List of UK GA Airfields requiring Hi-viz Jackets (Please land elsewhere)

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Headcorn still using common sense

[maxdrypower]

Its a known fact that the phrase "Hi-Vis" came about due to amount of people unable to spell flores-floures-flouersc-florescnt or is it Fluorescent ???? , Perhaps what is required here is someone to fall on their sword , or rather run into a propeller or something wearing one of the said vests . Then we can all claim that the poor unfortunate was wearing one and he was still minced . We could possibly use an asylum seeker or illegal immigrant .Se pragmatic thinking .
Quick edit , Barton have a hi-viz rules I think and I flew from there today without one and no one jumped out like a jap sniper and yelled at me

[Contacttower]

Also; NOT required at Old Sarum. Or at least, if they are, I've been breaking the rules for ages..

Yes I am pretty sure Old Sarum don't require them, I've never worn one there! Thruxton just across the MATZ however does seem to require them (although it doesn't seem to enforce the wearing of them that strictly). I have to say though this whole thing does seem to be a bit of a fuss about nothing, I mean honestly, why does it matter so much?

[Oldpilot55]

I have a Hi-viz stomach..will that cover the HSE madness?

[Ken Wells]

Thanks

Thanks for this as my posting was strangely taken down.

I am glad common sense prevailed.

Interesting bit on local TV news last night Murder suspect on CCTV was wearing a High Viz Jkt.

Seems these are now fashion of choice for criminals, as so many idiots wear them, they blend in!!!!!!!!!!

[Contacttower]

Interesting bit on local TV news last night Murder suspect on CCTV was wearing a High Viz Jkt.

Was that BBC South Today yesterday about the murder near Winchester?

I was watching that piece and I thought of this thread when they showed the footage of the guy at the ATM...

[Ken Wells]

Yes

Affirm, that's the one!

[eharding]

Well, 15 minutes of a bit of script hacking indicate that the following mention high visibility clothing in the AIP entry:

EGAE - Londonderry/Eglinton
EGBB - Birmingham
EGBJ - Gloucestershire
EGBN - Nottingham
EGBO - Wolverhampton
EGBP - Kemble
EGCC - Manchester
EGCK - Caernarfon
EGCN - Doncaster
EGFA - West Wales/Aberporth
EGFH - Swansea
EGGP - Liverpool
EGGW - London Luton
EGHH - Bournemouth
EGHO - Thruxton
EGJA - Alderney
EGJB - Guernsey
EGKR - Redhill
EGMH - Manston
EGNH - Blackpool
EGNJ - Humberside
EGNT - Newcastle
EGNV - Durham Tees Valley
EGNX - Nottingham
EGSC - Cambridge
EGSH - Norwich
EGTC - Cranfield
EGTE - Exeter
EGWU - Northolt
EGGD - Bristol
EGHC - Lands End/St Just
EGMC - Southend
EGMD - Lydd
EGNC - Carlisle
EGNO - Warton
EGNR - Hawarden
EGNS - Isle of Man
EGPE - Inverness
EGTG - Bristol Filton

No real surprises then. The script isn't bomb-proof, so it may have missed a couple (although I checked the EGLL entry manually - not a peep about anti-death clothing - nor Shoreham)

[2hotwot]

Yup the CAP642 is a pretty sensible document, it talks about a risk based approach and 'so far as is reasonably practicable' etc and... it is written to cover all including international airport operations. The problem is that it is possible to become over enthusiastic about both the use of such as high vis as well as its damnation. It is easier to justify the wearing of high vis by an employee than it is of a visiting leisure pilot as a different duty is owed. Chuck in a measure of dogmatism on both sides and you have a problem and one which tends to stop people looking out for the real safety issues which have a greater chance of killing them. Of greater sadness is that the Clarkson approach to safety seems to be pervading aviation. Apparently, it says that safety impinges on our basic rights and freedoms and is in all cases excessive and bad. Little though is given to the fact that safety grew up with aviation and made it the reliable and safe form of transport it is today. It belittles the great people who lost their lives learning all the potential risks that flying presents to save each of us having to do so for themselves.
Remember it was safety and the proper understanding and prioritisation of risks that got man to the moon. It did not stop him, but on the other hand neither did lawyers or legislators. Perhaps we should look elsewhere than safety for the problem?
Safety isn't all bad....... rant done.

[Ken Wells]

Good God

Dear Lord Harding,

There must be nothing on TV tonight.

Well done.


KW

[eharding]

Originally Posted by Ken Wells

There must be nothing on TV tonight.

How would I know? - persons unknown gained entry to Harding Hall in the wee small hours of Thursday last and helped themselves to, amongst other things, my telly, while I was blissfully asleep upstairs....gits.

Now, if we could mandate that burglars wore high visibility gear (preferably with "Thieving Scum" emblazoned in large letters) that would be splendid.

[Human Factor]

Good effort, Ed!!

You obviously have too much time on your hands. Maybe you should give up work again.

[Ken Wells]

I have a free spare 20" TV ; if you want it! give me a bell!!

[eharding]

Originally Posted by Ken Wells

I have a free spare 20" TV ; if you want it! give me a bell!!

They took my phone as well....and a set of keys for the Rangie. I'm sure once they've plotted an escape route with a petrol station every five miles, they'll be back for that as well. Still, look on the bright side - once Human Factor reads his email, he'll be delighted to find that the bill for getting the Yak back in the air has hilariously gone from £4K to £10K in the space of a week.

[matspart3]

Jesus! Some people need to get out more....

[Human Factor]

...he'll be delighted to find that the bill for getting the Yak back in the air has hilariously gone from £4K to £10K in the space of a week.

[LD Max]

The problem with Hi-Vis Regulations

In defence of the CAA (although I normally prefer the other side of de fence), CAP 642 is absolutely, totally NOT responsible for the over-zealous interest in hi-Vis Jackets.

But, if it's in the official, CAA approved, Published and Annually (anally? -sic) Audited Aerodrome Manual for that particular airfield, then the Aerodrome Management have to enforce it - otherwise it's a black mark when they next get inspected.

If it's not in the aerodrome manual, you don't need it.

Why not just carry one in the back? Frankly, its just easier to put it on if someone asks you to.

[david viewing]

Sadly, you'd have to add Weston (Dublin) to this list. But only if someone's looking.

[DenhamPPL]

Denham is Hi-Viz free. Well it is on the "north side". Don't think the Cabair lot on the other side wear them either (you can see their epaulettes for miles anyway)

[TheOddOne]

Don't think the Cabair lot on the other side wear them either (you can see their epaulettes for miles anyway)

Oi!!! Not so much of the 'lot'! But you're right, they don't when walking to and fro the a/c parked outside the clubhouse.

There's a bin by the door with the dreaded garments available if your journey should take you to an airfield with the requirement.

However, Hi-Viz IS worn when groundspeople or Ops staff are working close to the runway, checking the lights for instance. Just common sense applied to the appropriate situation.

TOO