High Viz Jackets - Mandatory at GA Airfields?

[Whopity]

IN the good old days we had Apprentices; they learned two things: Quality and Safety!

We did away with apprentices and invented Quality and Safety modules to fill the gap.

If you build a house without a foundation, it doesn't matter what you do afterwards, it still hasn't got a foundation!

[IO540]

In most occupations, certain personality types are drawn to the type of occupation.

So, the kind of people who will be drawn to H&S will tend to be the types who don't have much of a life of their own and like to live their life through manipulating the lives of others.

Plenty of examples of such people in daily life - outside any occupation.

These types also tend to be jealous of what they see as others having more interesting lives, which might explain their occassionally crude patronising behaviour towards their "subjects".

But the job will also attract specific personality traits e.g. somebody who fusses about seemingly trivial details. Unsuprising, because they don't have anything more interesting to do all day. It's a bit like some pilots debating some obscure article of the ANO :)

But IMHO the biggest problem with H&S is that it is very easy to do empire building. Ultimately however the blame for the ability of any department to build an empire is down to senior management, and I bet you that the airports who have the silliest yellow jacket policies also have the weakest and most out of touch management.

I don't think anybody has ever come up with an actual H&S reason for yellow jackets at GA airfields, and I doubt anybody would bother.

This is all a long way away from earthing electrics and fitting a flue to a boiler. These are not H&S issues; they are basic skills within the applicable professions.

[BabyBear]

'But the job will also attract specific personality traits e.g. somebody who fusses about seemingly trivial details. Unsuprising, because they don't have anything more interesting to do all day.'

Exactly the point I was making about those making a mountain out of hi viz vests. Maybe the very people that would excel in H&S roles?

[Fuji Abound]

A child cuts his finger at school – even though it is a minor cut, the teacher will send him to matron.

Most appliances these days have plugs fitted by the manufacturer – but if used in a place of work we insist on placing little labels on them to say they are safe.

We wear high viz. jackets because everyone working on or near a road does.

Why?

The lawyers will claim all these measures constitute best practice. If these measures have not been followed then someone is culpable.

The trouble is where does it end?

In Yachting Monthly this month the editor reports that some bright spark at H and S insisted a Topper dinghy should carry a life raft. For those of you that don’t know a Topper dingy is a singled handed craft about 3.5 metres long. The suggestion is preposterous but the proposal will only not come to pass as long as those involved have the courage to determine not to comply.

You will find a H and S case to support almost any additional measures. There must be a H and S case for not flying aircraft with one engine. That is why it is such a wonderful gravy train in a society in which we have become incapable of distinguishing between reasonable and unreasonable measures.

[Crash one]

Quote
'But the job will also attract specific personality traits e.g. somebody who fusses about seemingly trivial details. Unsuprising, because they don't have anything more interesting to do all day.'

Exactly the point I was making about those making a mountain out of hi viz vests. Maybe the very people that would excel in H&S roles? Unquote.

Babybear
You seem to picking selectively this trivial thing & suggesting that those who make mountains out of this are obviously in the wrong.
By the way I refuse to correct what I have just written if you think I have got some detail slightly incorrect.
As for how little I have in my life being my reason for "vicious attacks". What can I say? If I spend more tha 30sec on this keyboard it will prove I have bugger all else to do, If I don't answer I am obviously embarrased.
I don't really believe that you really agree with everything H&S stands for.
If you do then perhaps you should join them.

[Fuji Abound]

Here is the thing - demonstrate in each instance there is a reasonable H and S case to be met and you can implement your procedures.

Point me to the study demonstrating the safety case for wearing high viz jackets on the ramp and I will wear mine.

[BabyBear]

I am really tempted to say I already work for H&S, but it wouldn't be true.

You are absolutely right, I don't agree with everything H&S stands for, far from it, I do in fact agree with most of the criticism. I am, however, mindful of the benefit H&S has afforded us in the work place, in places of leisure, going about our daily business etc. and find it OTT to condemn all H&S due to the current inadequacies. Yes hi viz vests are a nuisance, uncomfortable etc., but the wearing of them really isn't the big deal this thread makes it out to be.

