High Viz Jackets - Mandatory at GA Airfields?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yellow vests arnt designed to save you from idiots, they are to make you more conspicious around machinary, vehiicles and aircraft, that should be obvious, even to idiots.
I am not anti yellow vests (well I am because they should be pink). But what frightens me is the number of people who seem to think that a yellow vest will stop them being run over. The only way to minimise the risk of being run over is to make sure you are looking out for yourself. And you don't need a yellow vest for that.
If you do not like rules dont fly, aviation is a rule based discipline.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a big difference between that and a set of rules telling you what you can do, which is what a rule based discipline would be.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you do not like rules dont fly, aviation is a rule based discipline.
Yellow jackets have their place. On the ramp at LHR is a good example. On the "ramp" at White Waltham isn't, except to make you an easier target.
That said, aviation is a skill based discipline. Some of that skill can be taught to most people. The rest either exists naturally, develops over time or doesn't develop enough. The latter is usually the most evident.
Professional Student
TCAS FAN, advocates of the vests, et all
vis a vis
is there actually any evidence on this? Not the "of course they do, they make you easier to see, you moron" variety, but any studies, links etc.
Specifically in relation to small GA airfields, prehaps if possible?
Incidentally, my logbook count of airfields visited now stands at 29. I can't recall ever once having worn a high vis outside of Bristol International (and there it was a night, which made the jacket quite sensible).
Likewise I can't once recall being involved in a collision, near miss, or even standing near a prop start. I managed to miss the other parties somehow and they missed me. It's as almost if we managed to see each other & avoid any conflictions on our own.
vis a vis
the wearing of hi viz clothing has proved to be a significant mitigating measure to prevent collisions
Specifically in relation to small GA airfields, prehaps if possible?
Incidentally, my logbook count of airfields visited now stands at 29. I can't recall ever once having worn a high vis outside of Bristol International (and there it was a night, which made the jacket quite sensible).
Likewise I can't once recall being involved in a collision, near miss, or even standing near a prop start. I managed to miss the other parties somehow and they missed me. It's as almost if we managed to see each other & avoid any conflictions on our own.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Age: 48
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I recall correctly the High Viz was originally used for British Rail workers, the idea then was to enable train drivers (if awake) to distinguish the bright coloured jacket against the dark grey track base from a good distance. The same would apply to motorway workers in poor lighting conditions, in these situations you could agree that the eye would be drawn to the jackets because either the headlights would reflect of them or the background would significantly raise the colour to the front thus giving you something to aim for ;-)
But the main reason for the use was due to the relatively quiet electric trains which could not be easily heard until very close, especially when using power tools/compressors etc, so the protection in this case was provided by an alert (hopefully sober) train driver.
But if while at a GA and you cant see or hear aircraft/vehicles moving around you’ve got to ask yourself where the hell your guide dog has run off to, he/she will have one of those luminous coloured straps on anyway.
It will be bubble rap trousers and flashing Kevlar helmets next……
But the main reason for the use was due to the relatively quiet electric trains which could not be easily heard until very close, especially when using power tools/compressors etc, so the protection in this case was provided by an alert (hopefully sober) train driver.
But if while at a GA and you cant see or hear aircraft/vehicles moving around you’ve got to ask yourself where the hell your guide dog has run off to, he/she will have one of those luminous coloured straps on anyway.
It will be bubble rap trousers and flashing Kevlar helmets next……
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to introduce the odd bit of fact to the thread. Here is an FAA analysis of 'Struck-by injuries' in the US. It has a number of interesting facts:
Finally, the report highlights that - High Viz is recommended where people are undertaking complex tasks which divert attention from moving vehicles, the vehicles are going more than 25 mph and the work is in close proximity to the moving vehicles.
It looks like walking and chewing gum at Kemble may qualify as needing High-Viz
- 82% of incidents happened at large hub airports. 0% happened at non-hub airports.
- As an industry, aviation has a very low incidence of struck-by injuries (20% of ground transport industry fatalities are due to struck-by vs. 0.2% in Aviation)
- Large hub airports where all operators had a high-viz policy had a lower accident rate than those that did not use high viz.
- 55% of fatalities were the result of vehicles backing up on top of people
- All but one of the fatal accidents involved workers and vehicles underneath aircraft.
Finally, the report highlights that - High Viz is recommended where people are undertaking complex tasks which divert attention from moving vehicles, the vehicles are going more than 25 mph and the work is in close proximity to the moving vehicles.
It looks like walking and chewing gum at Kemble may qualify as needing High-Viz
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It amazes me how such a simple aid to see and being seen can vex so many people.
It's also indicative of the number of people who are members of the "It will never happen to me" club when it comes to avaition, yet I wager that 99% of you work in ordinary jobs within which you adhere to H&S because you have to.
