Clueless Kemble.

[Jodelman]

Originally Posted by pulse1

This is absolutely crazy. I was planning to go there for the PFA rally next month. I probably won't now.

You won't HAVE to wear one at the PFA Rally.

[Henry Hallam]

My main gripe is that all these requirements to wear the yellow jackets almost certainly mean more people will be wearing them in the aircraft (it is easy to forget to take it off and I have done so myself a couple of times).

Needless to say this presents a very real safety hazard in the case of fire!

Comparing this to the "improvement" in visibility, I think the overall safety impact of the jackets is probably negative.

[dublinpilot]

Suppose you had an EFATO, and a fire resulted. You or one of your passengers suffered severe burns due to wearing the HVV.

Could Kemble be held partly liable?

Just a thought.

dp

[jayemm]

In the last two weeks I have flown to Exeter, Hawarden (twice) and Leeds Bradford. In every case I was the only one in my party wearing the luminous fashion garment. No problems, all ok.
I just won't bother to go to Kemble. Ludicrous. They'll be calling themselves Swindon International Business Airport next!

[Leezyjet]

I'm quite lucky in that I don't have to buy those yellow jackets. I have a plentiful supply of them from work !!. Whenever I need a new one, I keep the old one, throw it in the washing machine to spruce it up a bit, then chuck it in my flight bag. I must look a real tw@t when I get out of a C152 at some small strip somewhere with a yellow jacket on with company logo (airline) and job title splashed all over the back, and passengers wearing a multitude of varying companies logos on tabbards I have aquired along the way !!.

Don't really give a cr@p myself though, they were free and satisfy the jobsworths at these tiny strips.

[tangovictor]

I wonder how many accidents,at airfields have been avoided, cos of hi viz jackets ? surely if you can't see people walking without a hi-viz, you should get your eyes checked out, next thing will be, all private aircraft will have to be painted with hi-viz paint

[Deano777]

Originally Posted by dublinpilot

Suppose you had an EFATO, and a fire resulted. You or one of your passengers suffered severe burns due to wearing the HVV.

Could Kemble be held partly liable?

Just a thought.

dp

er, Kemble expect you to wear them when "airside" on the airfield, it doesn't say anything about having to wear them inside the aircraft, if you do not take your jacket off when you get in the aircraft and something happens who's fault is that?

[gaxan]

Hi Viz

Anyone who requires personalised printing on their H Viz please Pm me. Available in a huge range of colours . Vests also available .

[BroomstickPilot]

Slogans

Thanks, Guys.

Broomstick.

[muffin]

Just about all the arrivals at the PFA Rally will not have a clue that they are supposed to conform to this. What are they going to do? Not get out of the aircraft? Of course they will and there won't be enough marshallers to stop them. So the whole thing will become unenforceable.

The only way that you can tell who are marshallers there anyway is because they are (were) the only ones in yellow jackets. Now aircraft will be following anybody in yellow who is waving their arms about. Chaos will result when many hundreds of aircraft are parked all over the place.

[Mike Cross]

Originally Posted by Jodelman

You won't HAVE to wear one at the PFA Rally.

Perhaps that would be better if it came from Kemble Ops.

Maybe they could then explain why escorted passengers are so much more vulnerable than unescorted members of the general public.

Heathrow Stansted and Gatwick do not require Pax to wear high vis while on the ground airside.

CAP 642 Airside Safety Management is the document of interest.

It requires Hi-Viz to be worn by pushback crews, those working on foot on the movement area and in freezing conditions.

[chrisbl]

at the end of the day, its Kembles call and if having done a risk assessment they feel its necessary then thats the way it is. everyone can have their own view but as the operator their view counts. If you dont like it go somewhere else.

Personally these tirades about the use of Hi Viz jackets by pilots is pathetic and demonstartes that such pilots have a two faced attitude to safety or perhaps even worse dont have a clue about safety after all.

Not surprising then that some in authority think GA is too much trouble than its worth.

Personally, my view is that if more can be done then it should be done an wearing a hi viz jacket is not unreasonable.

As to the person who suggested that Kemble be held responsible if he sustained injuries whilst inside the aircraft through wearing a hi viz jacket well he should not be flying if he is that stupid.

I suppose aviation will attract its own set of idiots and self professed experts like any other activty who prefer to shoot off their mouths before engaging brain.