[Crash one]

I'm afraid the Hi Vis IS the big deal.
They are not particularly uncomfortable. They are not really inconvenient, I have two on the rear shelf in my a/c in case I cannot avoid wearing them.
What they are is a SYMBAL of control. They convey to others that the wearer NEEDS TO BE NOTICED because THE WEARER cannot look out for him/her self. They are a UNIFORM imposed upon us in a "democratic society" where the government has NO RIGHT to force us to wear a uniform.
If they had that right they would most certainly have exercised it by now.
The big deal is the fact that in most cases at small GA fields the bloody things do nothing to enhance safety, which is what this thread was about, all they do is give Moronic Jobsworth a reason to exist, & the more Moronic Jobsworth is the more he will make our lives a misery because he likes his job.
Next will come a specific design of Hi Vis costing aviation prices. Then the trousers to go with it. Then the safety boots, the crash hat, parachute, safety goggles, non slip paint on the apron, stone guard fencing, grass strips banned. Where do you think they will stop if no-one tries to put the brakes on.

[BabyBear]

It's back to the same old story of it being someone elses property, so they make the rules, as it should be. You call the shots in your castle, in relation to your aircraft etc. The mods call the shots here, dosesn't mean everyone agree with them. Where would society be if everyone made their own rules?

Just to reiterate, I don't agree with the vests.

[Windy Militant]

SYMBAL of control*.
Is that like the Trumpet of Doom. :}
If you don't like the vest, how's about one of these.


http://www.hivis.net/ProductImages/221_lg.jpg:ok:

[Crash one]

She would still look better without it!!

Babybear.
This is not a situation where "It's their property so they make the rules"
The RULES are dictated by faceless people devoid of any knowlege of where the rule will be applied. Then the Castle owner is told to enforce it or he will turn into a pumpkin overnight, so he goes along with it & employs the numpties to police it cos they are cheap.

[Windy Militant]

I meant the shirt! :ugh:

[BabyBear]

You are getting a bit silly now with castle owners etc.

My understanding of the vests is that it is the owner of each establishment that decides if they should be worn airside and that is why some require it, some don't.

[Crash one]

So did I!!

[BabyBear]

So those who make the rules are entitled to. Are you arguing that those visiting should be able to decide on what rules to comply with?

[Crash one]

If you go all the way back to the original post, the question was asked "is this mandatory at all airfields?" or words to that effect. In answer to that, "No"
It is not a case of everyone making up their own rules, it is a case of the quality & relevance or value of the rule. Is it necessary? will it improve things like safety? Will it be restrictive & how much? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[BabyBear]

Exactly, as I said in post 261, to which you responded: 'This is not a situation where "It's their property so they make the rules"'

That's exactly what it is.

[Crash one]

You guys can type faster than me.

Babybear Quote:
So those who make the rules are entitled to. Are you arguing that those visiting should be able to decide on what rules to comply with?

Point one. When did I say those who make the rules are entitled to?
& If you said it, then who gave "them" the entitlement?
Point two. When did I say those visiting should decide on >>>>>>>
Is this a wind up?
How clearly do I have to express MY opinion? YOU are entitled to follow rules a blindly as YOU wish.:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:
No wonder Chuck has dissapeared.
Edit: As for post 261 I would rather discuss the subject matter ofpost 262.

[BabyBear]

Chuck is still in bed, probably around 4am over there.

How can you question the right of the legal owners/operators to make the rules, irrespective of whether you agree with them? :ugh:

and

as for condoning not following the rules, then I am afraid that if it were my establishment you would be asked not to come back!

yeh, yeh, before you say it, I know, I know, you wouldn't want to be in my gaff in the first place.

[Crash one]

As I said "Is this a wind up?"

[Utfart]

she can wear my vest....or not :D I don't need one here.

[BabyBear]

Honestly don't know why you think it is a wind up.

