Hi-vis vests to be required at YPJT from 21 January.
safety
On the site I work on in OZ everonr gets to wear yellow shirts with reflective tape on,its mandatory from the top down .They are light and comfortable and from forays intot he nearbye town it looks like most companies provide them for thier workers.I also wear safety glasses and sometimes ear protection.when I started in industry none of this was mandatory nor was there a safety "culture"(1955ish).There were many accidents back then and things are much better now so what have Ppruners got against safety?Yes there are more rules than you can shake a stick at but in the long run lives get saved.
As requested.....
"NOTICE TO AIRSIDE TENANTS AND OPERATORS - High Visibility Vests/Clothing
Good afternoon all,
Jandakot Airport Holdings Pty Ltd advises that effective from Monday 21st January 2013, High Visibility (“High Viz”) vests or clothing must be worn when walking within the aircraft movement areas. This includes all aprons (except leased apron areas), taxilanes, taxiways, the run-up bays and the helicopter training area.
For personal safety, it is necessary that people walking within the movement area are highly visible to aircraft and vehicle traffic at all times and in all weather conditions.
Passengers that need to cross a taxilane or taxiway to access an aircraft must be escorted by personnel wearing High Viz.
The high visibility items worn must be compliant with Australian Standard AS4602:1999 and AS1906:4. While yellow High Viz items are preferred, orange compliant garments are acceptable.
The Airside Vehicle Control Handbook and Conditions of Airport Access and Use have been updated to reflect this requirement.
Courtney Hall
Reception/Accounts Administrator
PH: 08 9417 0900
"NOTICE TO AIRSIDE TENANTS AND OPERATORS - High Visibility Vests/Clothing
Good afternoon all,
Jandakot Airport Holdings Pty Ltd advises that effective from Monday 21st January 2013, High Visibility (“High Viz”) vests or clothing must be worn when walking within the aircraft movement areas. This includes all aprons (except leased apron areas), taxilanes, taxiways, the run-up bays and the helicopter training area.
For personal safety, it is necessary that people walking within the movement area are highly visible to aircraft and vehicle traffic at all times and in all weather conditions.
Passengers that need to cross a taxilane or taxiway to access an aircraft must be escorted by personnel wearing High Viz.
The high visibility items worn must be compliant with Australian Standard AS4602:1999 and AS1906:4. While yellow High Viz items are preferred, orange compliant garments are acceptable.
The Airside Vehicle Control Handbook and Conditions of Airport Access and Use have been updated to reflect this requirement.
Courtney Hall
Reception/Accounts Administrator
PH: 08 9417 0900
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 8th Jan 2013 at 01:15.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sarnia, ON
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They probably had a committee of experts working on that and still stuffed it - AS/NZS 4602:1999 has been superseded, the current version is 2011.
Only applies when walking. What if you were to saunter or mosey or hobble??
Only applies when walking. What if you were to saunter or mosey or hobble??
Just watch this little infection of idiotic bureaucracy catch on everywhere.
If you need the PIC of a taxying aeroplane to avoid a pedestrian, then that pedestrian should be culled under Darwins ecology theory.
If you need the PIC of a taxying aeroplane to avoid a pedestrian, then that pedestrian should be culled under Darwins ecology theory.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember who sold out GA in this country... minister Anderson who gave our airports away to big business for peanuts on leases that the monkeys could have written.
And his mates and the next mob all failed to sort it when it all started to fall apart.
They are all the b....y same!
Kaz
And his mates and the next mob all failed to sort it when it all started to fall apart.
They are all the b....y same!
Kaz
OldPAx
A couple of points.
Your Hi Viz gear is your work clothing, for many in the aviation industry it's not and neither is is it practical or appropriate for Hi Viz gear to be the work clothing. It's only required for a few small fraction of the work day but needs to be ready at hand when needed. When it is worn the very nature of its design and the fact it's only to be worn for a few short minutes means that it is usually not completely done up and is more of a hazard to the wearer than it is an aid to safety. In short for many airside people wearing a Hi Viz jacket it is just a nuisance.
