Just been going through a thousand pictures from GVFWE at Kemble for a web site and am suffering from yellow spots before the eyes. There are increasing numbers of pilots wearing high vis vests inside the aircraft which spoils many of the shots.

Can I appeal for vests to be stowed until needed?

or, even better, get rid of the stupid things. They're totally useless and achieve nothing except as a way for little Hitlers at self-important aerodromes to cause embug.gerance to aircrew

At Waltham (thankfully a yellow jacket free zone, usually) the other day, a bunch of people arrived in some nondescript aircraft, got out in their yellow jackets, and then stood around wearing them in the Bar. Were they worried that someone might taxi into them and spill their drinks? I suspect that they were in some way trying to differentiate themselves from the plebs: "look at us, we're FLIGHT CREW". Whether these were the same people callking the a/g for takeoff clearances etc later on I know not, but I have my suspicions.

There is definately a time and place for yellow jackets. In the bar is not one of them and as for wearing them in the plane!!! What can i say.

However I do wish that more people would wear them when walking around live side. At Duxford there seems an awful lots of people relish the thought of being hit by a prop blade because they cant be seen.

So dont slag the yellow jackets off all the time... sometimes they are needed.

Can't get much more live than in the cockpit though...

You should try taking piccies in the cockpit, through the glazing, when someone else is in the cockpit wearing one of the things... argh! Good job there's so much oil seed rape crops out there, half the reflections disappeared into those...

When was the last time in the UK that a SEP or MEP taxied into someone when the accident might have been prevented by a high-vis jacket?

I was told that high vis jackets are not very flame retardent so I wear one out to the aircraft get in and take it off then go flying. Once I have landed and shut down I then put the jacket back on and walk to the terminal or wherever I have to go.

I refuse to wear one on the grounds that they aren't marked as flame retardant.

If challenged, offering to put a match to the challenger's to prove the point may not make me any friends, but stops demands that I put one on.

P

I'm afraid it's all part of the nannying world in which we all now live. Even children in a 'walking bus' supervised by umpteen adults in a controlled environment have to wear them!

I even got chastised recently by an Ops Hitler for not wearing it whilst doing a walkround on my OWN aircraft! So just how is a hi-vis vest going to stop me banging my head on the wing of an aircraft I am inspecting? And if I need it for protection against moving vehicles or propellors, I would hope a 5,000lb twin-engined plane would be more visible than I am and if they're close enough to do me damage I'll be running fast before they hit the fuel tanks!!

Its not just about propellors, its also to help airport staff spot infringements of the manouvering areas and runways. Believe it or not, a fair proportion of runway infringements are caused by pilots walking where they shouldn't.. having a hi-viz on gives ATC and other airfield personnel a chance to prevent this sort of thing happening, before a nasty happens.

If you had to insure an airfield post 911, you would make sure everyone possible was wearing one, just to keep the premium down!!

Okay, let me get this straight ... you have light a/c pilots and passengers wearing "high visibility vests" like these things? Why? Are they going to stop off while commuting to and from the airport, so that they can do some manual labour on the highway?

I have never seen anything like that this side of the pond (where litigation is a lot more common); not this side of a ditch-digging crew, anyway.

This is a leg pull, right?

Exactly that MLS, pathetic isn't it.

P

I've witnessed the result of someone not being visible to a taxying aircraft being hit, "almost certainly directly as a result of them not wearing the hi visibility clothing" (the coroners words, <himself a very experienced G/A pilot>, not mine).
It wasn't pretty, and it took a long time to find all the pieces.

I agree that there is a time and place "to be see and be seen", and that is anywhere between the aircraft and the non airside area, because that is what hi visibility clothing is all about.
What really pisses me off is the arrogant and self centered attitudes so freely expressed in this post by the "It'll never happen to me" club members, no doubt you fly in the same reckless manner with no thought to anyone else.

I certainly hope it never does happen to you, but it appears that the only way you'll learn will be if it does.

I learned the green cross code when I was a child, I'm not aware that the common sense of being on an airfield is much different. I am aware that as a human being on my feet my visibility (and hearing) is infinitely better than it is in charge of a taxiing aircraft with a headset on.

But having made my point, and others have made theirs - maybe we should have a poll on the subject?

P

I keep mine on. I leave it on my probably inflammable jacket issued to me by work. It saves trying to find it or worse, leaving it in the car.
I can understand that during the day on a small relatively quiet field that you don't need them. In fact, never wore one when I was in Oz. Not even wandering around aeroplanes at Sydney airport.
These days I wander around aeroplanes at night with vans and fuel trucks whizzing by. Since I am wearing black it's probably not a bad idea to keep the hi viz jacket on.

I love them. Anything to stand out from the crowd!

Not sure whether the yellow is the right hue to match the flying suit.

FD

Just great to see peeps getting worked up about something as irrelevant as a high vis jacket. FWIW we are guests/customers at the airfields that we visit. The dress code comes with it. Don't like it? Go elsewhere!

Presumably not therefore
a) the fault of the pilot for driving into him
or
b) his fault for walking into the path of something noisy and dangerous, which, being airside, he might have anticipated could be there.

The fact that he wasn't wearing the jacket does not IMHO make him at fault for being hit nor absolve the person who ran into him from blame.

(written from the perspective of knowing no more about this particular case than has been stated in this thread)

Mike

I didn't have much faith in Hi Vis vests to begin with and since a myopic muppet in a Fiat Punta wrote off my Motorcycle by running up my Six whilst I was wearing one I have even less.

Despite what most people except for redsnail seem to be saying, there is a chance that a high viz jacket might help someone to see you and stop you being chopped up by a prop or run over by a fuel bowser.

You can pick them up for about a fiver at most saturday/sunday markets. It costs very little to wear one, and could cost you everything not to - your call.

Having nearly had some yellow vest wearing prat in a car drive into me whilst I was driving on the aerodrome manoeuvring area - because the reflections on his windscreen prevented him seeing me properly - I consider that all vehicle drivers should be banned from wearing the stupid things whilst in the cab of a moving vehicle!

..it's not airside body armour, it's an insurance palliative for aerodrome operators.

Is it just a UK thing? No-one seemes to bother in France...