your burglar alarm argument to stand up to scrutiny, I would need to be attempting to sell you an alarm when not one house in the UK had ever been burgled.

Now do you see? ;)

2D

[flyingwelshman]

2D

Hmmm I do see your point, and it is of cource correct, but although there has yet to be an incedent - would you not agree that there is an apparent risk there?

The vest is cheap (relative to most things aviation), simple, and not difficult to use - if one vest, saves one life, would that not be a good thing?

FW

[2Donkeys]

I carry yellow vest(s) on board so I have no particular argument here.

There is no safety case for them, based on any kind of real risk assessment though - it just feels like a smart thing to do.

It falls into a similar category to those who refuse to fly in IMC outside controlled airspace without a radar service. It feels like it might be dangerous to do, but the statistics do not yield a single case of a mid-air under such circumstances in the last 10 years.

2D

[slim_slag]

2D, Not following you honest, but a better analogy to flying IMC with no radar might be walking around on the ramp with your eyes shut and earplugs in (and the pilots of all the aircraft doing the same)

[Boing_737]

Although I haven't got one yet, I have to say that they are a good idea - it only takes one person to get mashed by a prop and all the liability insurance will go through the roof, and we'll all get another 20-30 quid on an hours hire:{

On a lighter note, maybe the planes should be made more visible. I was taxiing in with my instructor when a spotter was walking out on the line, head pointed straight up in the air looking at the circuit. Strange how he didn't notice the large object with a thrashing noisy prop on it - he did however when we put the brakes on and gave it few more revs:}

[C172Navigator]

Hi vis jackets don't protect you, common sense and awareness do that - the very things your mother taught you from the day you were born. The insistance on wearing of these things is another reason for us to switch off, stop thinking and become ruled by legislation.

I work offshore in the north sea on a combined drilling and production rig. Our working environment is extremenly controlled, so much so that knives are currently being banned on the worksite - and I bet you thought the offshore people are rough and tough hardy types egh?

We need to push back on this monstrous pressure, otherwise when will it stop? I am very much for safety, I wish to come home from work or days flying in the same shape I went out but do little things like a yellow vest make it safer? Of course not.

So, less reliance on artificial protectionism and a bit more common sense and we'll all lead a long and safe life.

Happy flying. :ok:

[WelshFlyer]

Isn't it a legal requirement to wear one of the dreaded hi-vis vests? at Caernarfon you'll get a "Strong telling off" (I know the censor will kick in, so i'm not even going to try!!)

Over at Mona they seem pretty relaxed about it - nobody walks around airside with a hi-viz vest on. (which just goes to show, there are still some sensible people around!)

WelshFlyer.

[rotorboater]

I was at Caernarven, Barton and Wolverhamton this weekend and nobody even mentioned I was supposed to be wearing HI Viz, I wouldn't have minded even if they had. The only people that did have any on were the staff and it's a good way to spot them. By the way they were all very friendly, especially Wolverhampton space port:O

[paulo]

Rotor - It's not Wolverhampton spaceport, it's Wolverhampton Inter-galactic (Business) spaceport. - :D

(Must be the airfield equivelent of club member turning up with four bars... ;) )

[windsock9]

These yellow jackets have been way overdue at barton. Its about time it was made a rule to wear one airside, besides most other airfields require pilots to wear them so presumably everyone already owns one. :ok:

[EastMids]

We all switch the rotating beacons / anti coll on when we start our airplanes and use it on the ground... Supposedly those beacons are there to make the airplanes more visible, though I seriously doubt that there's ever been anyone seriously harmed by an airplane JUST because it didn't have its rotating beacon flashing. And yet we don't complain about that...

Don't understand what all the fuss is about... These jackets are not expensive, they are not particularly uncomfortable, and "street cred" is hardly important in comparison to other issues when airside anywhere.

Andy

[QNH 1013]

I am not convinced that a good safety case has been made for wearing his-vis vests on the apron. However, no-one seems to have mentioned the real disadvantages:

When I am looking for a marshaller it used to be so easy; I would just look for a high-vis jacket, and it was all so easy. Now, I have to decide which of the many high-vis jacket wearers' is the marshaller. This cannot be done so quickly as before, or at such a long range.

In the event of a serious accident or incident, similarly, time could be wasted deciding which of the high-vis jacket wearers was the incident controller.

Do you see what I am getting at? By making their wear compulsary, you loose valuable information.

I refuse to wear a high-vis vest when hand starting the engine. Loose clothing is simply an unacceptable risk.

