High Viz Jackets - Mandatory at GA Airfields?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She would still look better without it!!
Babybear.
This is not a situation where "It's their property so they make the rules"
The RULES are dictated by faceless people devoid of any knowlege of where the rule will be applied. Then the Castle owner is told to enforce it or he will turn into a pumpkin overnight, so he goes along with it & employs the numpties to police it cos they are cheap.
Babybear.
This is not a situation where "It's their property so they make the rules"
The RULES are dictated by faceless people devoid of any knowlege of where the rule will be applied. Then the Castle owner is told to enforce it or he will turn into a pumpkin overnight, so he goes along with it & employs the numpties to police it cos they are cheap.
Last edited by Crash one; 9th Mar 2009 at 10:06.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash One
You are getting a bit silly now with castle owners etc.
My understanding of the vests is that it is the owner of each establishment that decides if they should be worn airside and that is why some require it, some don't.
My understanding of the vests is that it is the owner of each establishment that decides if they should be worn airside and that is why some require it, some don't.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you go all the way back to the original post, the question was asked "is this mandatory at all airfields?" or words to that effect. In answer to that, "No"
It is not a case of everyone making up their own rules, it is a case of the quality & relevance or value of the rule. Is it necessary? will it improve things like safety? Will it be restrictive & how much?
It is not a case of everyone making up their own rules, it is a case of the quality & relevance or value of the rule. Is it necessary? will it improve things like safety? Will it be restrictive & how much?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys can type faster than me.
Babybear Quote:
So those who make the rules are entitled to. Are you arguing that those visiting should be able to decide on what rules to comply with?
Point one. When did I say those who make the rules are entitled to?
& If you said it, then who gave "them" the entitlement?
Point two. When did I say those visiting should decide on >>>>>>>
Is this a wind up?
How clearly do I have to express MY opinion? YOU are entitled to follow rules a blindly as YOU wish.
No wonder Chuck has dissapeared.
Edit: As for post 261 I would rather discuss the subject matter ofpost 262.
Babybear Quote:
So those who make the rules are entitled to. Are you arguing that those visiting should be able to decide on what rules to comply with?
Point one. When did I say those who make the rules are entitled to?
& If you said it, then who gave "them" the entitlement?
Point two. When did I say those visiting should decide on >>>>>>>
Is this a wind up?
How clearly do I have to express MY opinion? YOU are entitled to follow rules a blindly as YOU wish.
No wonder Chuck has dissapeared.
Edit: As for post 261 I would rather discuss the subject matter ofpost 262.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck is still in bed, probably around 4am over there.
How can you question the right of the legal owners/operators to make the rules, irrespective of whether you agree with them?
and
as for condoning not following the rules, then I am afraid that if it were my establishment you would be asked not to come back!
yeh, yeh, before you say it, I know, I know, you wouldn't want to be in my gaff in the first place.
How can you question the right of the legal owners/operators to make the rules, irrespective of whether you agree with them?
and
as for condoning not following the rules, then I am afraid that if it were my establishment you would be asked not to come back!
yeh, yeh, before you say it, I know, I know, you wouldn't want to be in my gaff in the first place.
I don't need one here.
Just received a missive that High Viz Jackets will be mandatory at Nottingham...
Does this apply to all GA airfields now or has someone in authority got carried away with this?
Does this apply to all GA airfields now or has someone in authority got carried away with this?
The environment where one is most likely to encounter pedestrians on the manoeuvring area is at a gliding site. It is very unusual for glider pilots and their crew to wear hi-viz jackets, although sometimes they are given to visitors, and to people undertaking trial lessons, just to identify them as such to club members as needing careful supervision to ensure that they do not wander to places where they could be at risk. At one time we asked the launch marshals to wear them – again so everybody knew who they were (did not last for long…). They are also sometimes used during competitions to identify officials to the competitors, or for ‘rope-runners’ who are dashing after landing tugs to catch the rope and hook it onto the next glider.
In summary they are more often used as identifiers and only rarely to enhance safety as for rope-runners.
Incidentally the most common ‘interactions’ between gliders and people are:
· Walking into the trailing edges of wings, or into tail planes, that are at about eye level and almost impossible to see because they are thin and white.