[Jim59]

Just received a missive that High Viz Jackets will be mandatory at Nottingham...
Does this apply to all GA airfields now or has someone in authority got carried away with this?


The environment where one is most likely to encounter pedestrians on the manoeuvring area is at a gliding site. It is very unusual for glider pilots and their crew to wear hi-viz jackets, although sometimes they are given to visitors, and to people undertaking trial lessons, just to identify them as such to club members as needing careful supervision to ensure that they do not wander to places where they could be at risk. At one time we asked the launch marshals to wear them – again so everybody knew who they were (did not last for long…). They are also sometimes used during competitions to identify officials to the competitors, or for ‘rope-runners’ who are dashing after landing tugs to catch the rope and hook it onto the next glider.

In summary they are more often used as identifiers and only rarely to enhance safety as for rope-runners.

Incidentally the most common ‘interactions’ between gliders and people are:
· Walking into the trailing edges of wings, or into tail planes, that are at about eye level and almost impossible to see because they are thin and white.
· Wings bumping into the backs of stationary people when gliders are being turned around, usually because the person holding the wing is not looking in the right direction.
It’s hard to see how hi-vis clothing would help.

People present in the glider / tug landing area are usually obvious to pilots on approach from a long way back on final and, to be honest, I think that dark clothing makes them even more obvious. Landing into the sun is the most difficult case and then, again, I think black is best.

Is there an interpretation of this silly rule given by any of the aerodromes demanding hi-viz that states that they should be yellow/orange with white reflective panels? Could I get away with claiming that my black/dark clothing is actually my hi-viz and superior to the above in most situations on then manoeuvring area during daylight?

I would be more receptive to aerodromes that made them mandatory only during the hours between sunset and sunrise when their reflective qualities actually have a benefit. (I don’t have a night rating so that would not worry me!)

[Skin Friction]

The RAF seem quite happy for their expensively-trained aircrew to stride out to their flying machines in kit that's specifically designed to blend in with the background. And that's on a busy apron full of jets.
Yet you can fly from a civvy place that has 4 movements a day, with just 20 feet to walk to your a/c and still be expected to dress like a roadworker.

[rossi1]

during our last caa inspection we were ADVISED to make hi vis jackets mandatory when airside,we declined to take there advise,all visiting pilots are informed that hi vis jackets are not necessary when booking in and im yet to see anyone not to remove it straight away,our official take is (makes the place look like a building site)

[hotcloud]

Crash one - It is so refreshing to note that you have a pragmatic approach to life. You are so spot on, the high viz jacket has been forced apon us at some GA airfields and can be seen as the thin edge of the wedge, what next, pilots escorted by officials to the aircraft, CCTV in the aircraft. Far fetched? who would have thought a few years ago you could not say black coffee, today we have to say coffee without milk when working for the Public Service. H & S and political correctness have gone too far. Don't get me wrong I am all for safety, it's about education, not a nanny state. I am very mild mannered, but even I feel like rebelling against such nonsense.

I also agree that people who impose such nonsense, are petty and to improve their quality of life, make life miserable for the rest of us.

Feel much better now that I have got that off my chest.:)

[Crash one]

Babybear.
I have tried, unsuccesfully, to get my own & only my own views across to you.
In my Naval records is the report dated 1960 >> "Has a strong rebellious nature".
If a rule is in my opinion worth abiding by I will do so, I do not drive excessively fast, I do not spit in public, I do not get drunk & disorderly,
I do however carry a knife with a locking blade 3.1/8" long, for the purpose of opening the occasional bale of hay, or to remove boy scouts from horses hooves, stirring tea etc. I have been known to not wear a seatbelt while driving in the back roads, I have also driven in excess of the 60mph limit on straight stretches of said roads. So in answer to your questions, Yes I do make up my own rules, I have done so for much of my life, I shall continue to do so, & I shall continue to dissagree with those rules that I consider utter tripe. You may now recoil in horror at this madman if you so wish, whilst I get on with my life.
Edit:
Thank you Hotcloud, Viva the Revolution!!!!