I remember when high vis vests were introduced on British Railways in the 1960's. There was a very good reason for their introduction which may not be obvious to those of you who have never worked on the track..... It is apparent that the train cannot swerve around anyone on the track so the person on the track has to get out of the way of the train. So why would a high-vis jacket help? The answer is simple: You cannot hear a high-speed train coming until it is almost upon you. The driver will always sound his horn (100 dB plus) whenever he sees anyone on or near the track and wearing high-vis vests enables him to see you at a far greater distance, and therefore give an earlier warning.

Now, compare this to the situation on an airport apron.... Aircraft are moving very slowly and can turn or stop well within the distance they see to be clear. Pilots should also have no difficulty in seeing anyone at risk without needing high-vis vests, certainly in daylight. (I'll consider the hours of darkness case later).

Even after the introduction of the high-vis vests on British Railways we were killing an average of one employee a fortnight on the tracks. (We didn't count the number of trespassers killed because of the unique nature of British Railways). So you can see there was a real safety issue to be solved, unlike the aviation case.

Unfortunately, at least three railwaymen were killed as a result of wearing high-vis vests until the vests were modified.

Now, lets consider the darkness case. A fluorescent jacket is of no help in darkness. There simply isn't any Ultra-Violet energy around to make it fluoress. What you need in the dark is a reflective jacket to make you more visible, otherwise you are better off just wearing light clothing.

For simplicity I have left out the poor visibility (fog, rain) cases and the above is much simplified, but I do not believe there are any safety grounds for insisting on their universal use on the apron. There may be other valid reasons for their use, but please do not confuse these with safety isssues.

I have spent much of my life trying to find the safest ways of "getting the job done" and believe me it isn't ever as simple as it seems. What seem like simple obvious safety measures can sometimes actually increase the risk to life and limb. However, they are often rather good at deflecting the blame elsewhere.

The question has to be; do you really want to make the working environment as safe as possible, or are you just looking for the easy way out?

[WelshFlyer]

Unless, like my hi-vis vest, it has reflective stripes on it. I personally don't agree with hi-viz vests - I mean, when an a/c is taxing, it's going at little more than walking speed. and on a takeoff run some daft idiot standing in the middle of the runway would get mashed by the prop hi-viz vest or not.

Hi-vis vests are pointless in Private Aviation.

WelshFlyer.

[Blind lemon]

After visiting the PFA rally this year where aircraft and pedestrians mixed freely without a high viz vest any where to be seen, it does make you wonder how neccessary they are.

Maybe in future we will have to paint all aircraft in Day-glo so when parked up they dont get run into either.

As a throw away comment will passing pedestrians crossing active runways on public footways at airfields such as Clacton and Little Gransden need to don such garb aswell. I think not.

Its just another nail in the coffin.

[WelshFlyer]

Well, just to inject some humor, Pink_aviator would probably be up for painting her aircraft in Dayglo pink!

[poetpilot]

Well at least she will stand out. The way things are going, everything will be yellow, then we are back to the starting point again :{

[gingernut]

Hang on, the then Chief CFI shot the dog with his gun !

Am I missing something here ?

What was he doing with a gun ??

[pilotwolf]

Well, if you don't give enough thought/effort/expense! to your own safety thats your choice... maybe you'll consider the feelings of the person who genuinely didn't see you in your dark t-shirt and black jeans... after all you won't have to wash the bits of body of the prop will you?

People seem unable to spot 4 tonne of ambulance with 30 odd flashing lights and a 110 decibel siren.. never mind I m sure that they will see you 5 - 6' and about 2 square metres...

You pay your money, (or not as the case maybe), and you take your chance....

Anyway I m just p****d off cos I went to Gloucester today and didn't get my free issue... ;)

[bluskis]

East Mids

I thought we switched the rotating beacon on on the ground to indicate we were live and dangerous, not so people could tell we were an aeroplane, but an active one.

HiViz jackets in the day time are probably being enforced at some larger airports so security can distinguish that some one who is wearing one belongs, and someone who isnt doesnt.

In poor winter weather and at night then they probably have a valid safety effect.

[Mike Cross]

Flyer are having a competition for wording to go on the back of Hi-Vis Vests that they are intending to produce.

If you have a point to make you have the opportunity to do so here (http://www.flyer.co.uk/yellowjackets/) :D

Mike

[Circuit Basher]

Excellent, Mike!!

My entry's in - I think the number of people wearing these on aprons would reduce dramatically if they used my suggestion!! ;) ;)

[A and C]

I worked for the best part of 15 years on the ramp at LHR without one of these day-glo vests and did not have a problem night or day.

The very first time I was forced to put one of these things on I was nearly run down by a van at JER in day light and the van was the only thing on the airfield moving ! , I am only writing this now due to the quick reactions of fast eddie my captain on the day in question.............the day-glo vest was of no help what so ever in protecting me from the idiot in the van who was clearly not looking were he was going.