[Aussie Andy]

What a load of nonsense. I've been in there 3 times this summer; I have just sent an email to [email protected] to say that unless they rescind these nonsense new regs I, for one, won't be back

Andy

[OVC002]

Originally Posted by chrisbl

I suppose aviation will attract its own set of idiots and self professed experts like any other activty who prefer to shoot off their mouths before engaging brain.

Apparently.

I would be surprised if Kemble's operator felt that GA is more trouble than it's worth. It is, after all, a solely GA field. Unless there is an ulterior motive for the change of course.

Having jumped through the hoops and over the hurdles to obtain the PPL, I suspect that most of us are reasonably well qualified to make an assessment as to when, and to what extent, hi-viz is required. By all means recommend, but compulsion is unnecessary. It displays an ill-mannered, and growing, tendency towards fascism.

IMHO The management should let all those who refuse to wear outlandishly garish clothing suffer the consequences of their foolishishness. I know that I am happy to do that.

Even if I am risking being chopped into little bits by one of those aircraft with the camoflage paint job and the new fangled silent engine/prop combos.

[ShyTorque]

The "Hi-viz" jacket thing has now become overblown, as if it's some magic pill.

It isn't, only common sense is the answer to safety issues. If you can be seen NOT wearing a Hi-viz, what is the point?

My normal apparel is a dark blue uniform. If I get out of the aircraft and put on the jacket, I will immediately put on a Hi-viz if moving from the aircraft. If I get out wearing my sparkling white shirt, I'm already highly visible, as it contrasts strongly with my dark trousers, even in low light conditions. At night I carry a torch and look and listen out.

The authorities will one day have us running round in ever increasing circles until we all disappear up our own jackseys. There will be so much Dayglo green at airports that we will need to have another contrasting colour to be seen. Dark blue, or black, maybe?

Ever tried spotting a "Hi-Viz" yellow aircraft over a countryside full of oilseed blossom? Anyone ever wondered why the military paint their training aircraft black?

Call me an old cynic, if you must. I'm old and cynical but I'm also a practical realist.

[Aussie Andy]

There is simply NO EVIDENCE (NONE!) that high-vis jackets have reduced injuries at ANY airfield... plenty of examples where baggage handlers or other ground-crew have been injured DESPITE wearing "high vis" jackets... they do not provide ARMOUR after all! This has been debated at length before.....

The trouble is that health & safety "experts" have set the precedent of high-vis as "de-rigeur" for airfield "safety" despite this lack of evidence, so when you hire such consultants they apparently have a tick-box for air-side safety and high-vis jackets...

Aaargghh!!

[chevvron]

It's a COHSE requirement; has nothing to do with actual incidents, it's just the potential risk identified by a hazard analysis so that they can say 'we told you so'.

[Lower the Nose!]

I suppose aviation will attract its own set of idiots and self professed experts like any other activty who prefer to shoot off their mouths before engaging brain.

You are right here, although perhaps not quite for the reason you intended. If there were any evidence, even one shred, that mandatory wearing of hi viz vests at a small airfield promoted safety, that would be fine. But there isn't.

In itself Kemble's move may be a small inconvenience. But there is a cumulative effect to all these bad news stories which are making GA in the UK less attractive year by year.

Not one airport in the US, as far as I know, has seen fit to impose a restriction like this, including many where traffic is much busier. No evidence that safety is compromised there either.

[Whopity]

Allways though High Vis vests were to stop ground handlers being run over at night by baggage trucks!

There are no baggage trucks at Kemble, no night operations and no ground handlers. So WHY must we wear a non Fire retardant loose fitting jacket near AVGAS and Propellors. Clearly a need for Health and Safety to look into this ridulous practice.

Do all customers at the AV8 on "Airside" have to dine in "YELLOW"?

CRAP breeds CRAP!!!

[Mike Cross]

Originally Posted by chevvron

It's a COHSE requirement; has nothing to do with actual incidents, it's just the potential risk identified by a hazard analysis so that they can say 'we told you so'.

Eh?

COHSE to me is the Confederation of Health Service Employees (a Trade Union)
having looked it up I find it's also the Conceptual Open Hypermedia Services Environment

Neither of which I suspect are involved in this bit of nonsense.

Mike