· Wings bumping into the backs of stationary people when gliders are being turned around, usually because the person holding the wing is not looking in the right direction.
It’s hard to see how hi-vis clothing would help.
People present in the glider / tug landing area are usually obvious to pilots on approach from a long way back on final and, to be honest, I think that dark clothing makes them even more obvious. Landing into the sun is the most difficult case and then, again, I think black is best.
Is there an interpretation of this silly rule given by any of the aerodromes demanding hi-viz that states that they should be yellow/orange with white reflective panels? Could I get away with claiming that my black/dark clothing is actually my hi-viz and superior to the above in most situations on then manoeuvring area during daylight?
I would be more receptive to aerodromes that made them mandatory only during the hours between sunset and sunrise when their reflective qualities actually have a benefit. (I don’t have a night rating so that would not worry me!)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF seem quite happy for their expensively-trained aircrew to stride out to their flying machines in kit that's specifically designed to blend in with the background. And that's on a busy apron full of jets.
Yet you can fly from a civvy place that has 4 movements a day, with just 20 feet to walk to your a/c and still be expected to dress like a roadworker.
Yet you can fly from a civvy place that has 4 movements a day, with just 20 feet to walk to your a/c and still be expected to dress like a roadworker.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: kent
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
during our last caa inspection we were ADVISED to make hi vis jackets mandatory when airside,we declined to take there advise,all visiting pilots are informed that hi vis jackets are not necessary when booking in and im yet to see anyone not to remove it straight away,our official take is (makes the place look like a building site)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash one - It is so refreshing to note that you have a pragmatic approach to life. You are so spot on, the high viz jacket has been forced apon us at some GA airfields and can be seen as the thin edge of the wedge, what next, pilots escorted by officials to the aircraft, CCTV in the aircraft. Far fetched? who would have thought a few years ago you could not say black coffee, today we have to say coffee without milk when working for the Public Service. H & S and political correctness have gone too far. Don't get me wrong I am all for safety, it's about education, not a nanny state. I am very mild mannered, but even I feel like rebelling against such nonsense.
I also agree that people who impose such nonsense, are petty and to improve their quality of life, make life miserable for the rest of us.
Feel much better now that I have got that off my chest.
I also agree that people who impose such nonsense, are petty and to improve their quality of life, make life miserable for the rest of us.
Feel much better now that I have got that off my chest.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Babybear.
I have tried, unsuccesfully, to get my own & only my own views across to you.
In my Naval records is the report dated 1960 >> "Has a strong rebellious nature".
If a rule is in my opinion worth abiding by I will do so, I do not drive excessively fast, I do not spit in public, I do not get drunk & disorderly,
I do however carry a knife with a locking blade 3.1/8" long, for the purpose of opening the occasional bale of hay, or to remove boy scouts from horses hooves, stirring tea etc. I have been known to not wear a seatbelt while driving in the back roads, I have also driven in excess of the 60mph limit on straight stretches of said roads. So in answer to your questions, Yes I do make up my own rules, I have done so for much of my life, I shall continue to do so, & I shall continue to dissagree with those rules that I consider utter tripe. You may now recoil in horror at this madman if you so wish, whilst I get on with my life.
Edit:
Thank you Hotcloud, Viva the Revolution!!!!
Also, by the way, I fly a 1959 taildragger off a grass strip, and I set regional pressure even in the "circuit!" I will however set QFE for the Military if they ask. Wearing a Hi Vis on our field is likely to get you kicked off for scaring the wildlife.
I have tried, unsuccesfully, to get my own & only my own views across to you.
In my Naval records is the report dated 1960 >> "Has a strong rebellious nature".
If a rule is in my opinion worth abiding by I will do so, I do not drive excessively fast, I do not spit in public, I do not get drunk & disorderly,
I do however carry a knife with a locking blade 3.1/8" long, for the purpose of opening the occasional bale of hay, or to remove boy scouts from horses hooves, stirring tea etc. I have been known to not wear a seatbelt while driving in the back roads, I have also driven in excess of the 60mph limit on straight stretches of said roads. So in answer to your questions, Yes I do make up my own rules, I have done so for much of my life, I shall continue to do so, & I shall continue to dissagree with those rules that I consider utter tripe. You may now recoil in horror at this madman if you so wish, whilst I get on with my life.