High vis vests are worth having on a dirty night on the ramp when it is p1ssing with rain and visibility is poor but in normal daylight all they do is give the owner a faulse sence of security and MUCH more important give the safety officers ( people who cant do a real job ) a get out if somethng goes wrong.

Remember ..... common sence is your greatest safety aid not stupid catch all regulations and bit of bright green cloth.

[Vfrpilotpb]

The majority of the people who are moaning and bitching about Hi Viz jackets/vests seem to be doing so because of a cost thing, surely this is a safety thing for the benefit of you the wearer and you the donkey who may cause some sort of hazard to anything that is moving, be it Helicopter, aircraft or vehicle, it is mandatory at Blackpool and not once have I heard anyone bitch about it.

If it makes safety 1% better then do it, you know it makes sense Rodney!!:ok:

[Megaton]

Right, let's get this into perspective. On a bright, clear day, a high-vis is almost certainly not going to help you. At dusk, dawn or in poor vis, a vest may help. I run an organization of about 80 engineers operating a small fleet of jets. I have now mandated that vests are only to be worn in conditions of low vis or when decreed by me or my deputy. I'm not particularly keen on a loose, flappy vest so I would rather not wear one myself when working around aircraft.

Most accidents in my organization occur when people walk into aircraft not the other way round. Maybe we should paint dayglo all over the jets......mmmmm now there's an idea for the H & S dweebs.

[Northern Highflyer]

Would be safer to design a hat with a rotating beacon on the top and make us wear them instead. Then we would be seen day and night. Different colours for Pilots, Marshallers, etc, and if we all switched them on in the clubhouse afterwards we would have an instant disco.

Just a thought :p :hmm:

[inaspin]

Why not go another step like Sywell, not only hi-viz jackets,
but erect 8 foot fencing with key code gates. Then keep the codes a secret, no-one gets near the planes, neither pilots or joe public, no planes flying, no accidents. PROBLEM SOLVED.

[Max AirFactor]

Probably OTT at many airfields, but the requirement has necessitated my £9.99 purchase.

On the plus side, if you go down you can wave it at the search & rescue chopper. If you have a rep car put it on the back shelf and pretend to be a traffic cop. You can move parking cones without question. Kids love to wear it with a Bob the Builder hard hat. You can blag your way in past the air cadets at airshows. Put it on your Labrador and get the best seats at sporting events. If you don't think this is a Tenner well spent, look out for nearly new surplus vests with the designer tag 'Connex' since the demise of their franchise.

MAF

[paulo]

VFR - Taking a pillow on a flight could have all sorts of safety uses, therefore anyone who doesn't take a pillow isn't taking safety seriously. :p :p

[big.al]

Why not wear your day-glo vest and a bum-bag and stand outside large venues such as pop concerts, footy matches etc, and collect parking fees at the car park. Everyone will think you're legit and the money can pay for an extra few hours of flying....;)

[poetpilot]

...especially if you have "Acme Car Parks " scawled over aforesaid HVV......

...or "Road Crew" - could make friends with the groupies then :O

[LTNman]

Taking safety a little too far? Even the passengers at LTN are wearing vests http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/767worldtour/luton/luton95.jpg
http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/767worldtour/luton/luton106.jpg

[knobbygb]

:D :D :D

Verry funny. Much to my dismay, my airfield has introduced a hi-viz vest policy. Look aout for the above photo appearing on the notice board soon. Anyone like to suggest a caption?

[poetpilot]

It's happening at Liverpool too !

http://www.poetpilot.com/images/scousers.jpg

[Circuit Basher]

So which one's BRL ??

;) :D

[Hairyplane]

Come on guys - you've caused Witchy to 'fly off the handle' (boom boom!!).

He feels passionate about it so thats that. Can I please ask anybody who knows Witchy Woo to give us the low down on him.

Does he really really wear one always? Is there any dirt on him? Does he always set his transponder?

I think you've made a 'rod for your own back' (boom boom again!)
now Witchy because you simply daren't be seen ever, without one.

We are watching! The spies are out there!

I have some pretty loud hats and shirts but no high viz vest I'm afraid....

Do aerodromes enforce this vest thing these days?

My personal view ithat they will be of some benefit during the dark or in poor weather. However, I have never, in 27 years held a night rating. If the weather is cr@ppola, I'm in the Rub a Dub.

HP

[peg20]

This contentious issue seems very easy to resolve to me. I don't have strong opinions either way. The only reason I wouldn't wear one is because I am lazy. So here are my arguments:

If the use of HV jackets gives any potential safety improvement or not, then their low cost pretty much makes the entire issue a no-brainer.