How many people have been killed on the apron/ramp of an airport in the last 50 years that would have been saved by Hi Viz clothing. None that I'm aware of. How many people have been killed in your industry?
The fact is the apron area is a very dangerous area with spinning propellers etc so the people out there take care. Hi Viz jackets aren't going to make it any safer. In the case of pilots they are generally in close proximity to their aircraft, if they're going to get hit then so is the aircraft, I don't see how a Hi Viz jacket is going to help.
No one is against safety, just stupid requirements, there hasn't been a problem on the ramp that requires everyone to wear Hi Viz so why is there a requirement for Hi Viz?
On the site I work on in OZ everonr gets to wear yellow shirts with reflective tape on,its mandatory from the top down .They are light and comfortable and from forays intot he nearbye town it looks like most companies provide them for thier workers.I also wear safety glasses and sometimes ear protection.when I started in industry none of this was mandatory nor was there a safety "culture"(1955ish).There were many accidents back then and things are much better now so what have Ppruners got against safety?Yes there are more rules than you can shake a stick at but in the long run lives get saved.
Your Hi Viz gear is your work clothing, for many in the aviation industry it's not and neither is is it practical or appropriate for Hi Viz gear to be the work clothing. It's only required for a few small fraction of the work day but needs to be ready at hand when needed. When it is worn the very nature of its design and the fact it's only to be worn for a few short minutes means that it is usually not completely done up and is more of a hazard to the wearer than it is an aid to safety. In short for many airside people wearing a Hi Viz jacket it is just a nuisance.
How many people have been killed on the apron/ramp of an airport in the last 50 years that would have been saved by Hi Viz clothing. None that I'm aware of. How many people have been killed in your industry?
The fact is the apron area is a very dangerous area with spinning propellers etc so the people out there take care. Hi Viz jackets aren't going to make it any safer. In the case of pilots they are generally in close proximity to their aircraft, if they're going to get hit then so is the aircraft, I don't see how a Hi Viz jacket is going to help.
No one is against safety, just stupid requirements, there hasn't been a problem on the ramp that requires everyone to wear Hi Viz so why is there a requirement for Hi Viz?
Last edited by 27/09; 8th Jan 2013 at 18:36.
Amendment...
Requirement to be promulgated shortly that a person...in a hi vis vest, of course, will walk in front of taxiing aircraft waving a red flag and ringing a hand bell. This will make it even safer.
Anyone in JAH got shares in or own the HVV shop ??? Mmmm.
Anyone in JAH got shares in or own the HVV shop ??? Mmmm.
I asked a JAH representative what would be done to the non-compliant, assuming, of course, that he would be able to see them sneaking around airside 
The reply was "denial of access to your aircraft".
Wowee that could be an interesting job for a lawyer!! Who's game to give it a try?
BTW kaz it was the Keating government who decided to flog off the airport leases but yeah they are all the same!
The reply was "denial of access to your aircraft".
Wowee that could be an interesting job for a lawyer!!
Who's game to give it a try?BTW kaz it was the Keating government who decided to flog off the airport leases but yeah they are all the same!
short flights long nights
Wow,I guess I am lucky to be alive, having worked for years at JT in the 70s and 80s and never wore a high viz....the place has gone mad, and as for all the destruction going on around the place,don't get me started.
The trouble with the entire OHS political correctness is that it is way overdone for Two reasons:
1. To mask unpopular or downright unfair decisions.
2. To raise revenue through hidden taxation.
The British regulators are taking a stand on item #1
BBC News - Health and safety 'excuse' for unpopular decisions
The Victorian Government pulls $471 million out of workcover - taxation by stealth.
WorkCover raid adds insult to injuries
There IS actually hard maths behind health and safety under the heading "risk management" which is why airline passengers dont wear parachutes and car drivers dont wear crash helmets.
