High Viz Jackets - Mandatory at GA Airfields?

[fireflybob]

Just received a missive that High Viz Jackets will be mandatory at Nottingham (thats the original Tollerton, EGBN - NOT EMA!) from this Saturday 31st March 2007 due to an edict from the CAA.

Does this apply to all GA airfields now or has someone in authority got carried away with this?

I realise that employers have a duty of care to their employees etc but is the wearing of high viz vests at a small GA airfield mandatory? I can understand the value of wearing same at a major airport with lots of vehicles etc on the ramp but I do feel this is overkill at small GA fields!

[cal368]

Been like this at Cumbernauld for a couple of years now. Nonsense in my opinion. When I pop up to Perth back and forth there seems to be wholesale disgust at the entire Hi-Viz mentality. Quite refreshing to me, but it still doesn't stop me leaving it on out of habit anyway. I'm afraid it's the start of a slippery slope that will end up with mandatory wearing of Hi-Viz for all :(

[Chuck Ellsworth]

That is just a sneaky way for those in the rules making business to get you programmed to do as we say, for when the cavity search with a hand on each shoulder rule is implimented.

Its all about getting you compliant so they can really have their way with you.

Enjoy. :ugh:

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Not this one again.

B o r i n g.

Pick up a jacket from the peg as you go airside, put it back on the peg when you get back. Hardly a big deal. Anyone who can get themselves worked up about this is surely not stable enough to deserve a pilot's licence, yes?

[BroomstickPilot]

No, but it's the principle of the thing, Gertrude.

Broomstick

[Chuck Ellsworth]

No, but it's the principle of the thing, Gertrude.

Exactly, rules made for the sake of rules with no credible need for same is only dumming down the industry.

How many people have been run over on the ramp because they weren't wearing a high vis jacket?

Anyone who can get themselves worked up about this is surely not stable enough to deserve a pilot's licence, yes?

I must be unstable then, so you better revoke all my licenses.

[Mike Cross]

Suggesting it's a CAA requirement is b@ll@cks.

It's mandated in CAP 642 Airside Safety Management (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=139)(or rather it's not mandated as CAP 642 is guidance and says "should" rather than "must").

Here are some references
g) All push-back crew members should wear high visibility garments in compliance with current standards;
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.
4 Precautions in Freezing Conditions
Winter weather brings extra hazards which require awareness and more care on the part of personnel working on the aprons, if accidents are to be avoided. Simple precautions that can reduce accident risks should be taken as follows:.....
f) High visibility clothing should be worn in accordance with current instructions.

Mike

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Pick up a jacket from the peg as you go airside, put it back on the peg when you get back. Hardly a big deal.

I'll bear that in mind if I fly in over the summer. Err, but how do I get to the peg from air-side?

Good time to have shares in a see-me suit business, I think.

[BEagle]

'Should' is only a recommendation, NOT a mandatory requirement.

You wear a stupid yellow road-digger's coat ONLY to cover someone else's arse!

I hate the bloody things with a vengence!

[False Capture]

Whenever I'm told I must wear a hi-viz jacket I follow the letter of the law and I do exactly that.

Sometimes I wear it inside-out, sometimes I wear it back-to-front, sometimes I wear it upside-down, sometimes I wear it with one arm in and one arm out, etc, etc.

If I'm going to look like an idiot in a hi-viz jacket then at least I'll look like a piss-taking idiot.:ok:

[TheGorrilla]

False Capture, Sometimes I wear a condom too, beliving that it will make me safe!!!!

[False Capture]

TheGorrilla, would that be one of those liminous/hi-viz condoms?

[TheGorrilla]

False Capture, there's normally at least one dick on an airfield that stands out above the rest..... Even without a stupid jacket!!!

[flimflam]

Everywhere you go today people are wearing hi viz clothing.So much so that in the event of an incident , you could ask the bloke in the yellow jacket for directions/help/advice/safety etc. he will reply, 'I dunno mate I,m just here to watch my granny have her trial lesson'.

If its half past dark on a dark night on a bleak unlit airfield - I would wear my hi-viz out of common sense - On a bright sunny day miles from danger when walking ten yards from cockpit to office, if a jumped up security feckwit has a go at me for not wearing one, he will get the following tirade from me... Sorry mate, wasn't me.......what do you mean you saw me?.....well what do I need a fecking Hi Viz for then? .....**** off Jobsworth!!! :mad: :mad:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

When some moron airport manager decides to try and force people to wear these things what can they do if you flat out refuse?

If they refuse you access to the airport then everyone should just refuse and close the airport down and put the moron out of work.....no people...no airplanes moving....no job for the moron..:D :ok: :E :ugh:

[TheGorrilla]

Clearly helped a poor Swissair Captain smeared against the side of his aeroplane on the walkaround, by a catering truck (I think).

Definately could justify doing my walkaround in a clown suit. It would certainly get me noticed, after all isn't that what everyone is trying to do by wearing one on the apron?:confused: :}

[foxmoth]

I note from Mikes CAP 642 extracts they say when working, if I am doing the walkround on an Airbus I wear a hi viz, when I am flying a light aircraft it is for fun and I don't.:}

[A and C]

For over 10 years working on the ramp at LHR I had no problem and then came the HI-vis vest, the day it was mandated I put one on for the first time.

I remember the day it was 0500 at JSY and I was only saved from being run down by a newspaper van by the quick actions of another crewmember.

I can't understand how the magic vest did not protect me from the van? after all if they are mandated by the CAA and the HSE the vest must be a very good bit of kit.

The big problem is that Health and Safety officers are only in the job because they can't do a real job and are put in post usualy to get them into a position in which they can't do to much harm.
Unfortunatly this social employment program as the idiots with the title of H&S officer can mandate this sort of rubbish.

I can't help thinking of a recent train crash , the H&S people made the site manager fill out a 22 page risk assesment, and yet at no place in this document did it say "do up the bolts on the rails".

[englishal]

I always forget to be honest, and have never got a bollocking yet :)

Some places (Bournemouth) have a "3 strikes and you're out" rule. Caught 3 times, and you're banned.

I always forget there and have never been bollocked :}

I suspect it is there because if an accident happens they can say "you should have been wearing your high vis jacket, so you can't sue us".

Anway, a loud Hawaiian shirt probably counts as a high vis jacket ;)

[Captain Smithy]

Hmm, Hi-Vis jackets... keech in my opinion, when on the ramp (on foot, taxying an aeroplane or driving a service vehicle) you should be keeping a bloody good lookout anyway. Also makes you look a proper eedjit.

Plus it won't provide much protection when you get run down by a speeding Transit or butchered by a prop.:ouch:

Common sense, eh.

[Mike Cross]

I've got a good idea.

Why not make aeroplanes carry flashing lights so people on foot can see them? We could also make them big so they're easy to see, and equip them with an audible warning device that makes a loud noise. We could restrict the speed at which they move on the apron as well. That should enable people to be aware of them.:}

CAP 642 is rightly concerned more with the danger of being run down by airside vehicular traffic.

[smarthawke]

It isn't a CAA mandatory thing at GA airfields, sounds like the powers to be at Tollerton are saying that so no one gives them a hard time and blames the CAA instead. Bit sneaky.

At Booker we have one of the busiest GA ramps in the country yet we can use our own common sense and don't have to wear hi-viz jackets. So far no one has been run over, strange that!

[gcolyer]

I really don't see an issue.

It is not hard to put on a hi-viz tabbard or jacket. It in no ways hinders your mobility.

If cost is you issue then don't but them from pilot supply stores. Go to an Army & navy type store where you wont pay the premium of "Pilot/Avaition Supplies".

Or if you are a total skin flint trawl the motorways and dual carriage ways, threre are always tabbards left on the hard shoulder by road workers. You never know you might even be able to collect enough odd shoes to make a few pairs for resale:bored:

[Windy Militant]

What You need is a suitable Escort to your chariot! :E
http://www.hivis.net/ProductImages/244_lg.jpg :ok:

[gcolyer]

Problem solved :)

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

gcolyer

I think you are missing the salient point that it's a matter of principle. It'll be hard hats next, like Bob the bloody builder.

The next phase of this will be, "it's not just for your safety but the safety of others". The poor idiot type van driver who knocks you down and has post traumatic stress disorder for the rest of his/her life. Also, think of the poor emergency walahs who might have to pick up the bits after you've passed through a rotating airscrew. Being made to feel like an irresponsible and self centred individual (not a "team" player) works amazingly efficiently these days.

[gcolyer]

I get that point. I just don't think the enforcing of a tabbard is big enough to spit the dummy out over.

[bingoboy]

Steel toecap boots next maybe.

Once saw a chap in a microlight suit with flourescent top section told off for not wearing a hiviz vest !! (they then tried to sell him one at a vast price!)

[niknak]

A lot of this legislation has been introduced because of the "cover your 6 o'clock mentality" which has migrated from the USA.

That said, I really can't see the difficulty with this particular requirement, it probably stems from your inability to adapt to the real world...:rolleyes:

See and be seen, what's the problem?:rolleyes: :mad:

[bingoboy]

I expect you are right and look forward to them becoming mandatory in all walks of life


ps do they do a hoody version

[HAL-26]

Question - Why do airfields spend a lot of money on Health and Safety consultants creating missives about things like high-viz jackets.

Answer - Because its cheaper than being sued by an ambulance-chasing lawyer.........

(Now bracing myself for the inevitable backlash from all those lawyers using these activities to fund their flying habit!) :p

[jamestkirk]

Ihave a two-tone hi-viz with some fish-net pockets (no lie). It's 3 sizes too small and i love wearing it with a pair of speedo's (nothing else). Oh apart from the stiletto's.

Give me a few minutes I will go to the apron and get ATC to take a photo so that i can post it here.

Is that normal.

[Captain Smithy]

Windy Militant
If you can get that girl when you buy one, I'll be ordering one up right away:ok:

JamesTKirk
Perhaps you should mention that to your AME at your next medical.:eek: :uhoh:

[rogcal]

I luv 'em.
Just a few more weeks and I can put mine on and hide in the rape field next to my strip when the wife wants me to do something around the house.;)

[Whopity]

Two big dangers on GA airfields:

Propellors
Avgas

Propellors can't recognise Hi Viz jackets and are more likely to get caught up with a loose garment therefore High Viz Jacket is a Safety Hazard

Hi Viz jackets are nylon, flammable, and stick to the skin in a flash fire. They also generate static so should not be worn near Avgas. again, High Viz Jacket is a Safety Hazard

Why doesn't someone report this Safety Hazard to the HSE and get them banned from GA Airfields?

[False Capture]

About 8 years ago during a turn-around at Gatwick a BA hostess lost a bet. Her forfeit was to run around the outside of the B737 in her bra and nickers.

To her relief the skipper objected, he said she wasn't allowed to run around outside wearing only her bra and nickers. He went into the cockpit retrieved a hi-viz tabard, returned to the cabin and told her to wear the tabard whilst she ran around the aircraft in her underwear.

[BEagle]

A ba hostess in bra and knickers.....??

Presumably the captain's action in making her wear a yellow road-digger's coat was to stop some do-gooder coming up and saying "You poor old thing - did you forget something when you left the home today?"












Only kidding - I did once know a most delightful ba #1. And when I say 'know'.........:E

[vetflyer]

niknak

perhaps if the vests improved safety rather than a tic box mentality to safety.

Adapt to real world .........that is fine ....but only if it is sensible.


Incidence at Blackpool a few years ago, a child was nearly hit by an a/c near the refuellers hut. Result everyone had to wear Hi Vis .It would have no difference to that incident , But hey H&S guru provided solution but not to the real problem.

:ugh:

[Langball]

My brother was telling me a good story about a pilot colleague of his. Got off a plane in a big U.K. airport, full uniform with four gold bards but no high-viz jacket. Was immediately accosted by a member of ground staff and asked 'sir, are you flight crew or passenger' (if he was flying he had to wear it, if he was positioning as passenger he didn't).

He paused, looked dumb, and whispered "what's the right answer".

[aluminium persuader]

Don't know of anyone getting run over by an aircraft, but have seen plenty of reports of folk walking into props or being sucked into jets.

Simple solution - paint all a/c dayglo yellow & let the crew wear whatever!
:E

[austerpilot]

I'm a safety professional, a chartered engineer and a very active pilot, instructor and examiner. Yes, Hi-Vis workwear has its place and function in the mitigation of risk --- No; it is neither neccessary nor appropriate for aircrew/PPL's at most GA aerodromes especially those like Nottingham. I fly there and know it well.

The jobsworth that set this hare running obviously had no concept of HAZID/HAZOP studies let alone basic good sense. What are the hazards on a GA field and who is at risk? For a large fee I will gladly undertake the work for any airfield operator and/or the CAA/HSE. (I was previously an Inspecting Officer of Railways enforcing safety legislation and carrying out accident investigations).

The history to the introduction of Hi-Vis workwear in the UK is found in the railway industry in the late 1960's where the on-track workforce gangs were reliant upon a lookout man to sound a warning of approaching trains. The introduction of high speed diesel and electric traction brought about an increasing fatality list every year when warnings were given too late for men to reach a place of safety. With hi-vis vests worn by trackmen loco drivers could see the workers sooner and sound the loco horn to "blow the men off the track". Motorway workers used the same safety principles as railwaymen and they adopted the Hi-Vis vest to make them more conspicuous to motorists travelling at high speed; thereby allowing the driver(s) to take avoiding action and/or sound the horn to attract the worker's attention so that he could jump for his life.