Edit:
Thank you Hotcloud, Viva the Revolution!!!!
Also, by the way, I fly a 1959 taildragger off a grass strip, and I set regional pressure even in the "circuit!" I will however set QFE for the Military if they ask. Wearing a Hi Vis on our field is likely to get you kicked off for scaring the wildlife.
Last edited by Crash one; 9th Mar 2009 at 20:12.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash One
Sure, I question the law, especially when it's some waste of fresh air that gets an inappropriate sentence for some hideous crime, I question the law and the ethics and morality of the lawyers that use technicalities to get their clients off that are clearly guilty. I also question a system that permits a convicted sex offender to sack his legal team 13 times to prevent sentencing within the permitted 12 month time period. Of course I do. However, the concept of each of us being totally responsible for setting our own rules is unworkable. Being unworkable responsibility for setting the rules has to rest somewhere and, for me, logic dictates it should be with the owners, operators, committee etc.
I find it interesting how many people view hi viz vests as a major issue; it really is not difficult to comply with, irrespective of whether you agree with them. I don't buy this is the thin edge of the wedge stuff, that is simply scare mongering. It is equally easy to argue not complying with something as simple as wearing a vest is the thin edge of the wedge of ignoring all rules & regs. I would suggest GA has many pressing issues more worthy of the time and energy.
Do I think you are a madman, probably not. Would I sit with you in a car, of course I would. Would I go flying with you, hell yes. Would I wear my hi viz vest, only if you asked me to.
I find it interesting how many people view hi viz vests as a major issue; it really is not difficult to comply with, irrespective of whether you agree with them. I don't buy this is the thin edge of the wedge stuff, that is simply scare mongering. It is equally easy to argue not complying with something as simple as wearing a vest is the thin edge of the wedge of ignoring all rules & regs. I would suggest GA has many pressing issues more worthy of the time and energy.
Do I think you are a madman, probably not. Would I sit with you in a car, of course I would. Would I go flying with you, hell yes. Would I wear my hi viz vest, only if you asked me to.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be great if people actually had an understanding of the subject. CAP 642, Airside Safety Management contains useful advice.
It says
It also says
It also suggests Hi-Viz when operating in freezing conditions and requires contractors working airside to be properly briefed.
People who require everyone to wear hi-viz at small GA airfields with limited airside vehicular traffic demonstrate an inadequate knowledge of the requirements, and their own inability to manage risk.
It says
g) All push-back crew members should wear high visibility garments in compliance with current standards;
High-visibility clothing
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.
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.
People who require everyone to wear hi-viz at small GA airfields with limited airside vehicular traffic demonstrate an inadequate knowledge of the requirements, and their own inability to manage risk.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baby bear - I disagree with you, I believe the requirement to wear high viz jackets at GA airfields is the thin edge of the wedge. If people do not express their concerns the authorities (e.g airfield managers) will impose even more excessive rules if they can get away with it, after all, you can use the H & S aurgument for almost anything. Therefore I do not think the issue of high viz jackets is minor, indeed it is a point of principle.
The Myers Briggs test identifies personality types, most pilots have a similair personality type, unfortunately can be at odds with those that implement H & S policy. If we simply complied with every wish, flying today would be a nightmare, there has to be a certain amont of friction to enable the authorities to see matters from our point of view. Come on, you must have met those types that relish the thought of imposing more rules to control us, I don't want to live in a cotton wool society, I would rather use my own judgement operating under sensible rules and if anyone breaks them, then they should be dealt with accordingly.
The Myers Briggs test identifies personality types, most pilots have a similair personality type, unfortunately can be at odds with those that implement H & S policy. If we simply complied with every wish, flying today would be a nightmare, there has to be a certain amont of friction to enable the authorities to see matters from our point of view. Come on, you must have met those types that relish the thought of imposing more rules to control us, I don't want to live in a cotton wool society, I would rather use my own judgement operating under sensible rules and if anyone breaks them, then they should be dealt with accordingly.