Contrary to popular opinion, actuaries can and do put a value on human life. They also can calculate the probability of an accident on an annual basis. It is also possible to calculate the cost and probability reduction associated with each safety measure..
Shove that into a discounted cash flow model and you can calculate what a safety measure is going to cost you on an annual basis and what it will save you on an annual basis. Do that across an industry or company and you can quickly discover if the costs are less than the savings - or not.
However Government doesn't give a flying **** about doing this. If people arent dying regularly at Australian airports from being accidentally run into by vehicles, the cost of Hiviz isnt going to make any savings.
1. To mask unpopular or downright unfair decisions.
2. To raise revenue through hidden taxation.
The British regulators are taking a stand on item #1
BBC News - Health and safety 'excuse' for unpopular decisions
The Victorian Government pulls $471 million out of workcover - taxation by stealth.
WorkCover raid adds insult to injuries
There IS actually hard maths behind health and safety under the heading "risk management" which is why airline passengers dont wear parachutes and car drivers dont wear crash helmets.
Contrary to popular opinion, actuaries can and do put a value on human life. They also can calculate the probability of an accident on an annual basis. It is also possible to calculate the cost and probability reduction associated with each safety measure..
Shove that into a discounted cash flow model and you can calculate what a safety measure is going to cost you on an annual basis and what it will save you on an annual basis. Do that across an industry or company and you can quickly discover if the costs are less than the savings - or not.
However Government doesn't give a flying **** about doing this. If people arent dying regularly at Australian airports from being accidentally run into by vehicles, the cost of Hiviz isnt going to make any savings.
I suspect in most cases the people making the decision on the use of Hi Viz gear don't even work in the airfield apron environment and have no flaming idea on what the actual risks are as opposed to their perceived risks. Hi Viz works elsewhere ergo it must provide a benefit here.
The airports only want them to be worn so you can be fined for not displaying your ASIC because you left it attached to your shirt when you put your hi-vis vest over the top of it.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will this be put out in ERSA? Scenario - Farmer joe comes down from his station for the yearly trip to the big smoke. He doesn't have anyone at Perth to meet him, he doesn't have a HVV, he isn't part of or in any way related to any body or organization on the field. He gets out of his trusty 182 to walk to the gate landside, and bam, one of the airside patrols chase him down for not wearing a HVV. He's a private operator, just by himself. How/where is the requirement that he wear one enforced on him, and how was he even informed? How could they legally deny him access to his airplane?
How indeed. I asked them that, still waiting for the answer.
As for the parking meters, well there are cars parked all over the place but the bits where the meters are....
*crickets*
As for the parking meters, well there are cars parked all over the place but the bits where the meters are....
*crickets*
Let's take their hi viz safety case to its ultimate conclusion.
All motorised vehicles and bicycles should only come in one colour - hi viz yellow. Including all aircraft. All other colours should be herewith declared illegal and any such should be put off the road or out of the air.
All buildings airside should also be hi viz yellow, lest we hit them.
All pedestrians should wear hi viz clothing. All swimmers, ditto, so that the surf lifesavers can spot them. Babies and their prams, so Mums do not lose them and Dads do not reverse over them in their yellow station wagons.
A sea of yellow. What a pretty sight. We can do away with the paramedics because accidents will no longer be tolerated.
Then I will be the man in black. For my own safety.
All motorised vehicles and bicycles should only come in one colour - hi viz yellow. Including all aircraft. All other colours should be herewith declared illegal and any such should be put off the road or out of the air.
All buildings airside should also be hi viz yellow, lest we hit them.
All pedestrians should wear hi viz clothing. All swimmers, ditto, so that the surf lifesavers can spot them. Babies and their prams, so Mums do not lose them and Dads do not reverse over them in their yellow station wagons.
A sea of yellow. What a pretty sight. We can do away with the paramedics because accidents will no longer be tolerated.
Then I will be the man in black. For my own safety.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 10th Jan 2013 at 02:40.