Now, until light aircraft have a horn that we can sound, a pilot seeing an inattentive person working / or dozing about on the airfield he/she cannot give a reasonable warning and in many cases that have resulted in an accident the pilot could not have taken any mitigating action, e.g. stopped the prop, swerved away or stopped the aircraft.

On most smaller GA airfields there is virtually no vehicular movement; and where there is the only vehilce that should be moving at more than 10~15 mile/h will be the emergency tender on a shout, with blues and twos going. The hazard is negligible and mitigation even at a couple of quid a vest is not cost effective. It is a sticking plaster mentality. Train people to recognise that aircraft are potentially dangerous -- oh! don't we already do that? Ensure drivers who are permitted on the apron/taxyways are rained to avoid aircraft and sound a warning to people who should know better than to be there -- oh! the driver couldn't see you without a Hi-Vi, how close do you have to get at 10 mile/h before you see someone in broad daylight? Too dark, misty? OK carry a lit torch if you must be out there, the HI-VI without reflective panels won't be any good, with reflective panels it still doesn't help in fog; why are you walking on the airfield in fog? Idiot!

Sorry for the rant. Hope it enlightened, entertained and made it plain that the whole saga is a sorry state of affairs. I have a nice orange fleece that I shall wear in winter and a similar polo shirt for summer wear. I also have a natty, railway issue, flame retardent one piece overall that, if I want to make myself stand out when stepping down from a Duchess or an Auster, I shall wear as a flying overall. (What was that about a small puncture wound made with a sharp pointed instrument?)

Away with the safety Gestapo! Bring back a bit of good horse sense and really make the world of aviation safer.

Happy landings:ugh: :ugh:

[ericferret]

I only know of one person run over by an aircraft. A maintenance engineer disconnecting a ground power unit had the nose gear rolled over him by a tug crew who didn't see him before pushing back. A bright yellow high vis might just have saved him.

The idea that high vis are for pilots to see ground personnel is really a red herring. The noise an aircraft makes should be sufficient to get anyone to move.

Most of the ramp safety stuff comes out of a report into ramp safety which followed the death of a pilot at a UK airport. He was crushed by a tug, had his legs amputated and subsequently died. I believe that the nature of this accident was such that a high vis wouldn't have helped.

Try working on an active ramp, APU's, various engines aircraft and vehicles running. Ear defenders on. Blow your horn all you want baggage truck driver
nobody is going to hear you. Lots of us work on airfields in the fog because it's our job, we are not idiots for being there.

Is this all relevent to a daylight GA airfield probably not, is it relevent to the airfields insurer, in the event of a claim what do you think???????

In todays arse covering environment I suspect they are here to stay. In the event that you are flattened by a fuel truck while adjusting your shades minus hi vis I reckon the insurers will try to say that it is partially your fault for ignoring published safety recommendations.

I wonder if hi vis is being written into some airfield insurance policies.

[False Capture]

Years ago I flew with a skipper who did as he pleased. After we'd walked across the Newcastle apron to our aircraft, a Land Rover came to a screaching halt right next to us. The subsequent conversation went along the lines of this:

Bloke in Land Rover: "The SATCO said you've got to wear your hi-vis tabard."

Skipper: "How does he know I wasn't wearing it?"

Bloke in Land Rover: "Because he saw you."

Skipper: "If he saw me then what's the point of wearing a hi-vis tabard?"

Bloke in Land Rover: "I'm just telling you what he said."

Skipper: "In that case, tell him I said he's a c*nt."

Bloke in Land Rover: "I can't tell him that!"

Skipper: "GoodBye."


End of story.

[London Mil]

I think it is a common sense thing. Bimbling across the apron at a busy airport any I think it may be a good thing. Wearing one for the 15 feet walk from the door of your PA28 to the 'public' side of the fence at Kemble is just nonsense.

[austerpilot]

"Erictheferret" is quite right; a busy ramp is a place where all mitigation actions to known hazards is essential. People have to be there in all weathers and operational conditions, that is a given and no they are not idiots - for vast majority far from it. The idiot is the GA pilot who cannot be going to / from an aircraft to fly (weathered out), is not at work and has not thought to speak to the aerodrome operator to ensure that his walk accross an active area can be conducted safely, better get a ride in the "crash truck" if its that quiet and the ground staff can be found.

Please let common sense prevail, Hi-Vi when a serious risk analysis indicates that there is a definite benefit, not just as "fashion accessory" to be seen at a "wannabe commercial" :* flying site.
Happy landings
Austerpilot

[rondon9897]

Funny how no one wants to wear a high visibility jacket but they just love wearing wings. I wonder if there would be this much comment if they were forced to wear 4 gold rings.

You could legislate that only people who do not feel that their ego and image are challenged by wearing high visibillity jackest should wear them. That you only need to wear them when the driver in a vehicle or aircarft approaching them has sub standard eye sight or is wearing very dark sunglasses. Or you only need to wear then when you are in shadow or in a postion that some one else may not see you in. You could legislate that you only need wear them when a certain amount of personel are on the airfield and they have all signed a statement saying they will always be alert and drive slowly at all times giving due consideration to everything all around them. You could legislate that the jackets only need to be worn when visibillity is reduced or at dusk and at night. You could legislate that aircrew need only wear them when vehicles are reversing back towards their aircraft.

Or of course you could just take the more obvious logical step of saying that they need to be worn all the time on a licensed airfield.

I would add that there should be a statement printed on each jacket explaining that the individual is a very important pilot and really should be exempt from any such legislation as the size of his head alone should allow anyone to see him clearly from miles around.

[fireflybob]

Thanks for all the replies!

What do they do in the USA then?

[LowNSlow]

rondon, blanket approaches to safety are a very poor alternative to making people aware of the risks involved in moving around a potentially hazardous area. I work in an industry where PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) is taken very seriously indeed so please believe me when I say that I am not dismissing the HiViz jackets out of hand. I simply feel that they are inappropriate for the GA environment so why should people have yet another rule imposed upon them plus have the discomfort of wearing flammable plastic jackets when there is absolutley no evidence that any GA ground accidents would have been prevented by their use. Never mind, the management must be right, lets all wear them everytime we step airside.........

[airborne_artist]

I shall shortly be going to the Patent Office to submit a description and drawings for my new aviation safety device - strobolettes. Essentially these are flashing LEDs in a gold colour, fashioned in strips about 10 mm wide. It's suggested that PPLs wear one strip on each shoulder. FOs may like to wear two strips, SFOs three and Captains four.

Orders by PM, please.

[rondon9897]

Low and Slow, of course i forgot--lets get someone killed first then we can tell his family it wont happen again because we will propose everyone wears high vis jackets.

The aim is to make personel more conspicable and thus safer and try and prevent accidents before they happen.

One of the most often used phrases, 'Sorry I did not see you'. Think about it!

Education protects the wise, blanket regulation protects all

ASK CAPTAIN JON

[airborne_artist]

Posters might care to know that some European countries mandate the carrying of hi-viz vests in private cars in the event of a breakdown. The vests can be bought for €2 in Spanish markets.

Not a lot to pay, really.

[Mike Cross]

The aim is to make personel more conspicable and thus safer and try and prevent accidents before they happen.

Mmmm... conspicable, must be some sort of hybrid 'twixt conspicuous and despicable. Quite how you prevent accidents after they happen is I confess somewhat beyond me. (a Time Lord might manage it though)

The point is, Shirley, that if you make something "normal" it's no longer conspicuous? It's alleged that the criminal classes sometimes wear hvv when going about their business because it makes them look as though they ought to be there.

I go sailing. If I'm sailing at night I wear oilskins with reflective strips, a lifejacket with a light and whistle while on deck, and if I'm outside the cockpit I wear a harness clipped on to a jackstay. Would I be safer wearing them all when going for a swim off the side whilst anchored in Turkey?

Moderate your behaviour according to the risk. Baggage trucks hurtling out of the gloomy catacombs at LHR or LGW are a danger that merits hvv. The walk from your aircraft at Kemble is not.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Education protects the wise, blanket regulation protects all

Someone should make mats for the bottom of urnals with this bit of wisdom printed on it so everyone can read it and remember just how many sheep there are in society.

[BlueRobin]

Get a FLYER jacket and let them know what you think, "I'm Wearing this to Cover Someone Else's @rse!"

My brother is a tradesman and they're beset by H&S issues, some quite silly. The above high-viz is very popular on the local building site.

[mm_flynn]

As Socal says, not generally required in the litigious USA. The threat of lawsuit seems to inspire reasonably cost effective risk management. In the UK there are a lot of things done due to some individual's risk assessment or view on duty of care.

Hi Viz kit is great for blending into the background. Several years ago the fathers for justice guys 'snuck' onto the walls of Buckingham Palace by 'hiding' in Hi Viz jackets!

At work we use them all of the time - in dark tight yards moving 300-400 lories in the course of the night, in warehouses with 50 guys running around on pallet trucks, in our safety kit in cars (hi viz, triangle, bulbs, etc) for road side breakdown).

On an airfield that doesn't allow cars airside, has one fuel truck, and one fire truck. The odds of being run down are much much lower than in the parking lot opposite the Cafe!

[ericferret]

If only that iceburg had been wearing a hi viz!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sky Express]

Where is this utter health and safety rubbish going to end?
What happened to being responisble for yourself and your own actions?
There seems to be quite often an inverse relationship to the size of the airfield and the list of silly regulations that bombard you. Seems to happen whenever an airfield adds 'International' to its title!!
Flew into XYZ airfield on Monday(isolated GA a/f but never the less a super place to go) only to be collared walking back to my aeroplane to be told "it wasnt safe to walk out without a hi viz tabbard" .I required one but not my passenger!! For gawds sake!!! Despite being polite to the individual concerned despite his rather zealous approach I departed wondering if I would bother to visit again.
Now dont get me wrong, there is a time and a place for appropiate clothing
- a former life spent much time on the ramp and a dirty dark night was the time to wear one.The sun cracking the flags may not be.
- I have flown into some of the busiest airports in the world and all seemed to manage without them in the past
- unfortunately my employer now requires me to wear one on the ramp which I despise but is contractual. Walking across an empty ramp in close to 40 degrees on the other side of the world however my common sense takes over.
- I will not wear one on a GA airfield in my free time. I suggest you all do the same and stand up to this euro pinko claptrap. It will be hard hats and steel toecaps next.
Men or mice???!!!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Airoprts are becoming the most customer unfriendly aggrivating places in society to have to go to.

Is there something about airports that make them a magnet for morons to run?

[notBiggles]

So, Nottingham are the latest to get aviators into the Daffodil Club! Of course it makes sense to be visible - although when I started in this aviation world 'tricycle undercarriages' were a novelty and the viz from a Tiger Moth was simply dreadful (it still is) - and we managed without them in those days. Perhaps the real agenda is that we make better targets - for fines, abuse, breaches of by laws and a load of other hysterical HSE poo.

[S-Works]

Anyone found wearing a high Viz at Spanhoe will have it confiscated and burnt on our Giraffe fire.......

[rondon9897]

Or is that run by morons for morons

[rondon9897]

Why do people always used that pathetic line, 'well we managed alright.
before'?

We managed alright before car seat belts came out, before disc brakes became standard, when everyone drove around with sidelights. We managed alright before cars had airbags amd laminated windscreens. When houses had wire fuses. When soft furniture did not have fire retardent covers.We managed alright before smoke alarms

In fact we managed alright before aircraft came along and in fact we managed alright when we lived in caves.

But thank God there are people out there who dont think we are managing alright and think there is a better safer way of doing things to improve the lives of all of us.

Everyday the world changes but lifes passengers, the staid, only get a day older not wiser

ASK CAPTAIN JON

[the dean]

yep.

do'nt really see what the problem is..are we really debating why its better not do wear hi viz just because we never did so before...??:ugh:

why is it a big deal to see and be seen.

we put on lights for taxi and take off and landing so we stand a better chance of being seen...

we put on a shirt though we did'nt always ( ask the cave dwellers.!)..so what is the problem about something that weighs so little ( now if they ask us to start wearing a hard hat even i might object ..:} )...and might just prevent injury.

its hardly a major earth shattering thing to put one on while you are out around the ramp even at the flying club....just because you never did so before...

all things move on...some for the better, but if it helps in just a few cases prevent death or serious injury even at the small flying field, who as a responsible pilot could object.:confused:

the dean.

[S-Works]

Its the way that people enforce these rules that gets peoples backs up rather than the jackets per se.

Personally I just do not see the justification for them. Shout and dance about seat belts and landing lights, they have a proven benefit. Show me a proven benefit of a high viz jacket.

[robin]

Its 'Elf & Safety' innit

Yes, there are sensible rationalisations for this, but is there any evidence that it is actually needed? Just telling us it will help isn't enough. There are all sorts of essential safety gear that could be suggested - flame-proof overalls, helmets, safety boots etc etc - just in case.

The classic nonsense happened last year when an annual parade of WW2 veterans was almost cancelled because the 'Kevins' in the local Council insisted they were escorted by hi-vi wearing stewards, at ludicrous cost.

All of us when we go airside take our lives in our hands, and accept that risk. Wearing a hi-vi does not in itself guarantee anything.

[LowNSlow]

rondon and the dean the whole point is that nobody has been killed on a GA airfield in an accident that would have been prevented by wearing a HiViz vest. Just because somebody says do something doesn't mean that you can't apply rational thought and say No, sorry, I disagree with that. As bose x says, it's not the vests per se it's the domineering "we know what's good for you" attitude of people who are imposing needless rules which potentially diminishes respect for rules that really need to be in place.