On the other hand, it is quite possible that their use DECREASES safety. If it promotes complacency, then even if they do avoid some accidents due to increased visibility, they could increase the occurance of accidents due to people not taking due care.

It seems a bit like seatbelts in cars to me: IIRC, when they were introduced, the number of deaths in car accidents decreased. But the number of accidents actually increased. The idea of attaching a large metal spike to the steering wheel may well actually have the exact opposite effect...

[Windy Militant]

I've had some what of an epiphany over HI Vis vests after seeing a lass cycling into work wearing Very short shorts a mesh Hi Vis and not a lot else. As for safety, I certainly noticed her! But nearly crashed the car because I had noticed her:eek: :mad: :uhoh:
A vison of delight, she certainly perked me up this morning;)

[poetpilot]

So was that classed as a a Hi Vest Viz then Windy ?

[Windy Militant]

I'd say more of a short sweet sneak peek ;)

[Rwy in Sight]

I fail to see why people don't like to wear a HI-VIZ vest. The cost is minimal and even just a life is saved it offsets the cost of thousands of vests.


Rwy in Sight

[Boing_737]

Maybe if they had Nike written on them..........

or maybe they should do a "waxed jacket" version ;)

[ModernDinosaur]

Rwy in Sight commented:
I fail to see why people don't like to wear a HI-VIZ vest. The cost is minimal and even just a life is saved it offsets the cost of thousands of vests.
I think the point most people are making is that by forcing people to wear a HiViz in all circumstances, you might actually make the situation less safe and cause the death. How? Well, just because it's called HiViz doesn't automatically mean you're highly visible. That requires contrast. Consider wearing a yellow/green HiViz on a grass airfield in front of a yellow plane. Where is the contrast between green, green/yellow and yellow? There isn't any - so you are NOT visible, even though you're wearing a HiViz.

There is a second, even more invidious way a HiViz might cause a death. Joe Pilot is walking about the airfield wearing his HiViz thinking everything is alright, he's visible so no-one will hit him as he walks into a propellor or steps out in front of a car. That's the problem with all enforced safety measures - it makes people think they're invincible, so their own (in)actions make them less safe because they're not thinking about safety.

Don't get me wrong, I think HiViz jackets are a very useful aid to safety in appropriate circumstances. At night they are good, although as they rely on reflecting light, an aircraft taxying without a landing/taxi light won't see you. As a result I always use a torch as well as wearing a HiViz when airside at night. On a bright sunny day against tarmac, HiViz are of questionable use - very good at identifying the legitimate people from the intruders, but not much use at making you visible. On a bright sunny day at a grass airfield I maintain that HiViz are dangerous.

Interesting little anecdote: I refuse to wear a HiViz on sunny days at my home (grass) airfield despite the "rules" that ATC have imposed. Sometimes I get shouted at by ATC for this "transgression" - but only on the days when I'm wearing a black shirt which contrasts nicely with the white aeroplane and the green grass. They ALWAYS ignore me on the days when I'm wearing a white shirt - perhaps they haven't seen me. ATC also usually ignore the people who take the short-cut across the (active) runway wearing a HiViz, but get very animated about the ones wearing street-clothes. Perhaps they haven't seen the ones wearing HiViz jackets ;)

Safety isn't wearing a HiViz, it's about thinking and acting appropriately. Sometimes that means wearing a HiViz, sometimes it means not wearing one.

MD.

[LowNSlow]

MD with you entirely on

Safety isn't wearing a HiViz, it's about thinking and acting appropriately. Sometimes that means wearing a HiViz, sometimes it means not wearing one.

I work in the oil industry which is one of the most safety concious buisinesses around. Although hardharts, steel toecapped boots and safety glasses are a requirement pretty much everywhere you go outside the office, there is a lot of time and money spent educating people into THINKING about safety in all their actions.

Forcing people to wear hiviz vests in the average GA environment is a ridiculous step which is being justified by completely spurious "safety" arguments. Strangely enough, when people are manouvering an expensive (usually) aircraft around they pay a damn sight more attention to what's around them than they do whilst driving a car. People wandering around airfields who have just flown in there either know aeroplanes really hurt or they are with somebody (the pilot) who does and should have told them so.

[pilotwolf]

Well I m happy...

I got my freebie from Gloucester yesterday!

:ok:

[topcat450]

I saw somewhere that one airfield had a £10 landing fee if you didn't wear one....and a £5 one if you did wear one...that's the best incentive you can give most pilots.

Tell them they'll save a fiver by wearing one on the walk from the a/c to the cafe....or rather....it'll cost them a fiver NOT to wear one...I imagine a lot of folks would start wearing them then.

