The Hi-viz vest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Hi-viz vest
Following an earlier thread which suggested that some aerodrome operators were insisting on Hi-viz vests being worn because "they had been told to". I contacted the CAA's Aerodrome Safety Department to ask about their policy.
I won't reproduce the correspondence here because it's quite long but this is the gist of it.
Firstly this is the CAA's position, the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) are also involved but I haven't been in contact with them.
CAA require the a/d operator to make a risk assessment and to devise a Safety Management System, which includes aerodrome rules.
Some of the requirements are contained in CAP 642, Airside Safety Management. These do not include a requirement for Hi-vis clothing for pilots, nor does CAA ASD insist on it.
Now for my own commentary
If you feel that your a/d is imposing an unjustified rule get in touch with the Aerodrome Safety Committee (they're required to have one) and ask for a copy of the risk assessment pertaining to the rule. You should get a good justification or something you can argue with.
If the risk assessment has been properly done then the rules should be appropriate to the particular circumstances at the aerodrome. Something that's appropriate at Heathrow would not automatically be appropriate at Popham because the situation is entirely different.
If the rule is innappropriate then the risk assessment was faulty.
Risk assessments aren't about "is there a possibility?" but "is there a significant risk?"
If you cross the road there is a possibility that you might get knocked down, but if you are sensible the chances of it happening are low so it's an acceptable risk.
We all make a risk assessment every time we fly. I'm strictly a VFR pilot in a VFR airplane. If its a nice day I will go flying. There's a risk invovled but it is an acceptable risk. If it's a foul day with a massive crosswind I don't go flying, the risk is too high.
Unfortunately some people see it as an exercise in covering their backsides rather than one of making a judgement on the level of risk.
Comments?
Mike
I won't reproduce the correspondence here because it's quite long but this is the gist of it.
Firstly this is the CAA's position, the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) are also involved but I haven't been in contact with them.
CAA require the a/d operator to make a risk assessment and to devise a Safety Management System, which includes aerodrome rules.
Some of the requirements are contained in CAP 642, Airside Safety Management. These do not include a requirement for Hi-vis clothing for pilots, nor does CAA ASD insist on it.
Now for my own commentary
If you feel that your a/d is imposing an unjustified rule get in touch with the Aerodrome Safety Committee (they're required to have one) and ask for a copy of the risk assessment pertaining to the rule. You should get a good justification or something you can argue with.
If the risk assessment has been properly done then the rules should be appropriate to the particular circumstances at the aerodrome. Something that's appropriate at Heathrow would not automatically be appropriate at Popham because the situation is entirely different.
If the rule is innappropriate then the risk assessment was faulty.
Risk assessments aren't about "is there a possibility?" but "is there a significant risk?"
If you cross the road there is a possibility that you might get knocked down, but if you are sensible the chances of it happening are low so it's an acceptable risk.
We all make a risk assessment every time we fly. I'm strictly a VFR pilot in a VFR airplane. If its a nice day I will go flying. There's a risk invovled but it is an acceptable risk. If it's a foul day with a massive crosswind I don't go flying, the risk is too high.
Unfortunately some people see it as an exercise in covering their backsides rather than one of making a judgement on the level of risk.
Comments?
Mike
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the problem here is related to how you make a finding of negligence. The airfield operator alleged to be at fault will be measured against the mythical "reasonable" airfield operator. Inevitably, that involves looking at what other airfield operators do in determining whether a particular operator took or did not take enough precautions to protect people who use the airfield from harm. While no other airfield operators were using high-viz vests, then the standard of care required from an ordinary airfield operator probably didn't extend to the wearing of high-viz vests. As they become more widespread, maybe the "reasonable" operator would have used them so the standard changes.
At the end of the day though, its their airfield, they can make you wear bright pink bikinis if they want and if you want to use the airfield. If the operator is a public body and took that decision because it has a thing for bright pink bikinis (rather than on safety grounds), maybe you can get judicial review if you felt so inclined (cheaper to buy a vest though
). But for a private airfield operator, your remedy is not to go there.
At the end of the day though, its their airfield, they can make you wear bright pink bikinis if they want and if you want to use the airfield. If the operator is a public body and took that decision because it has a thing for bright pink bikinis (rather than on safety grounds), maybe you can get judicial review if you felt so inclined (cheaper to buy a vest though
). But for a private airfield operator, your remedy is not to go there.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last well reasoned comment on this issue but dont think that just because what you say makes a lot of sence airfield safety officers will take a blind bit of notice.
Unfortunatly we are dealing with the "safety industry" and this is full of people who are doing the safety officers job because the rest of us cant trust them with a real job !.