[fireflybob]

Yes and the focusing on trivia such as the wearing of high-vis vests at GA airfields actually distracts us from other much more important safety issues, which as pilots we have direct control over.

When I am at work at major airports I have no issue with wearing a high vis vest when I do the walkround as there are all sorts of hazards around but when I am at my average GA airfield I just cannot see the point and, as has been commented previously, the way in which this is enforced by some does little to promote good relations between pilots and airfield managements!

[mm_flynn]

do'nt really see what the problem is..are we really debating why its better not do wear hi viz just because we never did so before...??
why is it a big deal to see and be seen.

This isn't about being Ludite and resisting a safety improvement. It is about introducing rules for rules sake which don't improve safety.
Remember the Hi Viz is not there for pilot's to see you. It is for ground vehicles, which are moving much faster, quieter and in more random directions to see you!

I would be very interested in any incidents where an aircraft has hit/or come close to a person where Hi Viz would have made a difference.

There are many incidents of people and aircraft coming in contact. Many of them the aircraft is motionless and people walk into the wing, propeller, jet intake. Some of them the airplane is moving with no pilot (hand propped plane gets away) some of them the pilot thinks the marshaller has moved out of the way and he hasn't.

I suspect if you looked at near misses, accidents and illnesses at airfields w/o extensive ground handling infrastructure you would see the following risks

Danger of bashing oneself on the wings when walking around stationary aircraft
Danger of walking into a spinning prop
Danger of accidentally starting the engine and causing injury with prop
Danger of being hit by a car in the parking lot
Danger of running over your foot while pushing or pulling your aircraft
Danger of pollution/allergic reaction from spilling avgas on hands and ground
Danger of Avgas fire


Danger of being run down by the crash truck or inspection truck should be very low. Unless glasses have not been issued to the drivers!

REAL safety improvements should be implemented, but I don't see which material risk the hi vis protects. Mandating the use of the filter fuel samplers and gloves so people don't spill on themselves and don't poor the stuff on the ground would be a much more useful spend of £10.

[ericferret]

On the airport at which I work I have to wear hi vis.
I have to wear steel toed safety footware.
I have to wear ear defenders at all times.
I have to have an ID card permanently visible.
Pilots and crews transitting the ramp only wear high vis.

Sadly the modern world writes the rules for the most stupid and then applies then to all.

Maybe what we need are a series of colour coded epaulettes which identify your IQ. Then when seen without a high vis they can check your epaulettes determine that you are an intelligent person and accept that you are clearly brighter than your dimmer friends and therefore do not need a high vis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

[rondon9897]

OK you all win lets cancel all rules and laws, lets just have free for all, lets all do what we like.

Lets drive around at any speed we like and knife anyone we dont like the look of-- it really sounds like a great new world or am i describing inner city areas that most of us that can afford to fly never go near.
#
See you in court!

ASK CAPTAIN JON

[S-Works]

OK you all win lets cancel all rules and laws, lets just have free for all, lets all do what we like.
Lets drive around at any speed we like and knife anyone we dont like the look of-- it really sounds like a great new world or am i describing inner city areas that most of us that can afford to fly never go near.
#
See you in court!
Now were talking!!!

[Rod1]

Can do I join?

Rod1
(I like the idea of burning the jacket, but getting the person at the same time would be much more efficient)

[GHNRY]

Ref Hi-Viz

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men - and women.


SOPs

Look where you're going and think what you're doing.


QED

[False Capture]

I hate hi-viz tabards.

However, they have their advantages when you're doing a walk-round on a wet night as opposed to during the day in brilliant sunshine.

The luminous strips help at night when visibility is reduced. But why do we have to wear them on a CAVOK day?


By the way, the ones in BA have the following written on the back in red: "DO NOT REMOVE FROM AIRCRAFT" Therefore, if you can't remove it from the aircraft how are you meant to do your walk-round in it? :confused:

[Lower the Nose!]

If there were a shred of evidence to suggest wearing hi-viz would make anyone safer at a small GA airfield, you would have a point. But there simply isn't.

[OVC002]

The "experts" that guide management in these matters will point to the lack of incidents as evidence of their success. They are unlikely to draw equal attention to the fall in the number of hours flown, or the drop in the number PPL's.

I put a great deal of effort into qualifying as PIC. I will take responsibility for what happens airside.

By all means suggest, recommend, advise or whatever, compulsion will end in extinction.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Hardly a big deal. Anyone who can get themselves worked up about this is surely not stable enough to deserve a pilot's licence, yes?

Errr. No!

Anyone compliant and gullible enough to comply with this just because 'they' tell him to hasn't got the backbone and descisiveness to be a pilot in command.

Gertrude - hand in your licence and take up golf!

SSD

[gingernut]

Anyone who spends enough time in South Manchester, has probably come across "handcart Dave," a man, some would say, of feeble mind.

He seems to make his money by collecting scrap from the local residents, and transporting said scrap to the local scrap yard. (Holding up most of the traffic in the process!)

One day, so local legend says, Dave was seen to be sprinkling white powder along the footpaths.

"What you doing Dave," shouted one of the local chaps.

"I'm sprinkling anti-giraffe powder," exclaimed Dave.

"There 'aint no giraffe's in Altrincham Dave,"

"Yeh......it's fecking good stuff isn't it,"


Now I've got a Masters Degree in sifting through research papers, but I reckon I learnt more from Dave that day, than all my years at Uni:)



PS, local legend also has it, that Dave used to shout "rag bone," when brought in front of the beak for his various tax evasions- never seemed to get a conviction. I reckon he's not that daft.

[Sir George Cayley]

It is true that the Campaign Against Aviation does not mandate the wearing of high viz clothing, so no more nonsense about that then.

What they do mandate is that to hold a license to operate said aerodrome one must satisfy the local inspector (yes yes oh yes!) that a Safety Management System is in place. See that easy read CAP168.
Now on the basis that all aerodromes are in fact private property, or Municipal land with bye laws, means that the owner can stipulate whatever rules they like, as a condition of use.

I would love to own a licensed aerodrome simply for the opportunity to enact some bizarre Apron Safety Rules of my own (and MATS part ll - what an opportunity:) )

Just as you would not permit some visitors to do, or not do, certain things in your garden, so can airfield owners. At the end of the day, you dont have to go there if it upsets you.

Sir George Cayley

[jamestkirk]

Everytime i hear it called a tabard I think back to a theatre show i was in called Julius Caesar by W.S

Now I just imagine pilots wandering around in Roman wear. Ramp/Fire crew dressed as senators. Captains/F.O's/GA pilots dressed in full gladiator attire. Even though the sword may get in the way of the throttle(s) and the shield may obscure forward vision. This aside, I like the idea of the Roman theme and think it would add an air of culture to most flights.

To finish the whole picture of, we could have ATC saying with each departure clearance;

"aviators who are about to fly, we salute you."

(the original line being; gladiators who are about to die....etc.,but that a bit morbid for aviation)

[BackPacker]

"Aviaturi te saluant", I guess?

[BackPacker]

Sir George, I agree with the legality of your argument. A land owner can, within limits, set access rules for his land, be it an airport or other property.

So if an airport owner wants to enact a very silly rule, say mickey mouse ears for everybody on the apron, then legally you have to comply. Or stay away. Now the airport owner will probably get questions about this and if he answer "because I like seeing people with mickey mouse ears" to the question why, then it's all right with me.

But from this thread you can see that most airfield operators do not give the true reasons for these rules, but hide behind generalities like "liability", "safety", "insurance reasons", "CAA rules", "byelaws", "everybody does it", "why not" and possibly even "war on terror".

All these reasons have been debunked one way or another in this forum. Lovely to read!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

All these reasons have been debunked one way or another in this forum.
If any of the debunkers choose to put their money where their mouth is and take an airfield operator to judicial review, please do let us know the result!

[MikeJ]

Gertrude,
You will have read Sir George's comments that airfield operators can set what conditions they like, such as to wear top hats or clown outfits, or even 'hi-vis jackets', and a judicial review would undoubtably uphold this. Your point is irrelevant.

The posts made show that this is an absurd requirement from any rational analysis, and thankfully, most small airfields do not have the requirement. If true, it would dismay me if Tollerton, into which I have flown many times, now wants it, especially as whenever I've been there, aircraft parking is right alongside the fence adjacent to the cluhouse.

I see that you are from Cambridge. It so happened that I flew into Cambridge recently, the first time for over 30 years. It is the only airport I have ever visited which has Hi-Vis J's on pegs by the airside door which could provide the facility required by your earlier post. And if I brought in a PA32 to pick up 4 passengers, would they all pick up jackets to leave at the farm strip where we are going? (and not coming back to Cambridge) Some airports at least have the sense to limit the requirement to aircrew.
I did finally succumb and buy one a couple of years age (£1.49 from a web site), up till then I had got away with a yellow polo shirt from Trimark. The requirement remains an absolute curse, except as Sir George says, one can avoid airfields with the requirement. I find that some who nominally have it, and want to encourage visitors, make no attempt to enforce it, so I can leave it in the aircraft.
The reason its a curse is that 90% of my flying is to other airfields where I am just not prepared to carry anything when I go to have a walk, lunch, or whatever. What do you do with the damn thing - I know, put it on a hook where it certainly wont still be when I come back to fly home a few hours later!

[DBisDogOne]

Anybody else seen the highly amusing Hi-Vis with the following slogen writ large on the back:

I'm wearing this to cover someone else's arse.

Says it all really. Gee, thanks Mr. 'No win, No fee'

Be seeing you...

[BRL]

That HV is available to buy from the Flyer website. I think, although could be wildly wrong here, that they had a competition open to the users of the Flyer Forum to see who could come up with the best logo and I am sure there were two winners and that was one of them.

Could be wrong though as I say!!!!

[fireflybob]

Anybody else seen the highly amusing Hi-Vis with the following slogen writ large on the back:

I'm wearing this to cover someone else's arse.

Says it all really. Gee, thanks Mr. 'No win, No fee'

Be seeing you...

Indeed, DBisDogOne, I already own one with this motif which I shall wear when required to do so at general aviation airfields - I have another one for the "day job" !

[TheGorrilla]

When seeing someone wearing a hi vis puke coloured tank top at my local airfield walking in from their aeroplane I think poor suckers have flown in from an analport and promptly go and check where it is. So i can cross it off my list of places to see.

If the suckers walk into the bar still wearing one I consider barging into them and saying "sorry mate!! didn't see you there!!". :hmm:

[Johnm]

The problem with this debate is it shows up all to clearly the counter productive properties of a tick box safety regime.

Safety regimes that are effective are about proportional risk assessment and management, but that requires a degree of grown up thought and it's easier and cheaper to tick the box.

There's also the sad fact that we have imported an American culture such that if some one suffers an accident they don't put it down to misfortune, they look for someone to blame and/or sue. French and German airfields are much more relaxed because they have yet to make that cultural error and still have a well developed sense of personal responsibility and self preservation.

[Flash0710]

Even b thinks it sucks....

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a109/Noblelordflash/Bandit02.jpg

And im not going to change how i feel about eharding dressed up.......

it's nothing more than a delay thing......

luv

xxxx

f

[OVC002]

There's also the sad fact that we have imported an American culture
I have a reasonable number of US airfields in the log. Not one of them required HiViz from GA pilots airside. Their government and legal systems may well have problems, but an out of control and authoritarian Health and Safety culture is not obviously one of them.

[fireflybob]

Heard on the RT at Nottingham "(A/c callsign) your radio is very crackly, it wouldnt be your HighViz vests causing interference by any chance!".

[DBisDogOne]

Classic!! I used a similar excuse the other day when I had to go-around because of a really poor approach (I should know better). When asked why by the lads at the club I responded "I was blinded by the sun reflecting off someones Hi-Vis" (Male bovine manure detectors went into the red at this point!).

This is well known to politicians as "The Mad Cow excuse"

Mad cow? Mad cow disease of course, technically BSE, or "Blame Someone Else"!!!

Be seeing you....

[TheGorrilla]

Poor little B!!

Perhaps his hi vis should say "I'm wearing this to cover Flashs' arse".

..... But then maybe Flash doesn't wan't his arse covered!! :}

[Fuji Abound]

At the end of the day, you dont have to go there if it upsets you.

How often do we read a comment along those lines on these threads?

PPR and by telephone in advance please - it is our field if you don’t like it go else where .. .. .. yellow jacket, sir, if you don’t like it go away, mode S sir, those the rules, obey them or stay on the ground, after all its our sky .. .. ..

We all seem to forget some of the airports WE own, they are owned by the local authority and we pay the rates, and most at any rate rely on OUR fees and business to survive.

(I would except purely privately owned strips in people’s backyards where I would agree the owner can make up whatever rules he likes, and it WOULD be rude to just drop in).

Take Duxford as one example. I passed by recently (in the winter) nothing going on, three or four aircraft on the ground at most, oh be nice to stop for a coffee. Not on your life PPR sir by ‘phone. Well what about if I land at Cambridge and telephone - we might let you then sir. Now if there was a good reason such as a show going on or it was busy I could understand - sorry sir we are a bit busy today, but do try again etc., but no those the rules. However if you turn up by car you don’t have to PPR first. Bizarre, and its meant to be a museum for aviators.

