Following an earlier thread which suggested that some aerodrome operators were insisting on Hi-viz vests being worn because "they had been told to". I contacted the CAA's Aerodrome Safety Department to ask about their policy.
I won't reproduce the correspondence here because it's quite long but this is the gist of it.
Firstly this is the CAA's position, the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) are also involved but I haven't been in contact with them.
CAA require the a/d operator to make a risk assessment and to devise a Safety Management System, which includes aerodrome rules.
Some of the requirements are contained in
CAP 642, Airside Safety Management. These do not include a requirement for Hi-vis clothing for pilots, nor does CAA ASD insist on it.
Now for my own commentary
If you feel that your a/d is imposing an unjustified rule get in touch with the Aerodrome Safety Committee (they're required to have one) and ask for a copy of the risk assessment pertaining to the rule. You should get a good justification or something you can argue with.
If the risk assessment has been properly done then the rules should be appropriate to the particular circumstances at the aerodrome. Something that's appropriate at Heathrow would not automatically be appropriate at Popham because the situation is entirely different.
If the rule is innappropriate then the risk assessment was faulty.
Risk assessments aren't about "is there a possibility?" but "is there a significant risk?"
If you cross the road there is a possibility that you might get knocked down, but if you are sensible the chances of it happening are low so it's an acceptable risk.
We all make a risk assessment every time we fly. I'm strictly a VFR pilot in a VFR airplane. If its a nice day I will go flying. There's a risk invovled but it is an acceptable risk. If it's a foul day with a massive crosswind I don't go flying, the risk is too high.
Unfortunately some people see it as an exercise in covering their backsides rather than one of making a judgement on the level of risk.
Comments?
Mike