The only way that these people can be sure to stay in a job is to invent "safety rules" and make sure that they are the only ones that can inforce them.
Before the HSE forced itself on the aviation industry we were already very safe in the working practices that were in force all we have now is tons more paperwork and to work harder to pay the wages of the non-productive safety oficers.
Unfortunatly we are dealing with the "safety industry" and this is full of people who are doing the safety officers job because the rest of us cant trust them with a real job !.
The only way that these people can be sure to stay in a job is to invent "safety rules" and make sure that they are the only ones that can inforce them.
Before the HSE forced itself on the aviation industry we were already very safe in the working practices that were in force all we have now is tons more paperwork and to work harder to pay the wages of the non-productive safety oficers.
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Do remember, Mike, that the CAA only regulate licensed aerodromes and it is only likely that licenced aerodromes will have an Aerodrome Safety Committee. Aim Far sums it up very well, over time what became in use at one aerodrome becomes 'best practice' and adopted by others. As Aim Far, it's their airfield and they can impose what ever conditions they like, particulalry if they have an Ordinary Licence.
It does amaze me the amount of heat and light this topic generates. I wouldn't dream of going on the ramp at a large airport without a hi-viz jacket (you are more likely to be run over by a vehicle than an aeroplane) but at small grass airfields all you really need is commonsense. Yes, it is backside covering but what the heck. Always have two or three in the back of the car, if someone says wear one, I do. No hassle.
It does amaze me the amount of heat and light this topic generates. I wouldn't dream of going on the ramp at a large airport without a hi-viz jacket (you are more likely to be run over by a vehicle than an aeroplane) but at small grass airfields all you really need is commonsense. Yes, it is backside covering but what the heck. Always have two or three in the back of the car, if someone says wear one, I do. No hassle.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Vintage ATCO - Can't see why people are getting so hot under the collar about such a minor irritation.
Mike - In terms of Risk Management, a Risk Assessment is only half the job. Having assessed a particular risk you have to determine what Control Measures are appropriate (if any) with regard to their effectiveness at reducing the risk and their cost.
I would say that for a small to medium private airfield the proccess would be something like this-
Chance of getting run over or chopped by prop are very low, but consequence of any incident would be high. Overall risk = very low but not insignificant.
Appropriate Control Measures > Introduce 5mph speed limit for all aircraft and vehicles on manouvering area (cost next to nothing) and require all persons airside to wear conspicous clothing (cost of high-viz jacket about a fiver).
You can write to as many Govt agencies and airfield operators as you like, but I think that arguing against a simple control measure costing so little is going to get you nowhere.
Mike, you're better off directing your energies towards the AIS and NOTAMS issues where they are truly merited and well appreciated.
Mr. W
Mike - In terms of Risk Management, a Risk Assessment is only half the job. Having assessed a particular risk you have to determine what Control Measures are appropriate (if any) with regard to their effectiveness at reducing the risk and their cost.
I would say that for a small to medium private airfield the proccess would be something like this-
Chance of getting run over or chopped by prop are very low, but consequence of any incident would be high. Overall risk = very low but not insignificant.
Appropriate Control Measures > Introduce 5mph speed limit for all aircraft and vehicles on manouvering area (cost next to nothing) and require all persons airside to wear conspicous clothing (cost of high-viz jacket about a fiver).
You can write to as many Govt agencies and airfield operators as you like, but I think that arguing against a simple control measure costing so little is going to get you nowhere.
Mike, you're better off directing your energies towards the AIS and NOTAMS issues where they are truly merited and well appreciated.
Mr. W
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't arguing for or against their use, simply trying to put some clarity into a situation whre many have expressed an opinion. I carry a vest in the aircraft and wear it if appropriate.
I run an ISO 9000 registered company and therefore have some experience in these areas. It's tempting to make a rule just to cover your backside, but by doing that you duck your responsibility to properly assess the risk. If you introduce rules which have no proper justification people tend to ignore them and the whole safety management system is degraded.
Some had suggested that a/d operators had been told to mandate the use of vests. I was happy to find that this was untrue and that the CAA's policy is, as it should be, that the rule should result from a risk assessment of the aerodrome.
Mike
I run an ISO 9000 registered company and therefore have some experience in these areas. It's tempting to make a rule just to cover your backside, but by doing that you duck your responsibility to properly assess the risk. If you introduce rules which have no proper justification people tend to ignore them and the whole safety management system is degraded.
Some had suggested that a/d operators had been told to mandate the use of vests. I was happy to find that this was untrue and that the CAA's policy is, as it should be, that the rule should result from a risk assessment of the aerodrome.