Same with yellow jackets, if we all complained about them EVERY time the operators might reliase it wasn’t in their interest to apply such bizarre rules. In fact if we all made a point of turning up and NOT putting on our jacket until asked we might make even more impact. I make a point of always doing so and it is surprising how often I am not asked to don said yellow jacket. The one place where they are ahead of even that game is Alderney - they asked me recently not to forget to put on my jacket before I got out the aircraft! Only one aircraft moved the whole time I was on the field - bizarre.

[MikeJ]

Fuji,
This is terrible news. I have flown to Alderney over 20 times over the years. Last year I had no problem.
But is Alderney, over which I have walked so much, and occasionally hired a bike and riden all round, now to be denied to me?
Of all the places I fly to, this is one of those where I will NEVER carry anything when I leave the airfield!

Ah, I know! I'll next fly there when its warm, and wear my Primark yellow polo shirt. No-one could argue that the silver reflective bands serve any purpose in daylight.

MikeJ

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I understand that some airports are about to require hard hats with both a red flashing beacon and white strobe lights on them.

However the good news is initially they will only be required on poor vis days and after dark.

I think Duxford is going to be one of the first to require this innovative safety item.

[rotorcraig]

I was up at 2,000ft over Northampton on Friday, when I came across some seagulls :eek:

Fortunately, I was wearing my hi-viz (now mandated at Sywell too) so they saw me and got out of the way :ok:

See ... hi-viz clearly = safe ... I'm a convert :D :}

RC

[Fuji Abound]

I'll next fly there when its warm, and wear my Primark yellow polo shirt.

I have a particularly nice fleece with bright yellow bands on the arms - and they are bright and very yellow :) .. .. ..

I often wear it as a high viz substitute but one bright spark recently told me it was not high viz .. .. ..

I complained it couldnt be more high viz and was the correct colour .. .. ..

he said it was not reflective .. .. ..

I still wonder if I should have pointed out it was broad daylight and even a high viz was unlikely to glow in those conditions.

You might get away with it with the silver reflective bands or you could try some of that 3M tape sailors stick on lifebouys maybe.

[fireflybob]

An amusing follow-up on this one.

There I am about to start the engine and one of the owners of the aerodrome walking across the "ramp" and NOT wearing a High Viz! I start up and the A/G is (politely) informing a visiting aircraft "In future would you please wear a High Viz when walking to/from your aircraft".

Practice what you preach?

[niknak]

Although I am a big supporter of anything which helps you to see or be seen, I had to chuckle today when one of our ground maintenance crew relayed the following tale of an incident during a major surface markings repainting project at our place.

The Contractor had been briefed, signed a miriad of paperwork in triplicate and more risk assesments than you could shake a stick at had taken place. Along comes the repainting crew, who initially, had to remove the existing markings utilising a gas powered burner which put out the equivilant heat of four dragons, (or at least my wife in full rant mode:p ).
The operator of the burner assumes the position, lights up said device, but just before getting to work, also lights up a fag.

Cue Apron Supervisor, who rushes out to said Operator and tells him, "Oi! you can't smoke here mate! It's a high risk area!"

[Saab Dastard]

I tell you what, I've never been asked to wear a Hi-Viz since I started wearing my new flying suit!

http://www.peteykins.com/August05/images/SpandexNauga.jpg

SD

[Ken Wells]

At least it would show the H&S idiots you had balls.
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg224/kenwells_photo/BoratHelathSafety-nuts.jpg


http://www.healthandsafety-nuts.com

[TCAS FAN]

I must admit that I've only just discovered this thread and am totally amazed by the morons that it has attracted. Not the airport managers, as previously mentioned, but very much the minority of the GA community.

If an aerodrome is operated licensed, the aerodrome licence holder/operator is required, by the CAA, to have a Safety Management System (SMS) in place to insofar as practicable ensure safety on the aerodrome. Part of this SMS is having a risk assessment process to identify hazards and mitigate against them. In respect of one particular risk, ie collision of aircraft/vehicles and pedestrians, the wearing of hi viz clothing has proved to be a significant mitigating measure to prevent collisions. Hence the reason why it is required.

If an aerodrome is operated unlicensed, the CAA does not regulate it, but the Health & Safety Executive does. If the operator is going to provide a service to permit flying he/she must identify risks and mitigate them. Again hi viz is recognised as an accepted mitigating measure.

Take the case of Captain Moron, "I don't need a high viz jacket", gets hit by a vehicle or aircraft when airside. Next stop "Claims R us", or similar to sue the arse off the aerodrome operator. If licensed the operator gets roasted by the CAA & HSE, if unlicensed possibly just HSE, before any civil action is happens.

Give the aerodrome operators credit, if you enjoy flying act responsibly and wear hi viz, if not try another hobby to avoid being a liability to yourself and others.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Give the aerodrome operators credit, if you enjoy flying act responsibly and wear hi viz, if not try another hobby to avoid being a liability to yourself and others.

Thanks, if I thought I would run into you I would avoid flying to that location.

I still feel that if I can fly an airplane in some of the worse sh.t holes on earth where getting shot down is a daily risk I have the IQ to walk across a ramp at some airport in England that might have five aircraft movements a day.

if not try another hobby to avoid being a liability to yourself and others.

Flying has been my occupation for many years, it is not my hobby.

Signed:

Captain moron.

[eharding]

(Utter, utter, utter bolleaux)


Your very name marks you out as a shining example of the needy, initiative-shy happless gimick-dependent didactic-cackwit mentality that has led us to this sorry state of affairs.

Try looking out of the bleedin' window, you myopic muppet, rather than insisting everyone else should equip themselves with pointless friffery and whistles to make up for your clearly lamentable lack of situational awareness, on the ground, in the air, and at the keyboard.

PS - Happy New Year, regards to the family.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Ignorance can be cured through education.

The stupidity one encounters on airports surrounding the hi vis vests is genetic, therefore it is useless trying to argue with them.

[eharding]

Ignorance can be cured through education.

The stupidity one encounters on airports surrounding the hi vis vests is genetic, therefore it is useless trying to argue with them.


Indeed, but we can have some fun in the process. :E

[A and C]

The attitude shown by TCAS FAN is typical of the numptys who think that all thia H&S bull will keep them safe, the HI VIS is not a magic force field that wards of large trucks ! it is only as good as the guy driving the truck.

As I said in another post The very first time I put on a HI VIS I was very nearly killed by a van driver on an empty ramp.

Some seem to see these things as some sort of aviation status symbol, but all they are is a safety tool and just as I would not try to undo a screw with a hammer I dont see the need for the Hi VIS on a GA ramp on a normal day.

I regret to say that TACS FAN is one who as been drinking at the H&S font and like all who drink too much is not capable of applying logic.

[llanfairpg]

Try looking out of the bleedin' window, you myopic muppet, rather than insisting everyone else should equip themselves with pointless friffery and whistles to make up for your clearly lamentable lack of situational awareness, on the ground, in the air, and at the keyboard.

Harding, report to me immeadiately for instructional duties

[llanfairpg]

There's also the sad fact that we have imported an American culture

Youve noticed Mc Donalds then?

[Dave Gittins]

Hi Chuck ....

Crossing threads to respond to your question.

I am in the Construction Industry .. and made some comments about it back in post #29 (I think) of the other thread.

DGG

[Roffa]

There I am about to start the engine and one of the owners of the aerodrome walking across the "ramp" and NOT wearing a High Viz! I start up and the A/G is (politely) informing a visiting aircraft "In future would you please wear a High Viz when walking to/from your aircraft".


I find it wryly amusing that the A/G operator ensconced in ivory tower obviously saw you quite clearly walking to your aircraft despite the lack of hi-viz jacket.

[Dave Gittins]

Which is what I keep banging on about with appropriateness and following a properly executed risk assesment.

I doubt you'd have spotted him out of the VCR at Heathrow with all the other distractions so he needs highlighting THERE.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I found this gem on the locked thread and believe it needs commenting on.

-------------------------------------------------------
I can't help recalling from my Human Performance studies that an anti-authority, anti-discipline, anti-rule attitude is not consistent with safe flying.

---------------------------------------------------------

This is just another example of the moron nanny state mindset where using slogans that on the surface look like they are factual are lapped up by the sheep in society.

When someone thinks you have a bad attitude that chestnut is trotted out and used as a word weapon to make it seem you are in some way deranged because you won't meekly kiss some morons ass who couldn't find his own ass with a set of moose antlers.

It is just another attack exactly like calling someone " Racist " " bigot " " Homophobic " and all those social engineering slogans that are trotted out to silence those who the lunatic fringe can't control any other way.

I bet some would see me as anti authority and anti discipline........which means I must be an unsafe pilot.

Should I quit flying before I hurt myself??

Hey gang ,, hows that for a morning rant?

[Dave Gittins]

"..bet some would see me as anti authority and anti discipline........which means I must be an unsafe pilot. "

Isn't that what the FAA claimed about Bob Hoover ???

[BackPacker]

I find it interesting to compare what's happening in the GA world compared to the world outside the airfield fence.

Just for the record, the airfield I fly from has now started issuing fines for not wearing hi-viz airside. Even on the little, out-of-the-way apron where our club is based. Despite the fact that, as far as I know, we have a perfect safety record there.

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, the following things are happening:

Various countries are currently experimenting with making large squares, where cars and pedestrians mix, less 'safe', by removing all traffic lights, traffic signs, road surface paintings and so forth, and even by repaving the whole square with one uniform color tile, wall to wall, with no pedestrian walkways or anything. The reasoning behind this? It makes the situation far more confusing. As a result, cars slow down, pedestrians maintain a better lookout and, surprise, surprise, LESS accidents happen. And the accidents that do happen are less serious due to the slower speeds involved. Several examples, including a (small) town in Holland who decided to do away with all the (27 or so) road signs in the whole town. The only problem they have now is that sometimes people park their car at an inconvenient spot, blocking traffic at a narrow point.

Equally, there was an article in the Dutch newspaper Volkskrant this morning. (I tried to find it online, but it isn't there yet and it would be in Dutch anyway.) It claims that the nanny society we have leads to people missing out on essential bits of their education/upbringing. Particularly children are kept away from any negative experience, be it physical (getting scratched, bumped, bruised, whatever), emotional (losing a game or discussion, getting told off for instance) or medical (getting sick from playing in a sandbox). This leads to less self-supporting, less safety-conscious and less self-conscious adults who, when faced with real-world problems or hazards, cause chaos, accidents, injuries etc. Apparently in Germany (so the article claims), insurance companies have now started building *insecure* playgrounds (yes you read that correctly) next to kindergartens, primary schools etc., on the assumption that this will raise those children in a more safety conscious manner, leading to lower insurance claims later in life.

I'm all for hi-viz when they have proven to be beneficial to safety. I have one of those in my car and another one in my flightbag for the occasion that I feel it's needed. When we have one of those "do"s at the club where we have lots of guests, including children about, hi-viz (with nametags) makes sense to distinguish pilots and staff from guests (and guests are only allowed airside when accompanied). I don't mind hi-viz, goggles, hard hats, ear defenders, boots and gloves at construction sites: I carry all of this in my DIY case in case I feel the need for it. But I protest against the mindless application of a rule "hi-viz at all times". In the end, I feel it makes us all less safe.

[tigerbatics]

TCAS FAN has a wonderful logical approach.
Since the introduction of hi-viz jackets there has been no single instance, at my local airfield anyway, of people in collision with aeroplanes. The same seems to be generally true elsewhere. Thus the hi-viz is 'a significant mitigating measure' to be applied everywhere.
It makes me tremble to think of the years during which we all ran such a terrible risk walking about airfields before the H&SE, in their wisdom, provided guidance,assistance and a 'risk assessment' procedure which has given us our saviour- the yellow jacket.
It is wonderful to think of all the lives it has saved as we walk over the grass parking area. I now await the technical explanation as to how it enhances my ability to see rotating prop blades without in any way, of course, doubting that it does.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I was vectored on to this from another Thread, http://www.grumpyoldsod.com/flashman.asp

Some of it seems most apposite to this Thread.

GBZ (fully paid member of the Guild of Grumpyoldsods)

[Ken Wells]

I have to agree with eharding,

TCAS FAN comments are very sad, I bet he was a spotter in his youth!:ok:

[Monkeeeey]

Ahh...but Shoreham offers you a choice.

If you really you want to make a total tw*t out of yourself opt for a high Viz Cap or wear the matching set, nice. Just short of setting yourself on fire (against HSE directive 1.2.3 Par 9B) := you will be as visible as beachy head lighthouse.

I have two caps :-)

Whats not to like about them...I'm wearing mine now...goes with the socks I got in the 80's.

[Ken Wells]

As BRL moderator has closed down the other Thread on HiGHVIZ Jkts, it was interesting to note that, between the two threads it has generated 7000 views and nearly 200 postings in such a short time. This shows that the H&S stormtroopers are realy getting on peoples nerves.:ugh:

Apart from the odd "cheese eating surrender monkeys" who agree with HIGH VIZ jkts, :mad:most think they are a bloody nuisance especially on small GA airfields.


www.healthandsafety-nuts.com

[hobbit1983]

TCAS FAN,

2 (serious) questions;

1. the wearing of hi viz clothing has proved to be a significant mitigating measure to prevent collisions - do you have a link to the study/evidence/whatever on this?

2. (Purely out of interest) do you work in H&S, or are aircrew, or possibly both?

[eharding]

Wierd - I had an email notification of a reply to the thread from a high viz advocate which has since disappeared...something about squealing like stone-age sticking pigs....presumably the author swapped his high viz nylon for a cloak of invisibility :confused:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Yeh weird.....

I received this e-mail notice on this thread...