Also, by the way, I fly a 1959 taildragger off a grass strip, and I set regional pressure even in the "circuit!" I will however set QFE for the Military if they ask. Wearing a Hi Vis on our field is likely to get you kicked off for scaring the wildlife.

[BabyBear]

Sure, I question the law, especially when it's some waste of fresh air that gets an inappropriate sentence for some hideous crime, I question the law and the ethics and morality of the lawyers that use technicalities to get their clients off that are clearly guilty. I also question a system that permits a convicted sex offender to sack his legal team 13 times to prevent sentencing within the permitted 12 month time period. Of course I do. However, the concept of each of us being totally responsible for setting our own rules is unworkable. Being unworkable responsibility for setting the rules has to rest somewhere and, for me, logic dictates it should be with the owners, operators, committee etc.

I find it interesting how many people view hi viz vests as a major issue; it really is not difficult to comply with, irrespective of whether you agree with them. I don't buy this is the thin edge of the wedge stuff, that is simply scare mongering. It is equally easy to argue not complying with something as simple as wearing a vest is the thin edge of the wedge of ignoring all rules & regs. I would suggest GA has many pressing issues more worthy of the time and energy.

Do I think you are a madman, probably not. Would I sit with you in a car, of course I would. Would I go flying with you, hell yes. Would I wear my hi viz vest, only if you asked me to.

[Mike Cross]

It would be great if people actually had an understanding of the subject. CAP 642, Airside Safety Management (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=139) contains useful advice.

It says
g) All push-back crew members should wear high visibility garments in compliance with current standards;

It also says
High-visibility clothing
6.9.8 Irrespective of other measures that are taken to provide a safe environment for personnel working in airside areas, all personnel who will be working outside (i.e. on foot) on the movement area should wear high-visibility clothing.

It also suggests Hi-Viz when operating in freezing conditions and requires contractors working airside to be properly briefed.

People who require everyone to wear hi-viz at small GA airfields with limited airside vehicular traffic demonstrate an inadequate knowledge of the requirements, and their own inability to manage risk.

[hotcloud]

Baby bear - I disagree with you, I believe the requirement to wear high viz jackets at GA airfields is the thin edge of the wedge. If people do not express their concerns the authorities (e.g airfield managers) will impose even more excessive rules if they can get away with it, after all, you can use the H & S aurgument for almost anything. Therefore I do not think the issue of high viz jackets is minor, indeed it is a point of principle.

The Myers Briggs test identifies personality types, most pilots have a similair personality type, unfortunately can be at odds with those that implement H & S policy. If we simply complied with every wish, flying today would be a nightmare, there has to be a certain amont of friction to enable the authorities to see matters from our point of view. Come on, you must have met those types that relish the thought of imposing more rules to control us, I don't want to live in a cotton wool society, I would rather use my own judgement operating under sensible rules and if anyone breaks them, then they should be dealt with accordingly.

[wsmempson]

I still think that this is the way to go with High-Vis clothing....

HQ Sacha Baron Cohen/Borat Pictures: Borat In Cannes (http://www.celebritywonder.com/event/Borat_In_Cannes/Borat1_020606.html)

[KandiFloss]

:D Fab! This should be compulsory wear for all men at airfields ... especially when worn with the pilot shades!

[Crash one]

Babybear

EGPH 101058Z 1012/1112 30008KT 9999 SCT040 PROB30 TEMPO 1100/1106 4000 BR TEMPO 1107/1112 8000 -RA PROB40 TEMPO 1109/1112 BKN012

Don't you have something better to do than rabbet on about trivia?

[BabyBear]

Is that an invite to join you in your tail dragger?

[Crash one]

No problem as long as you dont mind crunching over the piles of broken rules!

[BabyBear]

Cool with the broken rules, will let you know next time I am in the Edinburgh area, probably 1st week in April.:)

ps

what did you crash?:eek:

[Crash one]

what did you crash?http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gif

Wrong again.
If you ever need something with the callsign "Crash one" you will be in the ****.

[Crash one]

Babybear
Check yr PMs