Mike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting and humourous reply from the CAA:-
Mike
Dear Mr Cross
Go to Sleap. This is not an instruction to slumber, I am looking at their
hazard analysis and I note that they have identified that people working
frequently airside are more at risk than individual crew and passengers who
simply transit to their aircraft. They have elected a cut off. I agree
with them. Thought you might like that
Go to Sleap. This is not an instruction to slumber, I am looking at their
hazard analysis and I note that they have identified that people working
frequently airside are more at risk than individual crew and passengers who
simply transit to their aircraft. They have elected a cut off. I agree
with them. Thought you might like that
Mike
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Age: 56
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day it can't be a bad thing to be more visible to a pilot that has restricted views on the ground. And it also 'helps' to spot people that perhaps should not be airside in the first place.
It is only an irritation to people that want it to be
It is only an irritation to people that want it to be
If you look at the previous threads, it's not the hi-viz vests that are the root of the problem, it's the management stance that says "hi-viz vests are good, other airfields have them so we must too" is the problem.
A lot of people don't seem to be safety aware but how many people do you see getting chopped up by props or knocked down by fuel bowsers on GA airfields? It is a semi dangerous environment but we are aware of that and if we have people with us who aren't it is our duty to look after them. This doesn't involve placebos like hi-viz vests which can lull the uneducated into a false sense of security. It involves an understanding of potential problems and what steps to take to avoid them; eg don't walk towards a rotating propellor, don't walk in front of the fuel bowser (just like you wouldn't walk in front of a moving car on the road). I relate hi-viz vests to the current attitude towards road safety. This seems to be wholy orientated around speed. I know of loads of people who don't drive, they operate a vehicle. They have no anticipation, no spatial awareness and a blissful ignorance of what's behind them. Yet they consider themselves "safe" drivers cos they wear a seatbelt and obey the speed limits. Aaaaarrrrgggghhhh.
A lot of people don't seem to be safety aware but how many people do you see getting chopped up by props or knocked down by fuel bowsers on GA airfields? It is a semi dangerous environment but we are aware of that and if we have people with us who aren't it is our duty to look after them. This doesn't involve placebos like hi-viz vests which can lull the uneducated into a false sense of security. It involves an understanding of potential problems and what steps to take to avoid them; eg don't walk towards a rotating propellor, don't walk in front of the fuel bowser (just like you wouldn't walk in front of a moving car on the road). I relate hi-viz vests to the current attitude towards road safety. This seems to be wholy orientated around speed. I know of loads of people who don't drive, they operate a vehicle. They have no anticipation, no spatial awareness and a blissful ignorance of what's behind them. Yet they consider themselves "safe" drivers cos they wear a seatbelt and obey the speed limits. Aaaaarrrrgggghhhh.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you need to start thinking about this in a different way: Yes the aerodrome operator will insist that you wear a high vis jacket because they could be sued for negligence if something does happen to you, but in essence, it is imposed in the interest of your safety. I know they look stupid and are a pain, especially if you forget to take one with you when going to an aerodrome with rules different from your own but they do serve a purpose and they do, to some extend, serve it well. Why not just accept it as something similar to wearing a seat belt in a car?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the posters here have an interesting idea of the definition of negligence.
As far as I recall Negligence is any act or omission that a reasonable person might regard as likely to cause loss or injury.
If you do not insist on people wearing vests do they have a greater than 1 in 2 chance of being injured? The danger must be greater than I thought.
While I am certainly not against wearing a vest, and I do carry one in the aircraft I am very much against the suggestion that wearing one makes you "safe" and not wearing one makes you "unsafe".
Mike
As far as I recall Negligence is any act or omission that a reasonable person might regard as likely to cause loss or injury.
If you do not insist on people wearing vests do they have a greater than 1 in 2 chance of being injured? The danger must be greater than I thought.
While I am certainly not against wearing a vest, and I do carry one in the aircraft I am very much against the suggestion that wearing one makes you "safe" and not wearing one makes you "unsafe".
Mike
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe we should all wear safety glasses as well just in case a fluke bit of dust is whipped up and catches in the eye. Oh and may as well wear safety shoes as well in case you get your toe run over, flame proof overalls in case of a freak fire, and chemical gloves in case or a rougue battery explosion.
Sounds like the idiotic company I work for, and they do it to cover their arse....
Sounds like the idiotic company I work for, and they do it to cover their arse....
Rupert S I'm sorry but that is utter cobblers. I'm with Mike Cross on the definition of negligence. The CAA does NOT insist on people wearing hi-viz vests at licensed aerodromes (I like that word). On a busy apron with assorted aircraft, pallets and vehicles around, they make sense. On yer average GA airfield they make no sense at all.