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

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
The mind boggles that anyone should get so heated about such a simple safety aid.
What I do know is, that when an incident occurs at one of your invincible airfields where you are all perfect because someone didn't see the other, you would be squealing like stuck pigs and engaging solicitors like it was going out of fashion.

The fact is that H&S is everyones concern, the majority of posts against the "see and be seen" safety culture does G/A a complete dis-service and puts you well and truely in the aviation stone age.

Be good enough to let us know where you all are based, then anyone wanting to learn to fly can avoid the amateurs.
***************

Boy I'm sure glad it's not here because I post in my real name and that might have been the end of my flight training business if that ever became public.

[BackPacker]

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
The mind boggles that anyone should get so heated about such a simple safety aid.
What I do know is, that when an incident occurs at one of your invincible airfields where you are all perfect because someone didn't see the other, you would be squealing like stuck pigs and engaging solicitors like it was going out of fashion.

The fact is that H&S is everyones concern, the majority of posts against the "see and be seen" safety culture does G/A a complete dis-service and puts you well and truely in the aviation stone age.

Be good enough to let us know where you all are based, then anyone wanting to learn to fly can avoid the amateurs.

I don't get e-mail notifications so I'm glad that you posted that insightful message for me to read and to conserve it for posterity. Did you post the complete message, or did you remove the bit where the author pointed to the proof that hi-viz in good weather conditions actually improves safety beyond the near-perfect record we have already?

[llanfairpg]

The mind boggles that anyone should get so heated about such a simple safety aid.

Sounds like fair comment, look at it the other way would you really want some of the people on here to be in charge of anything remotely to do with safety?

[airborne_artist]

Cyclists are complaining about hi-viz in Milton Keynes (http://newsbiscuit.com/article/cyclists-furious-as-council-paint-everything-else-luminous-green)

[hobbit1983]

Without being sarcastic - It seems to me that you could equally argue that all aircrew on the apron/airside whatever should wear flashing amber lights lights on their mandatory helmets, in addition to the jackets, in order to increase safety.

While this would certainly increase visibility of said people in said locations, the question that would have to be asked is "is it really necessary?"

I think that, IMHO, the debate is not really about whether or not safety is paramount, and taking all reasonable steps to make sure that it is - but where a sensible line should be drawn.

I can seen the need, and would be happy with, the wearing of high-vis jackets at such places as Heathrow apron, Gatwick, LAX etc...but I don't feel that it's needed in such places as Kemble, Old Sarum, Compton Abbas etc.

[Dave Gittins]

While I was in the USA over Christmas I bought a cap in "Sportsmans Warehouse" which has a built in LCD as a "headlamp". "Dick's Sporting Goods" also had caps with small LCDs built into the peak to cast light where you were looking.

It would not be difficult to manuafacture one or other type with a small LCD pointing to each of the cardinal points and flashing yellow for use on airfields or on construction sites (where they would of course also have to be hard).

This could be a major growth industry. :}

I kid you not, both shops were full of brightly coloured (bright dayglo orange) clothing of all shapes and brands (even orange cowboy hats) to ensure that hunters on the move or walkers in the woods are not shot by other hunters who mistake them for deer, bear or Dick Chaney.

And it is all really cheap ..... as should be anything to do with safety. :ok:

(perhaps that is why Stelios chose the colour and where he buys his uniforms)

[hobbit1983]

Oops....hope the H&S enforcers don't get wind of this then Dave, it could be mandatory by next year...!

You heard it here first! :}

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Quote:

Sounds like fair comment, look at it the other way would you really want some of the people on here to be in charge of anything remotely to do with safety?

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

Actually Ian one has to be able to differentiate between over reaction to a preceived safety threat such as walking across a small ramp area at a local airfield to or from a private airplane and working on the ramp at Heathrow.

The problem is how do you separate the sheep from the wolves in these discussions?

But if you are all for the hi vis vest Nazi types at small local airports thats cool.

We then need those nifty hard hats with flashing lights for all the professional pilots who can be led like sheep by any moron who comes up with these goofy rules so those of us with enough neurons to be able to walk around without hurting ourselves will be able to avoid them.

Hell for the real ego driven sheep the hard hat could have four gold bars painted on it.

[Tone]

Aw come on TCAS FAN, this thread is getting boring, bite back. (Not been run over by a truck have you?)

[tigerbatics]

He's not wearing his hi-viz so he is invisible...but he's there.

[llanfairpg]

Hell for the real ego driven sheep the hard hat could have four gold bars painted on it.

Yes but ones for PPL's must have wings on

[Droopystop]

Here's a question. What is the point of Hi Viz? To be seen, right? So why are the hi viz jackets not made in the most visible colour, which research (apparently) has shown not to be yellow, but flouresent pink? OK so people would be reluctant to wear them............... just like the yellow ones.

If the speed limit on aprons is 10MPH/ max taxi speed is walking pace can't walkers and cyclists get out of the way?

Finally I am convinced that most people are run over airside not because they were not seen, but because the driver was not looking where they were going. It's just easier to say on the safety report that they couldn't see the person they ran over.

[llanfairpg]

Finally I am convinced that most people are run over airside not because they were not seen, but because the driver was not looking where they were going. It's just easier to say on the safety report that they couldn't see the person they ran over.

Ever heard of low visibillity and fog at airports or even night?

[DX Wombat]

Anyone know where I can get a nice bright pink one? :E;)

[DaveW]

Anyone know where I can get a nice bright pink one?


Since you ask... (http://www.snaffles-saddlery.co.uk/shop/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=1181) :}

http://www.snaffles-saddlery.co.uk/shop/store/catalog/web%20pics%201368370382250.jpg

[Yankee]

Without being sarcastic - It seems to me that you could equally argue that all aircrew on the apron/airside whatever should wear flashing amber lights lights on their mandatory helmets, in addition to the jackets, in order to increase safety.

Like this you mean

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s3/grumpyparts/manston10web.jpg

[llanfairpg]

If your quick you can buy them at ALDI for £1.99

[Droopystop]

llanfairpg

I am very familiar with darkness and fog at airports and that as a driver/pilot/pedestrian you have to be extra vigilant. But a yellow vest aint going to save you if you've got a driver who is not looking where they are going or the guy who walks out in front of a taxiing aircraft.

[HAWK21M]

It pays to be noticed around Machines.
regds
MEL

[TCAS FAN]

Tone

How's this for a bite, the truck missed me, I was wearing my hi viz!

To all you doubters, here's a deal. Don't wear your hi viz, either get banned from going airside (legally enforceable by the Aerodrome Manager under Rules of the Air Regs) or carry out a threatened boycott of those aerodromes making wearing of hiz viz mandatory. Aerodrome becomes unsustainable as a business, as it is a "brown field" site is exempt from parts of Town & Country Planning legislation, aerodrome owner easily sells off site for non aviation development.

One less place to fly to!

It will be the aerodrome manager/operator in court being prosecuted by HSE if a serious incident occurs and the injured was not wearing hi viz.If you don't think wearing of hi-viz is cool, there is a "GA Aircrew" inscribed vest on the market, should appeal to the posers among you.

[llanfairpg]

If you do not like rules dont fly, aviation is a rule based discipline.

[llanfairpg]

But a yellow vest aint going to save you if you've got a driver who is not looking where they are going or the guy who walks out in front of a taxiing aircraft.

Yellow vests arnt designed to save you from idiots, they are to make you more conspicious around machinary, vehiicles and aircraft, that should be obvious, even to idiots.

[hobbit1983]

TCAS FAN,

Here's the deal at the "GA-type" airfield, fully licensed, that I regularly fly at, as I understand it.

There are no high-vis jackets in sight, they are not mandatory, and not needed. The aircraft are parked inbetween the runway and the clubhouse. Between the clubhouse & aircraft is an access road, limited to 5mph, a seating area on the grass (fenced off from the aircraft parking area).

There is no enforced wearing of high-vis jackets, and hasn't been as far as I know, for over a year (since I started flying there).

Likewise, there has been no spate of accidents where people have walked into props, aircraft cars or each other because they couldn't see each other. Remember, the seating area is right next to the aircraft park too, where lots of non-aircrew sit on a regular basis.

We all seem to manage to see & avoid each other without having to wear a high-viz jacket, and as far as I know, the business is not going under due to a rash of lawsuits from people injured from collisions.

Could you please tell me why we, as a whole airfield of "Captain Morons" should adopt the wearing of these infernal things?

I'm by no means saying the same rationale should apply to places like Heathrow et al., but why should we adopt a blanket policy for airfields, when it's clearly not needed at this particular place?

In fact, if you're talking liability, what about the case that could be made for wearing a flammable layer (as I understand it, such jackets are certainly not desired wear in the event of an onboard fire) when it wasn't needed in the first place?

[llanfairpg]

Could you please tell me why we, as a whole airfield of "Captain Morons" should adopt the wearing of these infernal things?

For the same reason that INSURANCE was the next thing invented after the wheel.

[hobbit1983]

Fair point, but we don't all wear parachutes, helmets, immersion suits etc all the time when we fly either.

[llanfairpg]

Speak for yourself pal!

[hobbit1983]

we don't all wear parachutes, helmets, immersion suits etc all the time when we fly either

Speak for yourself pal!

I was merely pointing out that the majority of GA flights, when not doing aerobatics, crossing expanses of water etc, do not routinely take parachutes or immersion suits etc.

My point is that, at my airfield, high-viz jackets are arguably not needed.

You could also, I suspect, make the point that we should all wear high-viz jackets when walking on the pavement next to a busy road in poor conditions - but we have to draw the line somewhere with regard to H&S.

For the record, I do own a high-vis jacket, and will bring it along when it's mandatory.

(It is one of those ones from a well-known GA mag with a certain slogan printed on the back however :ok: )

[Chuck Ellsworth]

hobbitt this discussion is not going to change the minds of those who have already made their mind up that the nanny state knows better.

It does however give us the opportunity of identifying those who think some of us who don't need two hands and a mirror to find our asses with are,,, well we know what made up name they hide behind .......

So to all you holier than thou experts who think that I am a moron because I don't accept unnecessary policies made up for no other reason than policy making " get stuffed ".

Chuck Ellsworth...my real name.

[llanfairpg]

So to all you holier than thou experts who think that I am a moron because I don't accept unnecessary policies made up for no other reason than policy making " get stuffed ".

Chuck Ellsworth...my real name.

So you say you recently retired from the Diplomatic Service, Chuck

Ian

Not my real name

[Yankee]

"It will be the aerodrome manager/operator in court being prosecuted by HSE if a serious incident occurs and the injured was not wearing hi viz.If you don't think wearing of hi-viz is cool, there is a "GA Aircrew" inscribed vest on the market, should appeal to the posers among you."

And I think that goes to prove that the reason for the jackets is “ exactly what it says on those there inscribed vests”.
Most regulations put if force by the legislators are not there to protect the users but to protect them.

[DaveW]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that the HSE mandates hi-viz on GA airfields.

So why should it therefore end up in court?

We're jumping at shadows here, I think.

[BackPacker]

It will be the aerodrome manager/operator in court being prosecuted by HSE if a serious incident occurs...

There was a time when the victim of an accident sued the person who caused the accident. Really, there was.

:mad:

[niknak]

Back packer's right.
I remember an airshow we hosted in the early eighties, a work colleague got pissed in the hospitality tent and managed to stagger out into the display parking area.
He came into contact with a wooden propeller which dislocated his shoulder, the pilot had rammed the brakes on causing the plane to lurch forward and knacker the prop completely.

The pilot, rightly in my opinion, sued him for the damage and repairs, and got most of his money - all be it through insurers.

Life used to be simple.

[Monkeeeey]

You see that’s the problem this is not just the case of suing the idiot who caused the problem its how the Health and Safety at Work Act is now used as a beating stick, something that at the outset was a good positive move to protect people has now just digressed into officialdom and political correctness.

Also the Act does not in this instance directly cater for Joe Public’s actions.
The legislation only effects people at work (being paid in cash or kind) so the HSE will only take to legal action under this act against the employees/owners of the business.

And the reason why businesses are so paranoid is down to one of the main purposes of the act:-

'Protect people other than those at work against risks to their health and safety arising out of work activities’ Aircraft/Vehicle movements being one such kind of activity.

Then add into the mix the latest European delights like RIDDOR (Reporting of injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995)

Should something happen then your in the hands of the HSE Inspectors, who have wider powers than police officers, no warrants are required and can stop you operating while they investigate, take apart you equipment and take as long as they need to build a case. During which your business goes down the pan…..

So the onus is on the businesses to go overboard on this stuff to 'cover their butts' and that is the crux of it all.

Its not really about saving a life its about self protection against the PC crowd.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Monkeeeey:

The world has truly gone mad I'm so happy that I was born soon enough to have missed all this lunacy until just towards the end of my career.

What these government employees with all this power and no common sense to go with the power need is a lesson in using common sense and actually having to produce something tangible that is useful to their fellow man, but alas that is wistful thinking......

......just imagine where aviation would be if we had been handcuffed with all these non productive rules when we opened the far north and the high arctic with airplanes where you survived with nothing but your ingenuity and hard work?

Ahhh it is so wonderful to be able to sit here on Vancouver Island and not have to endure the nonsense that todays aviation workers are subjected to.

[Ken Wells]

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg224/kenwells_photo/sarahvest1.jpg

[hobbit1983]

Nope;

http://www.flyer.co.uk/shop/images/jacket1.jpg

Though that one looks good too :ok:

[Ken Wells]

Cheers


Health and Safety only employ "NUTS"

A bit like a traffic warden, you do the job because you can't do anything else!:p

[Droopystop]

Yellow vests arnt designed to save you from idiots, they are to make you more conspicious around machinary, vehiicles and aircraft, that should be obvious, even to idiots.