I would also wager that in your normal mundane jobs, very few, if any of you, contest H&S requirements because;
1) You haven't read the H&S legislation in detail, and are to scared to rebel against it because you know you'd be sacked;and/or,
2) You've never discussed the particulars of anything such as yellow vests, with your H&S manager; and/or,
3) If you were to have an accident at work, you would be squealing like stuck pigs to sue for compensation.
So let's get some perspective here, you will either fly from ordinary small airfields where "H&S is someone elses problem" and as soon as someone is hurt, you will be squealing all the way to the High Court, or, you operate from a regional or even international airport where you have to comply.
I wonder if you'd be so quick to condem anyone who puts on a life jacket because their flight entails a 3nm trip over water?
Either way, your opinion on the matter doesn't matter and, if you choose not to comply, your business is worthless.
In that case, you really are in the minority but you still have to do what you are required to do by law.
If you choose not to fly as a result we are better off without you.
It's also indicative of the number of people who are members of the "It will never happen to me" club when it comes to avaition, yet I wager that 99% of you work in ordinary jobs within which you adhere to H&S because you have to.
I would also wager that in your normal mundane jobs, very few, if any of you, contest H&S requirements because;
1) You haven't read the H&S legislation in detail, and are to scared to rebel against it because you know you'd be sacked;and/or,
2) You've never discussed the particulars of anything such as yellow vests, with your H&S manager; and/or,
3) If you were to have an accident at work, you would be squealing like stuck pigs to sue for compensation.
So let's get some perspective here, you will either fly from ordinary small airfields where "H&S is someone elses problem" and as soon as someone is hurt, you will be squealing all the way to the High Court, or, you operate from a regional or even international airport where you have to comply.
I wonder if you'd be so quick to condem anyone who puts on a life jacket because their flight entails a 3nm trip over water?
Either way, your opinion on the matter doesn't matter and, if you choose not to comply, your business is worthless.
In that case, you really are in the minority but you still have to do what you are required to do by law.
If you choose not to fly as a result we are better off without you.
Last edited by niknak; 15th Jan 2008 at 14:25.
Professional Student
niknak,
Yes it is a simple aid to see & being seen; but if we taken with this portion of the report "High Viz is recommended where people are undertaking complex tasks which divert attention from moving vehicles, the vehicles are going more than 25 mph and the work is in close proximity to the moving vehicles." and the fact that they are flammable & nylon & generate static then it seems to me that at your average GA field the cons outweigh the benefit. Especially given that it will not magically stop a determined fool (i.e. a driver/pilot not paying attention).
If I was operating from a regional/international airport, I would be happy to stick one on. Different environment, where I think one could be helpful. I don't take the attitude that "H&S is not my problem" at my home airfield - if it was mandatory at Old Sarum to wear one, I would. I just wouldn't like it....
I certainly would not condemn them; quite the opposite, I once donned a lifejacket flying to/from Perranporth, with a route over land, because the rwy in use meant the climbout heading was out over the bay.
Wearing a high-viz is not going to stop me flying!
Anyway, this discussion has reached the point where it's going round in circles. As you said Chuck, everyone's made their minds up - and "a person convinced against their will is not convinced at all". So I'll bow out of this one - and go flying at my blissful high-viz free airfield
It amazes me how such a simple aid to see and being seen can vex so many people.
So let's get some perspective here, you will either fly from ordinary small airfields where "H&S is someone elses problem" and as soon as someone is hurt, you will be squealing all the way to the High Court, or, you operate from a regional or even international airport where you have to comply.
I wonder if you'd be so quick to condem anyone who puts on a life jacket because their flight entails a 3nm trip over water?
If you choose not to fly as a result we are better off without you.
Anyway, this discussion has reached the point where it's going round in circles. As you said Chuck, everyone's made their minds up - and "a person convinced against their will is not convinced at all". So I'll bow out of this one - and go flying at my blissful high-viz free airfield
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: england
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What some people fail to see is that the fuss about yellow jackets is not really about the trivial matter of the jacket itself. It is an absolute and, in my opinion, justified fury at the useless and unnecessary over regulation of an increasing number of areas of life where we all managed happily for years without some officious H&SE nanny. The yellow jacket is just the most obvious symbol of this pointless obsession with micro management of other people's lives.
There is a safety case for the things at LHR but not at every little airfield and no one has ever been able to make one.
There is a safety case for the things at LHR but not at every little airfield and no one has ever been able to make one.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
If you do not like rules dont fly, aviation is a rule based discipline.
We all should stick to the rules in aviation, especially the one about maximum speed of 250 kts below FL100 in Class G. Note that one is mandatory, the one regarding hi-viz vests isn't.
You said this:
We manage 280 kts on a clear day no probs, mostly inside zones, bit occasionally outside around 3000ft. It dosnt seem that fast if you do it often enough but it seems alarmingly slow when you get back into a C152!
