High Viz Jackets - Mandatory at GA Airfields?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
llanfairpg
I am very familiar with darkness and fog at airports and that as a driver/pilot/pedestrian you have to be extra vigilant. But a yellow vest aint going to save you if you've got a driver who is not looking where they are going or the guy who walks out in front of a taxiing aircraft.
I am very familiar with darkness and fog at airports and that as a driver/pilot/pedestrian you have to be extra vigilant. But a yellow vest aint going to save you if you've got a driver who is not looking where they are going or the guy who walks out in front of a taxiing aircraft.
Tone
How's this for a bite, the truck missed me, I was wearing my hi viz!
To all you doubters, here's a deal. Don't wear your hi viz, either get banned from going airside (legally enforceable by the Aerodrome Manager under Rules of the Air Regs) or carry out a threatened boycott of those aerodromes making wearing of hiz viz mandatory. Aerodrome becomes unsustainable as a business, as it is a "brown field" site is exempt from parts of Town & Country Planning legislation, aerodrome owner easily sells off site for non aviation development.
One less place to fly to!
It will be the aerodrome manager/operator in court being prosecuted by HSE if a serious incident occurs and the injured was not wearing hi viz.If you don't think wearing of hi-viz is cool, there is a "GA Aircrew" inscribed vest on the market, should appeal to the posers among you.
How's this for a bite, the truck missed me, I was wearing my hi viz!
To all you doubters, here's a deal. Don't wear your hi viz, either get banned from going airside (legally enforceable by the Aerodrome Manager under Rules of the Air Regs) or carry out a threatened boycott of those aerodromes making wearing of hiz viz mandatory. Aerodrome becomes unsustainable as a business, as it is a "brown field" site is exempt from parts of Town & Country Planning legislation, aerodrome owner easily sells off site for non aviation development.
One less place to fly to!
It will be the aerodrome manager/operator in court being prosecuted by HSE if a serious incident occurs and the injured was not wearing hi viz.If you don't think wearing of hi-viz is cool, there is a "GA Aircrew" inscribed vest on the market, should appeal to the posers among you.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But a yellow vest aint going to save you if you've got a driver who is not looking where they are going or the guy who walks out in front of a taxiing aircraft.
Professional Student
TCAS FAN,
Here's the deal at the "GA-type" airfield, fully licensed, that I regularly fly at, as I understand it.
There are no high-vis jackets in sight, they are not mandatory, and not needed. The aircraft are parked inbetween the runway and the clubhouse. Between the clubhouse & aircraft is an access road, limited to 5mph, a seating area on the grass (fenced off from the aircraft parking area).
There is no enforced wearing of high-vis jackets, and hasn't been as far as I know, for over a year (since I started flying there).
Likewise, there has been no spate of accidents where people have walked into props, aircraft cars or each other because they couldn't see each other. Remember, the seating area is right next to the aircraft park too, where lots of non-aircrew sit on a regular basis.
We all seem to manage to see & avoid each other without having to wear a high-viz jacket, and as far as I know, the business is not going under due to a rash of lawsuits from people injured from collisions.
Could you please tell me why we, as a whole airfield of "Captain Morons" should adopt the wearing of these infernal things?
I'm by no means saying the same rationale should apply to places like Heathrow et al., but why should we adopt a blanket policy for airfields, when it's clearly not needed at this particular place?
In fact, if you're talking liability, what about the case that could be made for wearing a flammable layer (as I understand it, such jackets are certainly not desired wear in the event of an onboard fire) when it wasn't needed in the first place?
Here's the deal at the "GA-type" airfield, fully licensed, that I regularly fly at, as I understand it.
There are no high-vis jackets in sight, they are not mandatory, and not needed. The aircraft are parked inbetween the runway and the clubhouse. Between the clubhouse & aircraft is an access road, limited to 5mph, a seating area on the grass (fenced off from the aircraft parking area).
There is no enforced wearing of high-vis jackets, and hasn't been as far as I know, for over a year (since I started flying there).
Likewise, there has been no spate of accidents where people have walked into props, aircraft cars or each other because they couldn't see each other. Remember, the seating area is right next to the aircraft park too, where lots of non-aircrew sit on a regular basis.
We all seem to manage to see & avoid each other without having to wear a high-viz jacket, and as far as I know, the business is not going under due to a rash of lawsuits from people injured from collisions.
Could you please tell me why we, as a whole airfield of "Captain Morons" should adopt the wearing of these infernal things?
I'm by no means saying the same rationale should apply to places like Heathrow et al., but why should we adopt a blanket policy for airfields, when it's clearly not needed at this particular place?
In fact, if you're talking liability, what about the case that could be made for wearing a flammable layer (as I understand it, such jackets are certainly not desired wear in the event of an onboard fire) when it wasn't needed in the first place?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could you please tell me why we, as a whole airfield of "Captain Morons" should adopt the wearing of these infernal things?
Professional Student
we don't all wear parachutes, helmets, immersion suits etc all the time when we fly either
Speak for yourself pal!
My point is that, at my airfield, high-viz jackets are arguably not needed.
You could also, I suspect, make the point that we should all wear high-viz jackets when walking on the pavement next to a busy road in poor conditions - but we have to draw the line somewhere with regard to H&S.
For the record, I do own a high-vis jacket, and will bring it along when it's mandatory.
(It is one of those ones from a well-known GA mag with a certain slogan printed on the back however
)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hobbitt this discussion is not going to change the minds of those who have already made their mind up that the nanny state knows better.