As MC said "While I am certainly not against wearing a vest, and I do carry one in the aircraft I am very much against the suggestion that wearing one makes you "safe" and not wearing one makes you "unsafe". Total agreement on that point. As I've said on other vest threads, I work in the oil & gas industry both onshore and offshore. I have no beef about PPE (Personal Protection Equipment) but it's use needs to be seen to be sensible otherwise the respect for it's function fades rapidly. Then it ends up not being used where it really IS required.
Rant mode OFF
As MC said "While I am certainly not against wearing a vest, and I do carry one in the aircraft I am very much against the suggestion that wearing one makes you "safe" and not wearing one makes you "unsafe". Total agreement on that point. As I've said on other vest threads, I work in the oil & gas industry both onshore and offshore. I have no beef about PPE (Personal Protection Equipment) but it's use needs to be seen to be sensible otherwise the respect for it's function fades rapidly. Then it ends up not being used where it really IS required.
Rant mode OFF
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And that's the point, isn't it? I don't think many of us care about whether or not we have to wear a vest per se , but if it's clearly not sensible, the requirement to do so makes the whole safety package look stupid, and therefore the whole is treated with scorn. And that could be dangerous.
In my previous working life, I was responsible for security (among other things) at a research establishment. I got rid of all the "silly" security rules, and the "serious" ones started to be observed.
In my previous working life, I was responsible for security (among other things) at a research establishment. I got rid of all the "silly" security rules, and the "serious" ones started to be observed.
Some more money for Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ici
Age: 56
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, well reasoned comments. Personally I find it difficult to understand how anyone could fail to see somebody in the wide open spaces of an a/d manoeuvring area anyway. That's besides the fact that human colour vision (and therefore the benefit of a hi-vis vest) covers a fairly restricted "cone" where I would expect to see individuals anyway whatever their attire.
Not wanting to hijack the thread but with respect to the subject of airside safety I had an interesting experience a few weeks back (Fri 15th Aug). At my local airfield it was extremely busy - there was an air display and a few members of the public were on the apron. When I was ready to start the engine someone (an oldish bloke) began to walk towards the front of my aircraft so I held off and yelled "Clear Prop" (he was at about 10m away at this point). He continued. I shouted it again. He walked right across the front, within about 1.5m of the prop' - and then turned around and gave a "filthy look."
I'm sure the key to safety whether it be on the ground or elsewhere is to use some sense (common sense???) combined with the aptitude which one would expect of pilots generally. In my experience having rules and procedures for the sake of such tend to undermine their original purpose.
Not wanting to hijack the thread but with respect to the subject of airside safety I had an interesting experience a few weeks back (Fri 15th Aug). At my local airfield it was extremely busy - there was an air display and a few members of the public were on the apron. When I was ready to start the engine someone (an oldish bloke) began to walk towards the front of my aircraft so I held off and yelled "Clear Prop" (he was at about 10m away at this point). He continued. I shouted it again. He walked right across the front, within about 1.5m of the prop' - and then turned around and gave a "filthy look."
I'm sure the key to safety whether it be on the ground or elsewhere is to use some sense (common sense???) combined with the aptitude which one would expect of pilots generally. In my experience having rules and procedures for the sake of such tend to undermine their original purpose.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So sorry to repeat something I posted on That Other Thread but I'm going to anyway....
There are plenty of accident reports where pilots/pax have suffered head injuries in spamcans when they came to a sudden stop. This is not conjecture, it's fact and the CAA must have statistics somewhere on it.
So why do the CAA not recommend, propose, request or indeed insist on bonedomes being worn when flying ANY aircraft?
If we are going to have regulation, then let's make it regulation with reason, not regulation about something where there is apparently no evidence to suggest that it's been a problem in the past.
That's why I'm p'd off about it. Stupid regulations based on insurance assessors and men with calculators & a**e protectors, not based on facts and the real world.
Oh, and if I catch myself with a HVV whilst inspecting an aircraft, can I sue the CAA or the Airfield safety Committee? No, I thought not....
There are plenty of accident reports where pilots/pax have suffered head injuries in spamcans when they came to a sudden stop. This is not conjecture, it's fact and the CAA must have statistics somewhere on it.
So why do the CAA not recommend, propose, request or indeed insist on bonedomes being worn when flying ANY aircraft?
If we are going to have regulation, then let's make it regulation with reason, not regulation about something where there is apparently no evidence to suggest that it's been a problem in the past.
That's why I'm p'd off about it. Stupid regulations based on insurance assessors and men with calculators & a**e protectors, not based on facts and the real world.
Oh, and if I catch myself with a HVV whilst inspecting an aircraft, can I sue the CAA or the Airfield safety Committee? No, I thought not....