List of UK GA Airfields requiring Hi-viz Jackets (Please land elsewhere)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must say that I am one of the "Carry it with me but only use it when necessary" brigade too, as has been stated many times, it's merely ar5e-covering for someone as otherwise the insurance company will throw up their corperate hands and cry 'Contributory negligence' and 'Duty of care' etc. Sad, yes, inconvenient, certainly, pandering to the hard-of-thinking, definately, but that's the way of things now what with our increasing culture of a lack of personal responsibility & the desire to always blame someone else, so sue-now, ask questions later.
Incidently, don't buy hi-vis from pilot shops etc., go to a builders merchants or tool/plant store, they'll do them for about £3 instead of the £8-13 I've seen (& laughed at) elsewhere. That way, you can buy one for all the family.....
Incidently, don't buy hi-vis from pilot shops etc., go to a builders merchants or tool/plant store, they'll do them for about £3 instead of the £8-13 I've seen (& laughed at) elsewhere. That way, you can buy one for all the family.....
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theres no requirement at Sywell for high viz (although they apear to be on the list). The only time I've seen them them worn (apart for by visitors) is by officals directing at very busy fly-ins with lots of taxying traffic.
This is at the nub of the matter. It comes down to risk assesment, something all pilots are trained to do. Its also known as common sense. When theres a large amount of traffic, both ac and pax/pilots, in a close space it is a sensible precaution to don a high viz. The rest of the time it an OOT requirement. If pilots cannot be trusted to 'assess the risk' appropriately you might as cut to the chase and ground us, rap us up in cotton and lock the whole populus up for our own protection.
end of rant
This is at the nub of the matter. It comes down to risk assesment, something all pilots are trained to do. Its also known as common sense. When theres a large amount of traffic, both ac and pax/pilots, in a close space it is a sensible precaution to don a high viz. The rest of the time it an OOT requirement. If pilots cannot be trusted to 'assess the risk' appropriately you might as cut to the chase and ground us, rap us up in cotton and lock the whole populus up for our own protection.
end of rant
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We'll have to wear yellow waistcoats in Tesco car parks soon, probably more dangerous than any airfield.
A thought just occured, if I wear my red pullover or my orange shirt, does that count as Hi Vis?
ZA
A thought just occured, if I wear my red pullover or my orange shirt, does that count as Hi Vis?
ZA
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Aberdeen, NE Scotland
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of pragmatism
Whilst agreeing with the sentiments of the majority of posters here, what's the problem in putting on a hi-vis vest if that's what the local rules require? I keep a couple of cheapos in the back of the plane and it must take, what - 10seconds? to don one. And doesn't affect the weight & balance carrying them around!
Maybe not always obviously needed but at some places it is, e.g. at EGPE where the short unescorted walk from the parking area to pay the landing fee crosses a taxiway frquented by commercial aircraft including the odd 737.
So while it may be a pain in the a**e to reach into the back and put one on, at the end of the day it's the airfield operator's real estate and if that's what he wants then do it or boycott the place. Certainly not worth the pages of hot air generated on this thread.
Maybe not always obviously needed but at some places it is, e.g. at EGPE where the short unescorted walk from the parking area to pay the landing fee crosses a taxiway frquented by commercial aircraft including the odd 737.
So while it may be a pain in the a**e to reach into the back and put one on, at the end of the day it's the airfield operator's real estate and if that's what he wants then do it or boycott the place. Certainly not worth the pages of hot air generated on this thread.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Aberdeen, NE Scotland
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken,
It just isn't worth the apoplexy!!
Whatever the rights & wrongs of it, it's not going to stop any of us flying into these airfields, any more than the same requirement for hi-vis vests on some European motorways stops us from driving over there.
Now if they insist on wearing the things in flight.......................!!!
It just isn't worth the apoplexy!!
Whatever the rights & wrongs of it, it's not going to stop any of us flying into these airfields, any more than the same requirement for hi-vis vests on some European motorways stops us from driving over there.
Now if they insist on wearing the things in flight.......................!!!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a, probably futile, attempt to justify these things, I think they should be worn by all airport staff so that visitors may know who to ask where the toilets are. Then they could really feel important.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: BERKSHIRE
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly the GREENPEACE nutters that got on top of a BA a/c last month at Heathrow. Walked right through the terminal and through to air side because;
"THEY ALL WERE WEARING BLOODY HIGH VIZ VESTS"
"THEY ALL WERE WEARING BLOODY HIGH VIZ VESTS"
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They were obviously relying on their anti-death properties in case they slipped off the top of Widebody's jet! 
Unfortunately, it would seem they worked.......
Unfortunately, it would seem they worked.......
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it was rather noble of Capt. WB to persuade one of the tree-hugging 2@s that sticking his hand into the APU exhaust was a genuinely bad idea. But then, the amount of paperwork required to document turning a tree-hugger into a one handed tree-hugger is rather formidable.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: BERKSHIRE
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very true Ed
This is what they would have looked like if they had tried that stunt in most other countries:
But in the UK the police probably gave them the fare home!!!
after
" We would awfully appreciate it if you did not do that again, thank you"
This is what they would have looked like if they had tried that stunt in most other countries:
But in the UK the police probably gave them the fare home!!!
after
" We would awfully appreciate it if you did not do that again, thank you"
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are essentially two points of view about this.
1: There is no evidence whatsoever that hi viz vests at GA airports improve safety. Making them mandatory is typical of the knee-jerk nanny statism endemic in this country which is all about being seen to 'do something'. It is a requirement imposed on airfields by insurance companies with no understanding of what does and does not cause accidents at airfields, and lazily accepted by those airfields' managers. We particularly don't like being ordered to wear an ugly uniform by people who have less concept of risk management in aviation than we do.
or
2: Well they don't cost much so why not?
I wish I were relaxed and liberal enough to be in the second group but I'm not.
1: There is no evidence whatsoever that hi viz vests at GA airports improve safety. Making them mandatory is typical of the knee-jerk nanny statism endemic in this country which is all about being seen to 'do something'. It is a requirement imposed on airfields by insurance companies with no understanding of what does and does not cause accidents at airfields, and lazily accepted by those airfields' managers. We particularly don't like being ordered to wear an ugly uniform by people who have less concept of risk management in aviation than we do.
or
2: Well they don't cost much so why not?
I wish I were relaxed and liberal enough to be in the second group but I'm not.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: BERKSHIRE
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutley Peter, that is the whole point.
I am glad that at least there are some people on this forum with a some common sense.
Being asked to wear a silly vest is one thing, being told to wear one by a jobs worth with the IQ of John Prescot is another!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am glad that at least there are some people on this forum with a some common sense.
Being asked to wear a silly vest is one thing, being told to wear one by a jobs worth with the IQ of John Prescot is another!!!!!!!!!!!!!