Did you not read my post? It doesn't matter how conspicuous you are, if the driver does not look or the pedestrian stands where he can't be seen, he will get run over. Yellow vest or not.

I am not anti yellow vests (well I am because they should be pink). But what frightens me is the number of people who seem to think that a yellow vest will stop them being run over. The only way to minimise the risk of being run over is to make sure you are looking out for yourself. And you don't need a yellow vest for that.

If you do not like rules dont fly, aviation is a rule based discipline.

Oh really! What utter rocks. Flying is a skilled based discipline with relatively small number of rules that tell you what you can't do (generally). There is a big difference between that and a set of rules telling you what you can do, which is what a rule based discipline would be.

[BackPacker]

There is a big difference between that and a set of rules telling you what you can do, which is what a rule based discipline would be.

There's also a difference between following the rules as and when they apply to you, and discussing/critizing/defending the rules from the safety of a comfy chair, on the internet. One doesn't necessarily lead to the other.

[Human Factor]

If you do not like rules dont fly, aviation is a rule based discipline.

There are a number of rules which are appropriate. However, there are one or two which are a little pointless. Something to do with toothpaste springs to mind...... :mad:

Yellow jackets have their place. On the ramp at LHR is a good example. On the "ramp" at White Waltham isn't, except to make you an easier target.:E

That said, aviation is a skill based discipline. Some of that skill can be taught to most people. The rest either exists naturally, develops over time or doesn't develop enough. The latter is usually the most evident.:rolleyes:

[hobbit1983]

TCAS FAN, advocates of the vests, et all

vis a vis the wearing of hi viz clothing has proved to be a significant mitigating measure to prevent collisions

is there actually any evidence on this? Not the "of course they do, they make you easier to see, you moron" variety, but any studies, links etc.

Specifically in relation to small GA airfields, prehaps if possible?

Incidentally, my logbook count of airfields visited now stands at 29. I can't recall ever once having worn a high vis outside of Bristol International (and there it was a night, which made the jacket quite sensible).

Likewise I can't once recall being involved in a collision, near miss, or even standing near a prop start. I managed to miss the other parties somehow and they missed me. It's as almost if we managed to see each other & avoid any conflictions on our own.

[Monkeeeey]

If I recall correctly the High Viz was originally used for British Rail workers, the idea then was to enable train drivers (if awake) to distinguish the bright coloured jacket against the dark grey track base from a good distance. The same would apply to motorway workers in poor lighting conditions, in these situations you could agree that the eye would be drawn to the jackets because either the headlights would reflect of them or the background would significantly raise the colour to the front thus giving you something to aim for ;-)

But the main reason for the use was due to the relatively quiet electric trains which could not be easily heard until very close, especially when using power tools/compressors etc, so the protection in this case was provided by an alert (hopefully sober) train driver.

But if while at a GA and you cant see or hear aircraft/vehicles moving around you’ve got to ask yourself where the hell your guide dog has run off to, he/she will have one of those luminous coloured straps on anyway.

It will be bubble rap trousers and flashing Kevlar helmets next……

[mm_flynn]

Just to introduce the odd bit of fact to the thread. Here (http://www.flightsafety.org/ao/ao_mar-apr03.pdf) is an FAA analysis of 'Struck-by injuries' in the US. It has a number of interesting facts:

82% of incidents happened at large hub airports. 0% happened at non-hub airports.

As an industry, aviation has a very low incidence of struck-by injuries (20% of ground transport industry fatalities are due to struck-by vs. 0.2% in Aviation)

Large hub airports where all operators had a high-viz policy had a lower accident rate than those that did not use high viz.

55% of fatalities were the result of vehicles backing up on top of people

All but one of the fatal accidents involved workers and vehicles underneath aircraft.


Finally, the report highlights that - High Viz is recommended where people are undertaking complex tasks which divert attention from moving vehicles, the vehicles are going more than 25 mph and the work is in close proximity to the moving vehicles.

It looks like walking and chewing gum at Kemble may qualify as needing High-Viz ;)

[niknak]

It amazes me how such a simple aid to see and being seen can vex so many people.
It's also indicative of the number of people who are members of the "It will never happen to me" club when it comes to avaition, yet I wager that 99% of you work in ordinary jobs within which you adhere to H&S because you have to.
I would also wager that in your normal mundane jobs, very few, if any of you, contest H&S requirements because;
1) You haven't read the H&S legislation in detail, and are to scared to rebel against it because you know you'd be sacked;and/or,
2) You've never discussed the particulars of anything such as yellow vests, with your H&S manager; and/or,
3) If you were to have an accident at work, you would be squealing like stuck pigs to sue for compensation.

So let's get some perspective here, you will either fly from ordinary small airfields where "H&S is someone elses problem" and as soon as someone is hurt, you will be squealing all the way to the High Court, or, you operate from a regional or even international airport where you have to comply.
I wonder if you'd be so quick to condem anyone who puts on a life jacket because their flight entails a 3nm trip over water?:rolleyes:

Either way, your opinion on the matter doesn't matter and, if you choose not to comply, your business is worthless.

In that case, you really are in the minority but you still have to do what you are required to do by law.
If you choose not to fly as a result we are better off without you.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

This should be a great contribution to personal safety;


http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n131/Golf_Bravo_Zulu/untitled.jpg

except at EGPF, perhaps!

[hobbit1983]

niknak,

It amazes me how such a simple aid to see and being seen can vex so many people.

Yes it is a simple aid to see & being seen; but if we taken with this portion of the report "High Viz is recommended where people are undertaking complex tasks which divert attention from moving vehicles, the vehicles are going more than 25 mph and the work is in close proximity to the moving vehicles." and the fact that they are flammable & nylon & generate static then it seems to me that at your average GA field the cons outweigh the benefit. Especially given that it will not magically stop a determined fool (i.e. a driver/pilot not paying attention).

So let's get some perspective here, you will either fly from ordinary small airfields where "H&S is someone elses problem" and as soon as someone is hurt, you will be squealing all the way to the High Court, or, you operate from a regional or even international airport where you have to comply.

If I was operating from a regional/international airport, I would be happy to stick one on. Different environment, where I think one could be helpful. I don't take the attitude that "H&S is not my problem" at my home airfield - if it was mandatory at Old Sarum to wear one, I would. I just wouldn't like it....

I wonder if you'd be so quick to condem anyone who puts on a life jacket because their flight entails a 3nm trip over water?

I certainly would not condemn them; quite the opposite, I once donned a lifejacket flying to/from Perranporth, with a route over land, because the rwy in use meant the climbout heading was out over the bay.

If you choose not to fly as a result we are better off without you.

Wearing a high-viz is not going to stop me flying!

Anyway, this discussion has reached the point where it's going round in circles. As you said Chuck, everyone's made their minds up - and "a person convinced against their will is not convinced at all". So I'll bow out of this one - and go flying at my blissful high-viz free airfield :ok:

[tigerbatics]

What some people fail to see is that the fuss about yellow jackets is not really about the trivial matter of the jacket itself. It is an absolute and, in my opinion, justified fury at the useless and unnecessary over regulation of an increasing number of areas of life where we all managed happily for years without some officious H&SE nanny. The yellow jacket is just the most obvious symbol of this pointless obsession with micro management of other people's lives.

There is a safety case for the things at LHR but not at every little airfield and no one has ever been able to make one.

[ShyTorque]

If you do not like rules dont fly, aviation is a rule based discipline.

llanfairpg,

We all should stick to the rules in aviation, especially the one about maximum speed of 250 kts below FL100 in Class G. Note that one is mandatory, the one regarding hi-viz vests isn't.

You said this:
We manage 280 kts on a clear day no probs, mostly inside zones, bit occasionally outside around 3000ft. It dosnt seem that fast if you do it often enough but it seems alarmingly slow when you get back into a C152!

But the ANO says this:
Speed Limitation
23 (1) Subject to paragraph (3), an aircraft shall not fly below flight level 100 at a speed which
according to its air speed indicator is more than 250 knots unless it is flying in
accordance with the terms of a written permission of the Authority.

So you are saying that we can't pick and choose with regard to which rules to obey, but you can? :hmm:

Either, you obviously inform the CAA on each occasion you fail to comply with the ANO or you have a written permission to do this....

[Mike Cross]

If you take the trouble to read the appropriate CAP you'll see that HVV is mandated for pushback crews and snow clearance operations.
The remainder is down to the aerodrome management.

The prime pupose of HVV is not to stop you being run over by an aeroplane. They are generally big noisy slow-moving things with flashing lights on them. The dangerous ones are the ramp vehicles that come whizzing out of the gloom beneath the terminal driven by someone wearing the aforementiond HVV that reflects in his windscreen and makes it difficult for him to see you. Not a lot of ramp vehicles whizzing around most GA fields.

Most GA fields also close in conditions of poor vis or darkness, unlike the sort of places where HVV do perform a useful function.

Personally I have on in the a/c in case I'm forced to wear it but I would never wear it while in the a/c or while swinging a prop. In those circumstances it's a danger rather than something that mitigates risk. Something that tends to escape the notice of the average jobsworth.

[mm_flynn]

A further thought on risk.

How many times does a vehicles maneuver within 5m of the push back crew?
maybe 20 times per shift

How many times does a vehicle maneuver within 5m of an airside person?
maybe once every 10 trips to the local GA field.

Even assuming the likelihood of injury is equal from a number of vehicles on a busy ramp vs a lone vehicle out in the open, The GA field has something like a 200 times lower probability of injury per person. Hence any sensible risk assessment would conclude that the mitigation required at LHR should be dramatically greater than at Kemble. If Hi-Viz was sensible at Kemble, then God only knows what should be done at LHR to manage their risk!!!

It is primarily this lack of rational risk management within the UK that drives the 'anti-High Viz' views.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

In that case, you really are in the minority but you still have to do what you are required to do by law.
If you choose not to fly as a result we are better off without you.

niknat, I have no idea who you are but one thing I do know is you are an insult to the IQ of a primate.

And you can bet I would not sit at your table for companionship at any airport. :ok:

[rans6andrew]

it would make a lot more sense for everything that moves to be in dayglo colours so that people see the things that are likely to hurt them.

I have tried to start the ball rolling by recovering my Rans S6 in flourescent green. Stands out a mile. When on tour all my mates can loose formate on me quite easily and I can always find my aircraft when I come from the beer tent ;-)

[ShyTorque]

Soon there will be so much hi-viz yellow/green about that folk will have to wear something black to be seen. :}

[Ken Wells]

In that case, you really are in the minority but you still have to do what you are required to do by law.
If you choose not to fly as a result we are better off without you.


WE?


We are not worthy Oh great NIKNAK!

Seems like this light hearted thread has gone a little over your head!

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg224/kenwells_photo/1animated6.gif

[Monkeeeey]

He wont notice if hes wearing his regulation hard hat.....

[Chuck Ellsworth]

He wont notice if hes wearing his regulation hard hat.....

You meant tinfoil didn't you?

[Ken Wells]

Too true!

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg224/kenwells_photo/Monkeey.gif

[niknak]

Oi! That picture's private property!

Damned paparazzi...........:D

[Tinstaafl]

The USA has a rather busier GA environment than the UK but does so without a need for hi-viz jackets. I quite happily wander to & from my aircraft on the GA part of very busy airports such as Atlanta Intl, Miami Intl, Tampa Intl, etc etc ad nauseum as well as numerous smaller fields without have to wear a hi-viz. To follow the logic of those who mandate the wearing of such things the US should have a worse safety rate than the UK. Has anyone *any* information that supports this assumption?

[mm_flynn]

Tinstafl

The FAA stats I linked to above show 1- Aviation has a very low risk of this type of accident vs other industrial areas, 2 - There are no fatal incidents in the period anywhere other than a few major hub airports, Almost all of those incidents were 'underneath' large transport aircraft, 3- There are almost no incidents of injury in non-hub airports where someone is stuck by a vehicle on the ramp.

Hence the US (litigation capital of the world) airports have not seen any need to introduce this change.

No information is available of the number of people struck by a vehicle in the airport parking lot.

[BEagle]

Having nearly been driven into by a couple of idiot yellowcoats due to the (rare in the UK) sun causing severe reflections in their vehicle windscreen, I agree that these arse-covering road diggers' coats can be a sodding nuisance - and a hazard.

Struggling into the flapping yellow abortions to walk twenty feet from aeroplane to control point is a nonsense, of course. I gather that's what is required at Kemble these days?

Now, if someone such as Pooleys or AFE was to come up with a smart, lightweight flying jacket in 'safety yellow', perhaps people would feel less annoyed at having to wear the stupid things.

[Ni Thomas]

BEagle remarks:
Quote - Now, if someone such as Pooleys or AFE was to come up with a smart, lightweight flying jacket in 'safety yellow', perhaps people would feel less annoyed at having to wear the stupid things. - Unquote

A pal of mine found one and actually wore it! :ugh:.... We wouldn't talk to him thereafter & made him walk thirteen paces behind us when he did. It's OK now though ... He went off to Calgary in disgrace and bought a Cirrus-thingy.

[BEagle]

The only one I could find was in an Australian website:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/ylo.jpg

Business opportunity for someone?