Speed Limitation
23 (1) Subject to paragraph (3), an aircraft shall not fly below flight level 100 at a speed which
according to its air speed indicator is more than 250 knots unless it is flying in
accordance with the terms of a written permission of the Authority.
23 (1) Subject to paragraph (3), an aircraft shall not fly below flight level 100 at a speed which
according to its air speed indicator is more than 250 knots unless it is flying in
accordance with the terms of a written permission of the Authority.
Either, you obviously inform the CAA on each occasion you fail to comply with the ANO or you have a written permission to do this....
Last edited by ShyTorque; 15th Jan 2008 at 16:32.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you take the trouble to read the appropriate CAP you'll see that HVV is mandated for pushback crews and snow clearance operations.
The remainder is down to the aerodrome management.
The prime pupose of HVV is not to stop you being run over by an aeroplane. They are generally big noisy slow-moving things with flashing lights on them. The dangerous ones are the ramp vehicles that come whizzing out of the gloom beneath the terminal driven by someone wearing the aforementiond HVV that reflects in his windscreen and makes it difficult for him to see you. Not a lot of ramp vehicles whizzing around most GA fields.
Most GA fields also close in conditions of poor vis or darkness, unlike the sort of places where HVV do perform a useful function.
Personally I have on in the a/c in case I'm forced to wear it but I would never wear it while in the a/c or while swinging a prop. In those circumstances it's a danger rather than something that mitigates risk. Something that tends to escape the notice of the average jobsworth.
The remainder is down to the aerodrome management.
The prime pupose of HVV is not to stop you being run over by an aeroplane. They are generally big noisy slow-moving things with flashing lights on them. The dangerous ones are the ramp vehicles that come whizzing out of the gloom beneath the terminal driven by someone wearing the aforementiond HVV that reflects in his windscreen and makes it difficult for him to see you. Not a lot of ramp vehicles whizzing around most GA fields.
Most GA fields also close in conditions of poor vis or darkness, unlike the sort of places where HVV do perform a useful function.
Personally I have on in the a/c in case I'm forced to wear it but I would never wear it while in the a/c or while swinging a prop. In those circumstances it's a danger rather than something that mitigates risk. Something that tends to escape the notice of the average jobsworth.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A further thought on risk.
How many times does a vehicles maneuver within 5m of the push back crew?
maybe 20 times per shift
How many times does a vehicle maneuver within 5m of an airside person?
maybe once every 10 trips to the local GA field.
Even assuming the likelihood of injury is equal from a number of vehicles on a busy ramp vs a lone vehicle out in the open, The GA field has something like a 200 times lower probability of injury per person. Hence any sensible risk assessment would conclude that the mitigation required at LHR should be dramatically greater than at Kemble. If Hi-Viz was sensible at Kemble, then God only knows what should be done at LHR to manage their risk!!!
It is primarily this lack of rational risk management within the UK that drives the 'anti-High Viz' views.
How many times does a vehicles maneuver within 5m of the push back crew?
maybe 20 times per shift
How many times does a vehicle maneuver within 5m of an airside person?
maybe once every 10 trips to the local GA field.
Even assuming the likelihood of injury is equal from a number of vehicles on a busy ramp vs a lone vehicle out in the open, The GA field has something like a 200 times lower probability of injury per person. Hence any sensible risk assessment would conclude that the mitigation required at LHR should be dramatically greater than at Kemble. If Hi-Viz was sensible at Kemble, then God only knows what should be done at LHR to manage their risk!!!
It is primarily this lack of rational risk management within the UK that drives the 'anti-High Viz' views.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In that case, you really are in the minority but you still have to do what you are required to do by law.
If you choose not to fly as a result we are better off without you.
niknat, I have no idea who you are but one thing I do know is you are an insult to the IQ of a primate.
And you can bet I would not sit at your table for companionship at any airport.
If you choose not to fly as a result we are better off without you.
niknat, I have no idea who you are but one thing I do know is you are an insult to the IQ of a primate.
And you can bet I would not sit at your table for companionship at any airport.
flourescent stuff
it would make a lot more sense for everything that moves to be in dayglo colours so that people see the things that are likely to hurt them.
I have tried to start the ball rolling by recovering my Rans S6 in flourescent green. Stands out a mile. When on tour all my mates can loose formate on me quite easily and I can always find my aircraft when I come from the beer tent ;-)
I have tried to start the ball rolling by recovering my Rans S6 in flourescent green. Stands out a mile. When on tour all my mates can loose formate on me quite easily and I can always find my aircraft when I come from the beer tent ;-)
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Soon there will be so much hi-viz yellow/green about that folk will have to wear something black to be seen. 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: BERKSHIRE
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Niknak
In that case, you really are in the minority but you still have to do what you are required to do by law.
If you choose not to fly as a result we are better off without you.
If you choose not to fly as a result we are better off without you.
WE?
We are not worthy Oh great NIKNAK!
Seems like this light hearted thread has gone a little over your head!
[IMG]
[/IMG]