(but I agree...getting folks to pay attention & think would be better)

[SKYYACHT]

......So there I was, airside at my local airfield prepping my aeroplane, sans dreaded Hi-Viz......350m from nearest taxiway, on grass, and near the fence. Club house window is hurled open, and red ravaged face of club manager pokes out.....

"Oi, Skyyacht.......telephone"

I curtail prepping activities, and enter clubhouse.....pick up the phone....

Me: "Hello"
Voice: (In vexed tone) "Is that the Pilot preflighting November X-Ray?"
Me: "Yes, why?"
Voice: "You're not wearing your high viz jacket!"
Me: "Who is this?"
Voice: "The Tower"
Me: "How do you know I'm not wearing a high viz jacket?"
Voice: (now starting to rant) "I can bloody well see you man!"
Me: "If you can see me from the tower, (800+ metres way) why should I need to wear it?"
Voice: "Expletive deleted.....!)

Me: Smiling, walks back to the aeroplane!

True? a Joke? Could this have happened?

Make your own minds up!

Blue skies!


:ok:

[poetpilot]

Wonderful.


Perhaps someone should also explain to him (the Air Traffic Man) that a flapping ungainly hi-viz vest is a danger to life and limb whilst clambering around an aeroplane. Can get caught on all sorts of things.

I wonder if there's a case for sueing the airport/CAA should a calamitous injury arise (far more likely IMHO than being clouted by a light aeroplane).

Though, as an old CFI once told me, "no aeroplane is light if it hits you".

[strake]

Strake has decided that Strake can no longer ignore HI-VIZ requirement at SND.
However, Strake is damned if Strake will wear vest. Strake will wear HI-VIZ belt a la motorcycle......

[LowNSlow]

As I mentioned on a previous thread about these damned vests, I think I'll take to wearing my offshore nomex overalls in eye searing orange (easier to spot if you fall in the oggin) and see if anybody asks me to wear a hiviz vest then.

SKYYACHT it does sound awfully believable.....

topcat450 if the fiver differential was explained to me whilst at the fuel pumps say, before strolling to the clubhouse, I would be VERY tempted to get back into the old aeroplane and disappear into the wild blue yonder and let the airfield look up my address on G-INFO and send me an invoice.

I've managed to work in some extremely hostile environments over the 30 years I've spent in gainful employment without the need for nannying and I deeply resent having silly rules imposed upon me by unthinking numpties. Rant mode OFF.

PS Having a flapping vest on while hand starting an aeroplane is a REALLY smart thing to do :hmm:

[Floppy Link]

Pity the poor air2000 cabin crew...

our girls and boys have recently been issued with a shocking new pink uniform.
They still have to wear hi-viz vests, even though it reduces their conspicuity!!:D

http://www.firstchoice.co.uk/images/uploaded/air2000crew200x163.jpg

[fireflybob]

I am not against the use of high vis vests but to insist of having to do so at somewhere like Barton seems to be bureacracy gone mad.

Contrast this with the situation at a Midlands GA airfield several years ago where planning permission was given to build a new housing estate just off the end of the runway on the climbout requiring a climbing turn at about 100 ft agl now!! This despite a public enquiry and objections raised by the aerodrome operator.

Why do the authorities go overboard on high vis vests and yet are quite happy to ignore other factors which carry a much greater potential risk to the safety of pilots and the public?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Why do the authorities go overboard on high vis vests and yet are quite happy to ignore other factors which carry a much greater potential risk to the safety of pilots and the public?

I'm not sure it was 'The Authorities' (ie CAA or HSE) that insisted on bin-man's jackets at Barton. That daft missive might have come from elsewhere (please let me know if you know different).

There are some folks with very odd ideas about. The problems arise when they get into a postion of power foist their silly ideas onto other people.

SSD

[poetpilot]

SSD, as I understand it from A Horses Mouth (mind you, with my ageing eyes it could have been the other end of the Horse), the missive arose out of an airfield inspection by the CAA. They "recommended" that hi viz vests should be worn. The Committee in their wisdom took this to mean that they MUST be worn.

On another point - Runway 02 has had to be be effectively shortened because same CAA airfield inspection noted that the proximity of the airfield land maintenance shed is too close to the existing threshold. It's only been there for zillions of years, with absolutely no problem at all.

Sounds like an over -zealous jobsworth has been at it (but interesting that this is all starting to occur now that Peel own the land? I wonder if someone is "tipping the wink" to higher authorities that Barton is somehow not operating in a pukka way? Far be it for me to be paranoid but.......

[Onan the Clumsy]

Very funny thread...but you're all being serious...right?

I have to say that that's one thing I do enjoy about living in the US, they often have a much simpler approach to life. In England, you give a chap a uniform and he instantly turns into Hitler. It doesn't really happen over here. Must be the pioneer spirit or something.


I just wish they'd understand irony a little better.

[knobbygb]

PoetPilot, I don't think it's specifically Peel having it in for Barton. I just got a letter back from 'the powers that be' at Sherburn explaining that the rule was brought in after a CAA inspection. They (both the CAA and Special Branch apparently) were worried about the "lack of demarkation between airside and landside" - so it seems it's another case of such daft rules being based on 'security' rather than safety, i.e. anybody in yellow/green 'uniform' must be official.

Looks like the same CAA inspector got straight on the M62 after he'd visited you lot.

Interestingly, the letter also said:To date, the idea of wearing the vests has been welcomed, yours being the only adverse comment received
Well, I've spoke to a few fellow polits at the club who all think it's a daft rule, but none, it seems, have been willing to make any effort. Just shows that the typical British habit of moaning to ones peers but not actually doing anything about the situation is alive and well. I'd suggest anyone who's unhappy makes their views known now. After all, if the CAA are worried about "airside demarcation" you can be sure that the same CAA inspector and/or Special Branch officer will be visiting VERY SOON recommending security fences, CCTV systems and ID cards. Just a thought. :ugh:

[poetpilot]

Good points Knobby. Maybe there is a case for us pilots putting forward an alternative proposal to make airside more secure - but (and I'm trying not to moan, but just being realistically cynical) it would all be a waste of energy, since no matter how intelligent and constructive our proposals, we are dealing with a civil service organisation. In addition, because we in GA are such a bunch of individuals, getting consensus and organising counter proposals would be a severe challenge even to King Solomon.

Anyone who has worked inside one of these animals (civil service organisation, not one of the flying vet's patients) knows what they are like - they do not respond to logic or common sense & react against counter proposals in a generally officious and overbearing manner. I could quote many examples (but I have signed a piece of paper once that means I can't, otherwise they would have to shoot me).

So, as it stands, some erk in the CAA believes that no potential terrorist would be seen dead wearing a H V V.

I would have thought that these days, there are more people in all walks of life wearing the wretched things than not wearing them, therefore it must be considered de rigeur for Osama to be sporting one when he turns up at Steeple Bumstead airstrip to wreak havoc on the local church steeple.

"Sorry Sir, but you are not permitted airside carrying a suspicious package without a Hi Viz Vest"

"oooooh, so sorry, effendi..... <fishes in bag, pulls out yellow garment from amongst grenades, rocket launchers and circular object with "Bomb" written on it> .... I have one just heeeree..."

"That's fine Sir, Have a nice day, and don't touch any propellors"

:E

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

One Barton pilot I spoke to at the weekend (neither of were in bin-man's jackets) said he'd ignore the missive. The Barton apron is apparently a public road (according to him), and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Barton mafia.

SSD

[poetpilot]

He's spot on SSD. The joiner's business round by the fuel pumps has to have access for itself & customers, which necessitates going airside. There are probably other aspects of the Barton site which could possibly be proved to public rights of way (from what I remember).

The fact that the general public has up to now had and exercised access around these areas establishes use and basically knocks any Committee missives into the sewage farm where they belong (the missives, if not the Committee).

There was a member of the Committee when I was doing my service in the mid nineties, who had a pathological hatred of any non club members accessing any part of the airfield - particularly if they ran a business on the field. Not sure if he's still on the Committee or just forgotten but mouldering away in the committee room...

...But, just to redress the balance a little, if I were a Committee member now with a million other things on my plate, I might just think twice about fighting the CAA.

However, I might also just want to communicate things a bit better to the members who elected me there in the first place...

[Evo]

Flyer are having a competition for wording to go on the back of Hi-Vis Vests that they are intending to produce.

If you have a point to make you have the opportunity to do so here (http://www.flyer.co.uk/yellowjackets/)


So who won then...? :)

[Circuit Basher]

Evo - just had an email containing piccies of the winning entries, which I've uploaded here (http://groups.msn.com/CircuitBasher/funnies.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=125). According to my friend, apparently there were two winners - one under the "Spread the Word" category, and the more amusing one under the "Protest This Nanny State" banner :)

Seems like they didn't go with my entries of "Don't speak to this end" and "Does my ar$e look big in this?" !! :D

[Kolibear]

I've decided that like it or not, H-V vests are here to stay, so I've succumbed to the inevitable and bought one. It cost £5.29 inc VAT.

Can anyone buy one cheaper? And I don't mean 'borrow-on-long-term-loan-fron-ones-employer' either!!

[IanSeager]

Here are the two winners Evo, sorry you didn't win

http://www.tempix.flyer.co.uk/tempix/combine.jpg

Ian

[Evo]

Well looks like CB got the @rse bit right :)

[cubflyer]

I like the Flyer winner, but really it should say "I'm wearing this because someone else thinks its covering their @rse"

Interesting discussion, at least the majority of people on here still seem to have some sense and see these damn things for what they are- completely irrelevant for GA flying. Yes, they might be relevant for busy airfields with a lot of vehicle traffic during Low Visibility Procedures, but not on a nice day when most of us go flying for fun.
To those of you who say if it might increase safety by .001% so I think we should wear them, I hope you live the rest of your life like this. I presume you never take your hi-viz jacket off as it is far more dangerous to cross the road or walk in the carpark than to walk around airside at most airfields. And you better wear it inside your car too, there is after all the chance that the colour will wake up some daydreaming driver who is about to have a head on collision with you.

Its nothing to do with cost, not wanting to wear these things, its the principle of not doing something just because someone somewhere has thought it is a good idea and has made it a recommendation without thinking it through. Then many other people without the gumption to question it have just blindly implemented an irrelevant recommendation as their rule. Why do you want to accept everything in this "nanny State" attitude?

I am sure that some of these CAA inspectors doing their audits have a list of trivial things to write in their report, hi viz jackets is one of them, its not that its important, it just that its something that fills the report, shows their bosses they are doing something and is also easy for the airfield to do, so they can show they are complying to the nice man from the CAA and he can show his bosses that the aifields are doing what he says.

Why doesnt the CAA inspector see that this is a nonsence?- he doesnt care, he is just doing his job, and it doesnt affect him. He has to wear one anyway, his bosses make sure of that.

Why doesnt the airfield manager protest to the CAA? It doesnt really affect him, he probably hardly goes airside and it doesnt cost himany money. More importantly why complain about this when he can show the CAA that he is complying with their recommendations, then they might be more sympathetic with him when he doesnt comply with some other recommendations which do cost him money and do affect him.

So the only way for us to win is to protest to the CAA ourselves, why arent we doing this instead of moaning about it on this forum?? Who do I need to write to??


I have to wear one of these at work, it started a few years ago for Low Viz procedures only, then obviously the legal dept or Health and safety dept had nothing better to do but made us wear them all of the time airside. The airport authorities are paranoid about it too. Its interesting that at Glasgow they wont let you airside from the security if you havent got the jacket on, "Safety you know Sir" but they dont bother clearing the snow and slush from the walkways!! Ive been chased by the airport manager at Guernsey a couple of years ago as we walked to the aircraft, two flightcrew wearing our hi viz jacket, but not the two cabin crew with us, he made them stop and put them on to continue the 10m to the aircraft parked about 20m from the building! Hasnt he got anything better to do?? As usual the passengers soon appeared wandering all over the ramp on their way to the aircraft, no hi viz jackets for them!!
It is interesting at airports abroad, all our staff have their hi viz jackets, but no one else does.


Some people are saying that these jackets are required on the majority of airfields, I don think that is true, the vast majority I fly to Ive had no trouble walking around with no hi viz jacket, on most of them I havent seen anyone else wearing one either. But then again I dont tend to fly into big airfields with airline traffic, I have enough of that at work.

remember flying is supposed to be fun!

[WelshFlyer]

Why doesnt the airfield manager protest to the CAA? It doesnt really affect him, he probably hardly goes airside and it doesnt cost himany money. More importantly why complain about this when he can show the CAA that he is complying with their recommendations, then they might be more sympathetic with him when he doesnt comply with some other recommendations which do cost him money and do affect him.

I think that's a load of rubbish. At my local airfield the manager goes flying every day almost, and he wears one of these dammned things, and makes everyone else wear them as well.

Much as I don't like these things, and if I had my way, no one would "Have" to wear one, at a busy airfield there are some pretty big applications for these things. And I don't mean mopping up spilt avgas.

If it is dawn or dusk for example, they suddenly become very useful. If you are wearing a green flightsuit and standing on a grass taxiway, they make you stand out.

Well, that's my second lot of two penneth:)

WF.

[PPRuNe Radar]

If I gotta wear one, then I may as well make a statement !!!

Just ordered a Flyer ar*e one !! :)

[Whirlybird]

Kolibear,
I've got a source of high viz vests at three for a fiver.:ok: However, I'm not telling you where, as I'm selling them to raise money for the Blue Cross for my camel trek. I've been getting over £10 for them on Ebay. The good news is I'll sell them to any PPRuNers at £5.00 plus £1.00 p & p. The bad news for any large size people is that I only have size Medium left. :( PM me for an address to send the money if you want one, anyone.

[niknak]

If I could be bothered,

I'd willingly pay for a batch of 500 to be produced with the logo "It'll never happen to me me" on the back, with each vest I'd include a photograph of a dead engineering colleague who was minced up by a prop by a pilot who willingly admits that had the individual being wearing hi - viz clothing, he would have seen him.

This occurred at a small, G/A aerodrome, please explain the difference. :rolleyes:

[Rwy in Sight]

I read on the paper today that Hi-Viz vests are required to be carried on cars on Italy to be worn if there is an emergency (flat tyre, engine trouble) by the car driver on the road at night.

It seems that the Italian adminstration laid out some rules regarding the design of those jackets that are meant to eliminate most of the companies they are making these vests. But this is a whole different story.

Any comments...


Rwy in Sight

[fireflybob]

Must confess I have not read the entirety of this thread but I wondered what they do in the USA where there is far more activity than in the UK. Are they required to wear HiViz jackets there?

If not, what would the reaction be from GA in the USA if HiViz jackets became a requirement?

[Pigasus27]

Nik nak - did it never occur to your friend to get out of the way? In my experience, aeroplanes are quite noisy.........

[aiglon]

I don't know about getting out of the way but ....

who willingly admits that had the individual being wearing hi - viz clothing, he would have seen him

.. frankly this is feeble. If it was that dark that he couldn't see your mate then maybe he shouldn't have been going flying! More like he wasn't looking - in which case a helmet with an anti collision beacon on top probably wouldn't have helped, never mind a hi viz vest. When will people take responsibility for their actions.

Aiglon

[chrisbl]

Interesting thread and all the comments seem petulant to me.

Whilst everyone is saying that the hi-viz vest is not a good idea are they also saying its a bad idea too.

It strikes me that many on this thread object to the handheld mobile laws starting tomorrow.

The issue is very simple. Someone somewhere is looking to sue someone else. Any excuse to sue will be given and any weakness in the behaviour of the someone being sued will be used against them.

Now airfields are by their own admission dangerous places. Every airfield I have been to says so.

Not to take precautions that are considered normal today is pretty stupid. The goal posts have moved and it makes sense to move with them whether you like it or not.

I wear a high viz vest on the airfield, I wear one at work most days anyway (construction), for me it just a continuation of thinking in a safe frame of mind. Not just for my safety but of others.

Bit like those idiots who delay switching on their headlights saying "I can see OK". The point of putting the headlights on is to be seen.

end of rant

[IO540]

I am late into this long thread, but hi-vis vests are 99% about "due diligence" in case of a liability claim.

Litigation, spurious or not, is the 2nd biggest issue (after achieving sales targets :O ) of most businesses with a large public profile.

[Mike Cross]

Chrisbl

I have no objection to wearing hi-viz. I carry one and wear it where necessary.

What gets my goat is when the rule is made without good cause.

Safety is about risk management. You assess the risk and take precautions where required.

In making safety rules about things that carry low levels of risk you can lose sight of the real dangers in a sea of petifogging bureaucracy.

The increased level of risk to a pilot walking to his aircraft on the average GA field without a waistcoat compared to with one is probably immeasurably small. I can't think of a single reported incident of an accident in such circumstances that would have been prevented by hi-viz clothing.

Where people make rules based on covering their backides rather than on the basis of a proper assessment of the risk they do the cause of safety no good at all.

Mike

[Keef]

I think I should wear my hi-viz vest in bed.

Bed's a dangerous place - most people die there - so I want all the safety I can get.

[IO540]

Keef

A bed is also where most accidents happen...

[niknak]

I invented the day - glow condom, unfortunately the stitching around the arm holes kept giving way, the rest is history.....:p

[bar shaker]

The situation in the US is far worse. You are compelled to wear a ridiculous Hi Viz baseball cap.

The only redeeming consession is that you are allowed to shoot anyone that looks like they will run you over.

http://www.supercub.org/albums/supercubs/cly.sized.jpg

[Onan the Clumsy]

Are they about to throw that duck through the propellor? :confused:

[fireflybob]

Perhaps we should all come up with the hazards or WEARING a HiViz Jacket!!

Here's one from me:-

Whilst hand swinging the Velcro fastening might come undo causing said jecket to become entangled with (now rotating) prop thereby causing death or severe injury to hand swinger.

By the way, where/how can I buy the jackets with the rude comments on the back - if I HAVE to wear one its going to have a message on it!!

[Final 3 Greens]

Maybe we have the solution to the hoary old problem of 'invisible' gliders.......

Make their pilots wear hi vis jackets in flight ;)

Its the kind of solution that our beaurocrats would love...

- funded by the complyee
- a great PR story
- can be done today - a quick win

and

of :mad: use whatsoever ...... so a definite winner

[bcfc]

fireflybob, here's the Flyer mag offering.

FLYER Accessories (http://www.flyer.co.uk/shop/department.php?Submit=Accessories&department=5)