[SNS3Guppy]

I didn't read through the entire thread, and there's no mandate for high visibility clothing in the US, but a couple of things leapt to mind. One of my work assignments puts me in a cockpit where I'm required to wear leather boots, long sleeve nomex flight suits, leather gloves, a helmet, etc. Certain pilots don't like it, in fact, many don't, because under the operating conditions, it gets extremely hot and uncomfortable. Some say it's a safety hazard because the extra clothing and gear only makes one hotter.

Personally, I wear it. I became convinced a long time ago, and I understand it's for protection. The life I save will be my own.

Some years ago an aircraft went down close to dark. Normally when one of our aircraft went down, one would assume all dead; survivors out of a crash under those circumstances just didn't ordinally exist. In this case, the aircraft crashed and burned. Later, it was learned that one crewmember did survive, got away from the wreckage, and propped himself up in a sitting position against a cactus. It was later estimated he survived three days before he died, and was found there. He was wearing a green nomex flight suit, and blended in with the terrain and with the cactus. The operator immediately switched to indian orange flight suits for no other reason than to make the crew more visible. Nobody complained.

A few years ago we went from yellow airplanes to white airplanes with red markings. Repainting the entire fleet got expensive. It was time consuming. Many of us felt the yellow colors were easier to see. However, we soon came to discover that the new paint scheme made a very big difference in out overhead support spotting us sooner, others picking us up faster, especially in smoke and low visibility. That white and red paint scheme wasn't a shot in the dark; it really works.

If high visibility jackets are mandated, who cares? In the western US at certain times of the year, every store carries racks of bright orange clothing as deer hunting season approaches. A decent high visibility vest can be had for a few bucks (dollars). I've kept one tucked in my gear for years. It may never be needed, but it may also make me easier to spot at a time, at some point, when it's wanted, and that's good enough.

Who cares what it looks like?? This is aviation. Not a fashion show.

[BEagle]

But if you can combine 'safety' and 'fashion', you can probably persuade people to wear hi-visibility clothing with less complaints.

Whereas some jumped up "elf 'n safety, innit" tosseur demanding that everyone wears hi-visibility clothing, to protect his own useless backside without any safety assessment having been conducted, deserves nothing but downright derision.

[Monkeeeey]

hmm...'Saftey and Fashion'

Don't worry gents....summer will soon be with us and just look what you could be wearing.

http://www.toolstation.com/images/library/stock/webtables/52440.jpg

http://www.toolstation.com/images/library/stock/webtables/83583.jpg
Look at all that polyester :ooh: yum...its from the lemon meringue range. It may clash with your headsets........

[Monkeeeey]

..even better. You cant go wrong with that.


http://cdn.overstock.com/images/products/P10862276.jpg

[Windy Militant]

As I proposed before every airfield should supply these to get you too and from your "Gentleman's Aerial Carriage" :ok:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3201311#post3201311

[polskipusher]

The "Wooly Jumper" in his hi viz waistcoat at Tollerton, was not impressed with my hi viz jump pants. On my visit I was the only aircraft there, so does that make me a hazard to myself.:ugh:

[poss]

Perhaps it gives us permission to strategically position our enemies on the taxi way with ANR headphones, facing the opposite way and no High Viz.. then chop them up/run them over without getting charged for murder/manslaughter because we "couldnt see them". :}:E
I'm actually quite stable and sane :cool:

[LowNSlow]

As the summer season rushes towards us :) does anybody have a list of airfields that have delusions of grandeur which require pilots to dress like motorway maintenance staff?

[fireflybob]

Not got a list but we can all start to notify the places we are aware of!

Nottingham (Tollerton) - (thats EGBN NOT EMA!)

[BRL]

As the summer season rushes towards us does anybody have a list of airfields that have delusions of grandeur which require pilots to dress like motorway maintenance staff?

How about starting a new thread, could stickie it if enough interest!

[LowNSlow]

Good man yerself BRL :ok:

[Ken Wells]

fancy closeing a thread that you suggested!!!!!!

very strange!!!

[Skylark58]

If this hi-vis yellow is such a good idea, why are RAF Hawks painted black?

[Contacttower]

Well according to Flyer magazine hiz vis vests worn in the cockpit constitute a fire hazard and a glare hazard. :=

[ChampChump]

What worries me is when the whole of the UK population is 'appropriately' attired (instances: for the walk/ride to school, shops, warehouse, loading yard or office, fag break outside, driving the white van, driving any van, driving/pointing/starting/looking at anything with wheels or just moving parts.... and just in case one has to do any of those things...), there'll then be a need for some overpaid, under-educated pompous official to have a meeting about a feasibility study (with token focus group) to invent an even brighter colour to stand out from the rest.

Sickening.

[wsmempson]

I generally find that the standard high-vis vest is a bit too voluminous for comfort and tends to get caught on things. I generally leave the aircraft dressed like this

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/a-borat2.jpg

as I find this garment comfortable, eyecatching and fashionable.:rolleyes:

[Human Factor]

Don't you find that a bit draughty?

As BRL requested, I have started a new thread HERE (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=310696) to list UK GA airfields which require you to wear yellow hi-viz jackets.

My hope is that if we see the list and avoid these airfields (there's an irony) until COMMON SENSE prevails, there may be an outbreak of common sense. I don't believe this would put any airfield at risk as I would suggest that owners would be reluctant to do anything which would jeopardise their income - such as appearing on the "PPrune List".

Remember, the CAP says "should" not "must". ;)

[BackPacker]

HF, you might want to check out this thread:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=309721

[Human Factor]

Missed that one. Probably because it wasn't a sticky....... hint.:E

[Mariner9]

Does anyone here really believe that any airfield would amend its safety rules (sensible or otherwise) against CAA advice (assuming the should comment is correct-I haven't checked personally) due to a boycott by a few Prooners? :rolleyes::mad:

M9 (Boycotting the boycott)

[CPilotUK]

Bob Davy had a good rant about high vis jackets in this month's issue of Loop.

[mm_flynn]

Does anyone here really believe that any airfield would amend its safety rules (sensible or otherwise) against CAA advice (assuming the should comment is correct-...

I would be interest in how many airports that require High-Viz (because they 'Should') have also driver assessed and trained ALL airside drivers, fitted reversing alarms, planned how to minimize vehicle/pedestrian interaction near the aircraft, and have developed and documented a turnaround plan in conjunction with each operator?


All things in the 'Should' list - And all things which sound quite reasonable to do for turning a 757 at Manch. For an airport that has one walk behind airplane pusher, 1 fire truck and 2 fuel trucks???

But then again, I am looking forward to the provision of a Visual Docking System, Jetway and Fixed Ground power after being guided in to the Kemble parking area by the Follow Me truck ;) All things recommended as improving safety in CAP 642

[Bastardos]

Well, this is my first post!!

I my few years in aviation (a whole 5!) I cant really see a time where wearing a hi vis vest saved someone from their own actions, examples I have seen are:

Idiots who cannot do an overhead rejoin
Going the wrong way in a circuit
Not reading a NOTAM and charging thru an airshow
swinging a prop on a tiger, slipping and somehow falling thru the running prob
Walking across the front of the tiger as I start to taxi
Landing over a plane lined up for takeoff (and rolling)
And.... helicopter pilot refuelling... smoke in hand.. passengers (kids) left in helicopter with engine running... not using earth wire... jandals.. oh and the cardinal sin.. no hi vis jacket!!

Honestly, on a tarmac, the best safety equipment I have are the ones I was born with - a set of eyes and a set of ears. Use them and I reckon you dont need a dorky hi vis vest!

[scooter boy]

I strongly object to Hi-Vis health and safety nonsense in principle, however...

I landed at Biggin Hill on Sunday and had to walk across a very busy apron - jets taxiing, helicopters running-up, singles and twins moving here and there. There must have been 4 or 5 aircraft with engines running to get past between the parking spot I was marshalled to and the C.
In this location I have to it does make sense to be a visually stimulating as possible - ironically I have given the aircraft a clean-out and forgotted to put the Hi-Vis back in. I would have worn it without resistance if I'd had it though.

It is NOT mandatory there yet.

I do sympathise with airport management whose liability insurance stipulates that a robust health and safety policy is in place.

The objection I have is at the quieter places (where you are the only movement of the hour) when jobsworths get upset. This is annoying, esp if they insist that you buy a Hi-Vis tabard before they let you out to the aircraft.:mad:

SB

[scooter boy]

"Idiots who cannot do an overhead rejoin"

steady there Bastardos.

Some of us would argue that the concept of the overhead join is outdated itself and likely to put aircraft arriving simultaneously into dangerously close proximity, especially as we are not all doing 70kts in piper cubs any more.

Join: Downwind on the '45, base or straight-in suit me far better.

There are not many idiots in aviation, Darwin's theory sees to that.

SB

[Ken Wells]

Careful HUMAN FACTOR he closed mine!

[Human Factor]

Don't worry, Ken. I've made a copy. ;)

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

An object lesson on what can happen if you don't wear your see-me-vest!

cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/...src=y7news (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=248153&cl=12323495&ch=&src=y7news)

[kevmusic]

I really don't see hi-viz ware making a doodley-squat's worth of difference in that particular scenario, GBZ!!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Really? Well spotted! :D

[kevmusic]

<B*gger. Where's me sense of irony gorn? :ouch:>

[moonym20]

I turned up in the states to do some further training, the yanks saw the high-viz jacket in my crew bag and laughed me off the ramp :D

its nice to know we in the UK give them a good laugh every now and again :}

[TCAS FAN]

I would be very interested in seeing the risk assessments carried out (or should have been carried out) at licensed aerodrome that do not make high vis clothing mandatory airside.

Maybe the Aerodrome Standards Department, CAA, appreciate that everyone is not complying with the Risk Assessment game rules, and were instrumental in having the ANO changed, due to be published this year, that place additional legal responsibilities on licensed aerodrome operators to spell out in their Aerodrome Manual's how their Safety Management System operates.

[mm_flynn]

I would be very interested in seeing the risk assessments carried out (or should have been carried out) at licensed aerodrome that do not make high vis clothing mandatory.
I would have thought they would be reasonably sensible. After all the incidents of 'struck by aircraft' is vanishingly small compared to struck by ground vehicles. If the airport has trained drivers and few airside vehicle operations (particularly if those ops are not under aircraft - that is not tugs ladders, baggage carts, cargo equipment) then the risk assessment should show very low probability and moderate risk. As such it would be very surprising (and facinating to see the logic) if a real risk assessment concluded that HiViz is necessary or even appropriate at most GA fields.

[A and C]

Why on earth are we starting to think that the hi vis is to be mandated at a GA airfields? Some of us have the common sense to us the hi vis at night or in conditions of poor visability.

For gods sake use you brains and stop having your lives dictated by the utterly stupid "elf & safety" numptys.

Remember the only reason for "elf & safety" is to keep these people out of the jobless statistics.

[Ni Thomas]

A & C says:-
"For gods sake use you brains and stop having your lives dictated by the utterly stupid "elf & safety" numptys."

All very well said and done, but what happens when these people have rather sternly told you to clear off their airfield and take you fecking aeroplane with you?? :ouch:
No doubt you expect all the other airfield users will support me and go on 'strike' eh? and stop using that facility . Hmmm! :hmm: Methinks not. I'll be an airfield orphan :\
Sooo.. despite my own feelings on the issue (which aren't dissimilar to yours and others :mad:) I continue to reluctantly wear the blasted thing whilst standing on their airfield. Life's simpler that way.

[goatface]

Columnist AA Gill had a surprising take on Health and Safety, following a bellittling attack on the work of those employed to enforce existing legislation by a Channel 4 documentry and many others, including internet forums, (including the "it will never happen to me @cos I am a pilot brigade):

He wrote: I’ve never really got the furious pleasure gleaned from bullying people who do the tedious job of making sure we’re not killed, crippled or struck by laziness, greed, stupidity and ignorance.
You can roll your eyes at a man who wants to tell you how
to wipe a floor or ban the donkey derby, but at the same time you must
remember the hundreds of builders dying of asbestos-induced cancer inhaled before council busybodies made it their business, or the miners with black lung caught when they were employed by you and me.
We trust that our tea is unadulterated, our electrics are earthed, the boiler has a flue and the lift was checked last week. All that is down
to health and safety.
If you are in the business of making documentaries or ill informed comment on web sites about the lives of ordinary people, then there are far more deserving candidates for the internet's and media's mighty ire and odium than these boring but valiant public servants who are so easily and thoughtlessly teased.”

Nuff said really.:rolleyes::ugh:

[BabyBear]

Goatface, exactly my thoughts, thanks for saving me the effort!

We are all aware that H&S issues can sometimes be taken a bit far, indeed hi viz jackets may well be an example. However it does not warrant the level of criticism, directed at ordinary folks going about their business.

When people refer to H&S staff as, 'utterly stupid elf & safety numptys,' in a post with common sense in the title, it seems to me that it is these very people that need the H&S numptys to save them from their own brand of common sense!

[A and C]

For thirty years I have been in the aviation business without an accident or any injury more drastic that stabing myself with a bit of lockin wire.

The one distracting thing that has inflated its self over the years is "elf & safety" it has produced large amounts of paperwork that distract from doing the job and stop people thinking about the dangers that they might be putting them selfs into ( I can assure you that a large aircraft can find more ways to hurt you than the "elf & safety could dream of untill after the event ) The result is we are producing people that cant see danger because the they think that someone will have removed all the risk from the workplace.

I have yet to meet an "elf & safety " officer that I would trust to run a tap (luke walm of course) and just like all petty officials they cant resist using the full range of the powers that they have to make themselfs seem important.

