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