It does however give us the opportunity of identifying those who think some of us who don't need two hands and a mirror to find our asses with are,,, well we know what made up name they hide behind .......
So to all you holier than thou experts who think that I am a moron because I don't accept unnecessary policies made up for no other reason than policy making " get stuffed ".
Chuck Ellsworth...my real name.
It does however give us the opportunity of identifying those who think some of us who don't need two hands and a mirror to find our asses with are,,, well we know what made up name they hide behind .......
So to all you holier than thou experts who think that I am a moron because I don't accept unnecessary policies made up for no other reason than policy making " get stuffed ".
Chuck Ellsworth...my real name.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So to all you holier than thou experts who think that I am a moron because I don't accept unnecessary policies made up for no other reason than policy making " get stuffed ".
Chuck Ellsworth...my real name.
Chuck Ellsworth...my real name.
Ian
Not my real name
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"
And I think that goes to prove that the reason for the jackets is “ exactly what it says on those there inscribed vests”.
Most regulations put if force by the legislators are not there to protect the users but to protect them.
It will be the aerodrome manager/operator in court being prosecuted by HSE if a serious incident occurs and the injured was not wearing hi viz.If you don't think wearing of hi-viz is cool, there is a "GA Aircrew" inscribed vest on the market, should appeal to the posers among you."
Most regulations put if force by the legislators are not there to protect the users but to protect them.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that the HSE mandates hi-viz on GA airfields.
So why should it therefore end up in court?
We're jumping at shadows here, I think.
So why should it therefore end up in court?
We're jumping at shadows here, I think.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be the aerodrome manager/operator in court being prosecuted by HSE if a serious incident occurs...
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back packer's right.
I remember an airshow we hosted in the early eighties, a work colleague got pissed in the hospitality tent and managed to stagger out into the display parking area.
He came into contact with a wooden propeller which dislocated his shoulder, the pilot had rammed the brakes on causing the plane to lurch forward and knacker the prop completely.
The pilot, rightly in my opinion, sued him for the damage and repairs, and got most of his money - all be it through insurers.
Life used to be simple.
I remember an airshow we hosted in the early eighties, a work colleague got pissed in the hospitality tent and managed to stagger out into the display parking area.
He came into contact with a wooden propeller which dislocated his shoulder, the pilot had rammed the brakes on causing the plane to lurch forward and knacker the prop completely.
The pilot, rightly in my opinion, sued him for the damage and repairs, and got most of his money - all be it through insurers.
Life used to be simple.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Age: 48
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You see that’s the problem this is not just the case of suing the idiot who caused the problem its how the Health and Safety at Work Act is now used as a beating stick, something that at the outset was a good positive move to protect people has now just digressed into officialdom and political correctness.
Also the Act does not in this instance directly cater for Joe Public’s actions.
The legislation only effects people at work (being paid in cash or kind) so the HSE will only take to legal action under this act against the employees/owners of the business.
And the reason why businesses are so paranoid is down to one of the main purposes of the act:-
'Protect people other than those at work against risks to their health and safety arising out of work activities’ Aircraft/Vehicle movements being one such kind of activity.
Then add into the mix the latest European delights like RIDDOR (Reporting of injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995)
Should something happen then your in the hands of the HSE Inspectors, who have wider powers than police officers, no warrants are required and can stop you operating while they investigate, take apart you equipment and take as long as they need to build a case. During which your business goes down the pan…..
So the onus is on the businesses to go overboard on this stuff to 'cover their butts' and that is the crux of it all.
Its not really about saving a life its about self protection against the PC crowd.
Also the Act does not in this instance directly cater for Joe Public’s actions.
The legislation only effects people at work (being paid in cash or kind) so the HSE will only take to legal action under this act against the employees/owners of the business.
And the reason why businesses are so paranoid is down to one of the main purposes of the act:-
'Protect people other than those at work against risks to their health and safety arising out of work activities’ Aircraft/Vehicle movements being one such kind of activity.
Then add into the mix the latest European delights like RIDDOR (Reporting of injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995)
Should something happen then your in the hands of the HSE Inspectors, who have wider powers than police officers, no warrants are required and can stop you operating while they investigate, take apart you equipment and take as long as they need to build a case. During which your business goes down the pan…..
So the onus is on the businesses to go overboard on this stuff to 'cover their butts' and that is the crux of it all.
Its not really about saving a life its about self protection against the PC crowd.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monkeeeey:
The world has truly gone mad I'm so happy that I was born soon enough to have missed all this lunacy until just towards the end of my career.
What these government employees with all this power and no common sense to go with the power need is a lesson in using common sense and actually having to produce something tangible that is useful to their fellow man, but alas that is wistful thinking......
......just imagine where aviation would be if we had been handcuffed with all these non productive rules when we opened the far north and the high arctic with airplanes where you survived with nothing but your ingenuity and hard work?
Ahhh it is so wonderful to be able to sit here on Vancouver Island and not have to endure the nonsense that todays aviation workers are subjected to.
The world has truly gone mad I'm so happy that I was born soon enough to have missed all this lunacy until just towards the end of my career.
What these government employees with all this power and no common sense to go with the power need is a lesson in using common sense and actually having to produce something tangible that is useful to their fellow man, but alas that is wistful thinking......
......just imagine where aviation would be if we had been handcuffed with all these non productive rules when we opened the far north and the high arctic with airplanes where you survived with nothing but your ingenuity and hard work?
Ahhh it is so wonderful to be able to sit here on Vancouver Island and not have to endure the nonsense that todays aviation workers are subjected to.
[/IMG]