As I said in my last post saftey equipment should be used if the situation requires it and not by blanket dictate, during the recent snow on the airfield that I was working on we ditched the hi vis for dark clothing, that is called common sense but I doubt if the "elf & safety" types could see it that way from the windows of walm office.

[Yankee]

Ni said

I continue to reluctantly wear the blasted thing whilst standing on their airfield. Life's simpler that way.

I wonder what our dear departed friend would have said hearing you say that, you let the side down. I was down at the airport yesterday and wanted to take a quick look at the plane and didn't have that thing with me. Dived down between the hangar doors and rear of all the aircraft and if that white van had appeared it would have got it with both barrels I can tell you, not a sole in site.

[eharding]

I would be very interested in seeing the risk assessments carried out

We know you would...because, let's face it, we know that reviewing risk assessments provides the ultimate sense of achievement in your life.

Now then - truth time. Do you now hold, or have you at any time held, any form of flight crew licence?...and if so, what do you fly, and from where?

I'm genuinely interested to know. I can see if you were a career ATPL who has spent 20 years largely avoiding being run down by catering trucks whilst trying to do a walk-round at hundreds of busy commercial airports, you would be a fervent advocate of a bit of dayglo fabric, because, frankly, so would I...in that context.

But I'm not a 20-year career ATPL with bad experiences of catering trucks, and - I have an edible hat on standby - neither are you. I'm a PPL flying from an average flying club.

In the context of the average UK flying club, mandatory carriage and wearing of these (highly flammable) bits of kit form a travesty of a genuine safety culture - it is of little surprise then, then those of us who actually fly find the didactic - bordering on the fetishistic - preaching on the subject of those who don't rather trying, to say the least.

[BabyBear]

The point being made in the article is that without the H&S we would not enjoy many of the safety standards we currently have, take for granted and that afford you a relatively safe working environment that has enabled you 30 plus years accident free. Do you really believe your working environment would be as safe without the H&S considerations and legislation? It is H&S that has enabled you to achieve such a great record.

Yes red tape gets in the way in modern society, nothing is perfect and it is not limited to H&S, no one disputes it. Resorting to insulting all H&S employees says much more about you than it does them.

[A and C]

As far as I can see the Real safety standards have not been helped one iota by the "elf & safety" in all the time that I have been in aviation, before the HSE we had the Factorys inspector. These guys normaly had a practical view to things and did not flood us with stupid rules that do little good for anyone.

As for insulting H & S employees it is not my intention, I just call it as I see it after all they have done exactly nothing to improve my working enviroment, and at the same time slowed the job down with shed loads of stupid and pointless paperwork.

The bottom line is that H & S is an industry that is out of control and spending most of it's time inventing things to give it,s self something to do. Perhaps I have just been unlucky but all the "elf & safety" have done for me is make it harder to teach the people new to the industry to look out for danger and think about the results of actions that they might take by bringing a "safety first" attitude into disrepute.

[TCAS FAN]

eharding

In answer to your question, "yes", aircrew licence, controller licence, airport operations mangement qualifications and aerodrome licencing consultant with over 40 years experience in aviation from GA up to major international airports.

[mm_flynn]

The bottom line is that H & S is an industry that is out of control and spending most of it's time inventing things to give it,s self something to do. Perhaps I have just been unlucky but all the "elf & safety" have done for me is make it harder to teach the people new to the industry to look out for danger and think about the results of actions that they might take by bringing a "safety first" attitude into disrepute.
I think more accurately the implementation of H&S is frequently ALLOWED to run out of control. Many of the concepts are solid - but one of the most important concepts is that real and accurate risk assessments are done and the people on the front line understand the risks and take personal responsibility for themselves and others. There are lots of processes that help implement this, but without the people who risk getting injured believing and understanding, you don't get real safety.

I say this from the perspective of someone who is actually one of the legally accountable people, employs some of the best H&S people available and operates a large scale business with the best safety record in the industry. H&S is important and can work - but way to often, people do things in the name of H&S that don't add any value - when they do that, they actually take a massive step backwards because the people on the front line loose respect and stop listening.

HiViz at small airfields is one of those things. This thread goes on for pages and pages and the only facts or logic as to why HiViz is a good idea have been in the context of large aircraft ops with intense ground activity - and there it IS a good idea, along with ear defenders, toetectors, etc).

When you speak with the airfield operations people at the 'HiViz GA' airports it is clear that either the airport H&S/management team just read the CAA guidance and adopted this bit with no thought or proper risk assessment OR they have failed spectacularly in communicating to their front line staff what the risk assessment identified, the supporting data on impact and probability and why HiViz is a good mitigation.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The biggest problem with all these studies about safety and the rules put in place such as Hi-Viz vests at general aviation airports is those who do these studies and dream up the rules come from the shallowest end of the human gene pool.

[BabyBear]

Recognise them, do you Chuck :ok:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

They are not difficult to recognize Baby Bear due to the shallowness of their grasp on reality.....

....it was these morons who keep churning out more and more mindless rules and policies that made me decide to retire from what used to be a sane industry.

Getting out of aviation was like getting rid of a dose of the clap.

[TRC]

I have two true stories that do nothing but back-up my own views on the H&S culture that a lot of us find so tedious.

The first: We had landed a helicopter on a wide expanse of grass between two taxiways, as ordered by ATC, at a HUGE former RNAS airfield which is now a civil airport.
The following morning, very early, the two of us walked out to the helicopter and started preps to depart, aiming to leave as soon as the airport opened. Nothing was moving, just us.
Just as we were finishing taking the covers off, a Police car drove along the taxiway, stopped opposite us and the driver asked us if we “had any hi-viz jackets with us, and to put them on”. He’d seen us from the other side of the airfield, about half a mile away – and was driving the only thing that could have hit us.

The second: For a film, we were to land – at night - a pair of Bell Hueys on the roof of an Eastern Bloc airfield control tower. A fairly long but narrow, two story building with the ‘tower’ bit sticking up in the middle. Not too bad.
BUT, the H&S bloke insisted that to prevent people falling off the roof, a handrail be fitted around the edges! We argued against it, obviously – eventually we agreed on a 1ft high ‘triprail’ about 3ft in from the edge. We probably wouldn’t trip over that with the skids or hit it with the tail.
Unfortunately, the H&S bloke was right about someone falling off the roof, someone did – it was the poor b@$t@rd fitting the rail, he stepped back to admire his work. (He landed in a bush and was OK).

[Crash one]

At the factory I last worked at, (a very large international company) the Health & Safety Officer walked across the factory floor, paddled through a 6ft square drip tray filled with hydraulic fluid & the dissasembled pump to reach the fire door, removed the wooden wedge jamming it locked, walked outside to review some spilled diesel oil in the carpark, returned, replaced the wedge, paddled back to his office & instructed a labourer to clean up the diesel, & said not a word to anyone regarding the mess he had just seen.
On another occasion he tripped over a plastic floor tile outside his office which had curled up because they had been painted with a cellulose based, but nice looking, paint, on his instructions, & said nothing!!
It is not the H & S rules that are at fault, it is the utterly moronic numpties that apply them, or not, as they see fit that is the problem, & the reason for the contempt they are held in.
Yeller jackets are a fire hazard a security risk a waste of money & should be compulsory attire for all morons so the rest of us know who to ask where the toilets are.
Just my own opinion by the way.

[BabyBear]

And I would be prepared to lay a bet that in the same, very large international, Company there were many equally incompetent individuals that were not involved in H&S!

It's a bit like saying smoking does not cause cancer because your Granny smoked 40 a day from 14 years of age and got knocked down by a bus going to collect the telgram from the Queen on her 100th birthday

[Crash one]

Absolutely.
But as I said, my opinion, I'm entitled to it.
What pisses me off is the fact that no matter how incompetent these people are, if they scream "Safety" it's like a force field, no one can argue, dissagree, or utter a word against "Safety". If you dare, you are branded a reckless, dangerous, inconsiderate fool.
Comparisons with smokers & busses is yet another smokescreen. Smoking can also kill you at this time of year, you die of hypothermia standing in the bloody rain. Is someone going to prevent us from standing in the rain?
When you give a moron a title like "Safety Officer" they become God-like, the world is theirs to control.
I digress, elfin safety aside, this is about the yeller jacket issue.
If a pilot or driver needs everyone to wear a Hi Vis thing so that he can see them then he shouldn't be flying/driving. Why doesn't everyone walking across the street wear one?
I spent some years of my youth on the flight deck of aircraft carriers. In those days if you had a yellow, red, blue or green jacket it meant you had a particular function & could be identified.
The only person I ever saw blown down the deck by a Sea Vixen was wearing a yellow jacket with Flight Deck Officer printed on the back!
The guy that got dumped 20yds up the deck with several broken ribs surely didn't expect the pilot of the Sea Venom that hit him, at night, to take avoiding action while doing a bolter?
What this nanny culture is doing is taking the personal responsibility out of everyones hands, leaving everyone vulnerable to their own stupidity & able to blame someone else.
If you feel safer wearing a Hi Vis go ahead, If I feel happy wearing knickers & flip-flops, leave me alone.
If the Hi Vis is developed to become blast proof, prop strike proof, un-run-overable etc I may agree to wear one as I wander aimlessly through motorway traffic for amusement.

[ShyTorque]

If I feel happy wearing knickers & flip-flops, leave me alone.


Dayglo knickers and steel toe-capped flip-flops? :E

[Crash one]

Of course, Regulations you know!

[BackPacker]

Yeller jackets are a fire hazard a security risk a waste of money & should be compulsory attire for all morons so the rest of us know who to ask where the toilets are.

Little incident we almost had today.

A club member had invited some of his neighbors to come fly with him. Because of the numbers, this happened in several shifts and with two pilots. All the participants were briefed beforehand... Hi Viz, take care of propellers, don't wander around the platform unaccompanied etc.

One of the pilots loads up the aircraft with passengers, briefs them, asks for startup clearance and starts his starting checklist. He has a good look around and sees someone at the other end of the apron taking pictures. Fine. Continues the checks, beacon on, strobes on, fuel pump on, mixture rich, prime, mags on and just as he is about to push the starter button he looks outside again and sees the same person hanging over the cowling taking pictures of the passengers. That person clearly must have run over the apron and through the prop arc to get there. He actually sees that person turning the LIVE prop a bit so he could get closer.

You can imagine the telling-off that this person got. But not his reaction. "Don't worry, I've worked in commercial aviation for 20 years, I know what I'm doing." Oh, and he was wearing a Hi-Viz, like he was told at the briefing.

Maybe it's time for a sort of informal rule at those places where Hi-Viz is mandatory but unnecessary. Those who wear them properly, with all the body parts through the right holes and without ending up with a big tangle at the back (not a small feat on a windy apron in any case) are probably outsiders and should be watched. Those who simply stick their head through the first available hole and be done with it, are insiders and can be trusted not to do something stupid.

[BabyBear]

I actually agree with your sentiments, however I think when it comes to viciously tarring all H&S with the same brush and hurling insults it damages the 'cause' rather than strengthen it.

[Crash one]

If the Health & Safety Executive had enough brain cells between them to consider what type of person should be employed as a safety officer & employ such persons, apply the rules sympathetically using common sense, logic, due consideration, call it what you will, then they may EARN the respect that the concept deserves. The concept of "let us devise a set of rules to ensure the safety of the un-initiated population" is fine, commendable hurrah. It is the applicators who have caused the problem, & the buck stops at the top.
I have no regrets, I have heard the reports of the disgusting breakfast served at the local hospital as a result of mis-managed health & safety issues, all the ambulance crews knew the quickest way to us, what do you do when the company nurse gets knocked down by a forklift driver reversing into a passage without warning? she is only there two days a week. If more people did their job properly & paid attention instead of walking about with their head up their arse, blaming everybody else when things go wrong then elfin safety wouldn't be necessary.

bedtime

[BabyBear]

As I said such vicious attacks is a reflection on those behind them and puts them in a position of appearing to be as big numptys as those they insult.

Personally I don't come across H&S folks any where near often enough to get so upset over them, nor will it make any difference to me how vicious others are to them.

I have noticed though that the less folks seem to have in their life the more they look for trivia to get worked up about.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I have noticed though that the less folks seem to have in their life the more they look for trivia to get worked up about.

Conversely the deciding factor in the timing of my retirement from aviation after over fifty years as a pilot / mechanic was I could not put up with the dumbing down of the industry by the ever expanding army of officials churning out endless mindless rules and regulations and hiring the mentally challenged to enforce same.

Like I previously said, quitting aviation was like getting rid of a dose of clap.

[BabyBear]

I resisted asking last time, when asking if you recognised the the shallowness on their grasp on reality, inferring from experience, if your anology to getting rid of the clap was from personal experience too!

I find it amusing to think that 'the deciding factor' in your retirement, after over 50 years in aviation, was the H&S. :ok:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I find it amusing to think that 'the deciding factor' in your retirement, after over 50 years in aviation, was the H&S.

I am delighted I amuse you Baby Bear however may I suggest you go back and read what I said?

I specifically stated I had had enough of mindless bureaucrats sitting in cubicles churning out mindless rules and policies that ends making aviation less safe because they drive us experienced people out of the business.

Now if you want to debate my background and examine it with the intent of showing that I needed bureaucrats to keep me safe please feel free to do so.:ok:

[BabyBear]

Absolutely no desire to debate your background, why should you think that?

I am merely pointing out that having worked for 50+ years the decision to retire is somewhat easier than for most.:ok: