The Dreaded Hi-viz vest
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wide Body has got my vote.
Anyone got a documented accident report where hi-viz vests may have helped (somewhere near zero?)
Any idea how many accident reports mention head injuries (clue: lots).
If certain wearable are to be made mandatory, then surely you start with the highest benefit item? If not, then it's just random rule making.
And the cost argument about helmets just doesn't wash - if a 16 year old moped rider can manage to spend a few tenners on a BS approved helmet, I'm sure we all could do the same in pursuit of our indulgent hobby.
It doesn't have to be a special aviation design standard (i.e silly price), in the same way that the NPPL leverages a driving based medical standard.
Anyone got a documented accident report where hi-viz vests may have helped (somewhere near zero?)
Any idea how many accident reports mention head injuries (clue: lots).
If certain wearable are to be made mandatory, then surely you start with the highest benefit item? If not, then it's just random rule making.
And the cost argument about helmets just doesn't wash - if a 16 year old moped rider can manage to spend a few tenners on a BS approved helmet, I'm sure we all could do the same in pursuit of our indulgent hobby.
It doesn't have to be a special aviation design standard (i.e silly price), in the same way that the NPPL leverages a driving based medical standard.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gatwick
Age: 53
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of my flying is at grass airfields. Grass is green. My high-viz jacket is yellow/green. I can see people in black T-shirts (in daytime, obviously!) more easily than I can see the people in high-viz jackets.
Different story on tarmac and at night, though. Perhaps one size doesn't fit all after all...
MD.
Different story on tarmac and at night, though. Perhaps one size doesn't fit all after all...
MD.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bodie, it's snot that you can't find one to fit.
It's your eyesight that's been ruined by gazing at Hi Viz garments.
A bit like losing your night vision, only more dangerous, 'cos it happens in daylight.
I recommend lying down in a darkened room, let your eyesight settle down a bit, then you'll be able to locate and try on a helmet that will fit you.
Alternatively, I have a pot of Isopon resin in the garage, which, when mixed with hardener and poured over one's head will provide a guaranteed tailormade fit. Just make sure you get a comprehensive No.1 haircut and a liberal dusting of chalk dust before we try it
Bit of verbal sparring never hurts. No hard feelings Bodie, hopefully mutual?
It's your eyesight that's been ruined by gazing at Hi Viz garments.
A bit like losing your night vision, only more dangerous, 'cos it happens in daylight.
I recommend lying down in a darkened room, let your eyesight settle down a bit, then you'll be able to locate and try on a helmet that will fit you.
Alternatively, I have a pot of Isopon resin in the garage, which, when mixed with hardener and poured over one's head will provide a guaranteed tailormade fit. Just make sure you get a comprehensive No.1 haircut and a liberal dusting of chalk dust before we try it
Bit of verbal sparring never hurts. No hard feelings Bodie, hopefully mutual?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wear a helmet in the Chippy out of choice. I bought it for use when doing vigorous aeros in the Yak 52 and needed something to stop my headset flying off. It has the added advantage of giving some bonce protection should I need it. But compulsory? Never!
Just think how many car occupants would be saved from death if helmets were compulsory for drivers and passengers. Far, far more than the same rule for aeroplanes would save. Will it happen? No!
Just to illustrate how daft these safety rules can be, and the double standards that apply, I remember a cycleway that opened in Bristol a few years ago. It used part of a railway trackbed where the track had been lifted and tarmac layed instead. Trouble was, one track, a way off to the side, was still in use, once a day, by a very slow goods train. So the local authority decreed that the cycleway must not be used until a substantial and very expensive fence between it and the railway line had been erected along the entire length.
What a load of bol*cks! It was quite OK to cycle along any main road in Bristol, with massive HGVs raising the hairs on your legs as they thundered past, mere inches away, steered by humans subject to all the distractions, tiredness, and stupidity that humans suffer. Yet a slow and easily seen train, several yards away, steered by its rails so it ain't going to veer off course, and which appeared once a day at the same time, was considered an unnacceptable threat to the safety of cyclists.
Please don't just accept that because someone has made out a safety case for implementing protective measures, that such measures are in the least realistic in proportion to the actual risk.
SSD
Just think how many car occupants would be saved from death if helmets were compulsory for drivers and passengers. Far, far more than the same rule for aeroplanes would save. Will it happen? No!
Just to illustrate how daft these safety rules can be, and the double standards that apply, I remember a cycleway that opened in Bristol a few years ago. It used part of a railway trackbed where the track had been lifted and tarmac layed instead. Trouble was, one track, a way off to the side, was still in use, once a day, by a very slow goods train. So the local authority decreed that the cycleway must not be used until a substantial and very expensive fence between it and the railway line had been erected along the entire length.
What a load of bol*cks! It was quite OK to cycle along any main road in Bristol, with massive HGVs raising the hairs on your legs as they thundered past, mere inches away, steered by humans subject to all the distractions, tiredness, and stupidity that humans suffer. Yet a slow and easily seen train, several yards away, steered by its rails so it ain't going to veer off course, and which appeared once a day at the same time, was considered an unnacceptable threat to the safety of cyclists.
Please don't just accept that because someone has made out a safety case for implementing protective measures, that such measures are in the least realistic in proportion to the actual risk.
SSD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD and myself can be found holding a protest sit-in, in front of the Tower at Barton.
We're the two ageing hippies. The Little & Large of the aviation world.
Oh, by the way, we promise to use Hi-Viz placards protesting our case. Just in case any pilots don't spot us.
(this post has been dumbed down to satisfy our aviation insurers & the CAA. Any aggressive comments will be removed in case they result in permanent disability or injury to third parties. No civil servants were harmed in the making of this thread)
We're the two ageing hippies. The Little & Large of the aviation world.
Oh, by the way, we promise to use Hi-Viz placards protesting our case. Just in case any pilots don't spot us.
(this post has been dumbed down to satisfy our aviation insurers & the CAA. Any aggressive comments will be removed in case they result in permanent disability or injury to third parties. No civil servants were harmed in the making of this thread)
Weighing it up in terms of cost/benefit, (yes I know I'm beginning to sound like them), it will be a bit of a pain obtaining/remembering said item, but at the end of the day, its not really going to spoil our fun that much, is it ?
Just for the record, a dog has been killed at Barton, decapitated by a prop. many years ago, so I've been told.
Just for the record, a dog has been killed at Barton, decapitated by a prop. many years ago, so I've been told.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep. 90% correct. It was actually killed by the then CFI after it had walked into the prop. He finished it off with his gun. So I've been told.
I believe though, the dog went for the propellor of a stationery aircraft, rather than the pilot not seeing the dog.
There is no evidence to suggest that if the canine had been wearing a HVV it would have been any less badly injured. Certainly the HVV would not have protected it from the CFI's gun.
I believe though, the dog went for the propellor of a stationery aircraft, rather than the pilot not seeing the dog.
There is no evidence to suggest that if the canine had been wearing a HVV it would have been any less badly injured. Certainly the HVV would not have protected it from the CFI's gun.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Down South
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All,
Come into this discussion a bit late..... but after scanning though the posts, there seams to be some discussion as to when/where/how there has been/could have been an acciddent.
Surely the point of wearing a hiviz vest to prevent.... if there hasnt been an accident in the past, then great! Lets make sure we dont have one in the future!
Its the same argument that people give for buying a bulglar alarm.... "well we have never been robbed before so why do we need one??????......"
Unltimatly, and unfortuantly, there is normally a first time - we can always try to postpone that occasion. Wearing a hiviz vest whilst airside, outside the aircraft, does not hamper your flying experiance - so be safe!
Proactive not reactive.
Be safe lovely people.
FW
Come into this discussion a bit late..... but after scanning though the posts, there seams to be some discussion as to when/where/how there has been/could have been an acciddent.
Surely the point of wearing a hiviz vest to prevent.... if there hasnt been an accident in the past, then great! Lets make sure we dont have one in the future!
Its the same argument that people give for buying a bulglar alarm.... "well we have never been robbed before so why do we need one??????......"
Unltimatly, and unfortuantly, there is normally a first time - we can always try to postpone that occasion. Wearing a hiviz vest whilst airside, outside the aircraft, does not hamper your flying experiance - so be safe!
Proactive not reactive.
Be safe lovely people.
FW
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great Logic there Welshman
The argument against Yellow Jackets has been that "there has never been an accident in the UK in living memory, on an airfield, that would have been prevented by one party or another wearing a Yellow Jacket"
For your burglar alarm argument to stand up to scrutiny, I would need to be attempting to sell you an alarm when not one house in the UK had ever been burgled.
Now do you see?
2D
The argument against Yellow Jackets has been that "there has never been an accident in the UK in living memory, on an airfield, that would have been prevented by one party or another wearing a Yellow Jacket"
For your burglar alarm argument to stand up to scrutiny, I would need to be attempting to sell you an alarm when not one house in the UK had ever been burgled.
Now do you see?
2D
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Down South
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2D
Hmmm I do see your point, and it is of cource correct, but although there has yet to be an incedent - would you not agree that there is an apparent risk there?
The vest is cheap (relative to most things aviation), simple, and not difficult to use - if one vest, saves one life, would that not be a good thing?
FW
Hmmm I do see your point, and it is of cource correct, but although there has yet to be an incedent - would you not agree that there is an apparent risk there?
The vest is cheap (relative to most things aviation), simple, and not difficult to use - if one vest, saves one life, would that not be a good thing?
FW
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I carry yellow vest(s) on board so I have no particular argument here.
There is no safety case for them, based on any kind of real risk assessment though - it just feels like a smart thing to do.
It falls into a similar category to those who refuse to fly in IMC outside controlled airspace without a radar service. It feels like it might be dangerous to do, but the statistics do not yield a single case of a mid-air under such circumstances in the last 10 years.
2D
There is no safety case for them, based on any kind of real risk assessment though - it just feels like a smart thing to do.
It falls into a similar category to those who refuse to fly in IMC outside controlled airspace without a radar service. It feels like it might be dangerous to do, but the statistics do not yield a single case of a mid-air under such circumstances in the last 10 years.
2D
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2D, Not following you honest, but a better analogy to flying IMC with no radar might be walking around on the ramp with your eyes shut and earplugs in (and the pilots of all the aircraft doing the same)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Reading
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I haven't got one yet, I have to say that they are a good idea - it only takes one person to get mashed by a prop and all the liability insurance will go through the roof, and we'll all get another 20-30 quid on an hours hire
On a lighter note, maybe the planes should be made more visible. I was taxiing in with my instructor when a spotter was walking out on the line, head pointed straight up in the air looking at the circuit. Strange how he didn't notice the large object with a thrashing noisy prop on it - he did however when we put the brakes on and gave it few more revs
On a lighter note, maybe the planes should be made more visible. I was taxiing in with my instructor when a spotter was walking out on the line, head pointed straight up in the air looking at the circuit. Strange how he didn't notice the large object with a thrashing noisy prop on it - he did however when we put the brakes on and gave it few more revs
Hi vis jackets don't protect you, common sense and awareness do that - the very things your mother taught you from the day you were born. The insistance on wearing of these things is another reason for us to switch off, stop thinking and become ruled by legislation.
I work offshore in the north sea on a combined drilling and production rig. Our working environment is extremenly controlled, so much so that knives are currently being banned on the worksite - and I bet you thought the offshore people are rough and tough hardy types egh?
We need to push back on this monstrous pressure, otherwise when will it stop? I am very much for safety, I wish to come home from work or days flying in the same shape I went out but do little things like a yellow vest make it safer? Of course not.
So, less reliance on artificial protectionism and a bit more common sense and we'll all lead a long and safe life.
Happy flying.
I work offshore in the north sea on a combined drilling and production rig. Our working environment is extremenly controlled, so much so that knives are currently being banned on the worksite - and I bet you thought the offshore people are rough and tough hardy types egh?
We need to push back on this monstrous pressure, otherwise when will it stop? I am very much for safety, I wish to come home from work or days flying in the same shape I went out but do little things like a yellow vest make it safer? Of course not.
So, less reliance on artificial protectionism and a bit more common sense and we'll all lead a long and safe life.
Happy flying.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wales
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it a legal requirement to wear one of the dreaded hi-vis vests? at Caernarfon you'll get a "Strong telling off" (I know the censor will kick in, so i'm not even going to try!!)
Over at Mona they seem pretty relaxed about it - nobody walks around airside with a hi-viz vest on. (which just goes to show, there are still some sensible people around!)
WelshFlyer.
Over at Mona they seem pretty relaxed about it - nobody walks around airside with a hi-viz vest on. (which just goes to show, there are still some sensible people around!)
WelshFlyer.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was at Caernarven, Barton and Wolverhamton this weekend and nobody even mentioned I was supposed to be wearing HI Viz, I wouldn't have minded even if they had. The only people that did have any on were the staff and it's a good way to spot them. By the way they were all very friendly, especially Wolverhampton space port
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotor - It's not Wolverhampton spaceport, it's Wolverhampton Inter-galactic (Business) spaceport. - 
(Must be the airfield equivelent of club member turning up with four bars... )
(Must be the airfield equivelent of club member turning up with four bars...
)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These yellow jackets have been way overdue at barton. Its about time it was made a rule to wear one airside, besides most other airfields require pilots to wear them so presumably everyone already owns one.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all switch the rotating beacons / anti coll on when we start our airplanes and use it on the ground... Supposedly those beacons are there to make the airplanes more visible, though I seriously doubt that there's ever been anyone seriously harmed by an airplane JUST because it didn't have its rotating beacon flashing. And yet we don't complain about that...
Don't understand what all the fuss is about... These jackets are not expensive, they are not particularly uncomfortable, and "street cred" is hardly important in comparison to other issues when airside anywhere.
Andy
Don't understand what all the fuss is about... These jackets are not expensive, they are not particularly uncomfortable, and "street cred" is hardly important in comparison to other issues when airside anywhere.
Andy
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not convinced that a good safety case has been made for wearing his-vis vests on the apron. However, no-one seems to have mentioned the real disadvantages:
When I am looking for a marshaller it used to be so easy; I would just look for a high-vis jacket, and it was all so easy. Now, I have to decide which of the many high-vis jacket wearers' is the marshaller. This cannot be done so quickly as before, or at such a long range.
In the event of a serious accident or incident, similarly, time could be wasted deciding which of the high-vis jacket wearers was the incident controller.
Do you see what I am getting at? By making their wear compulsary, you loose valuable information.
I refuse to wear a high-vis vest when hand starting the engine. Loose clothing is simply an unacceptable risk.
I remember when high vis vests were introduced on British Railways in the 1960's. There was a very good reason for their introduction which may not be obvious to those of you who have never worked on the track..... It is apparent that the train cannot swerve around anyone on the track so the person on the track has to get out of the way of the train. So why would a high-vis jacket help? The answer is simple: You cannot hear a high-speed train coming until it is almost upon you. The driver will always sound his horn (100 dB plus) whenever he sees anyone on or near the track and wearing high-vis vests enables him to see you at a far greater distance, and therefore give an earlier warning.
Now, compare this to the situation on an airport apron.... Aircraft are moving very slowly and can turn or stop well within the distance they see to be clear. Pilots should also have no difficulty in seeing anyone at risk without needing high-vis vests, certainly in daylight. (I'll consider the hours of darkness case later).
Even after the introduction of the high-vis vests on British Railways we were killing an average of one employee a fortnight on the tracks. (We didn't count the number of trespassers killed because of the unique nature of British Railways). So you can see there was a real safety issue to be solved, unlike the aviation case.
Unfortunately, at least three railwaymen were killed as a result of wearing high-vis vests until the vests were modified.
Now, lets consider the darkness case. A fluorescent jacket is of no help in darkness. There simply isn't any Ultra-Violet energy around to make it fluoress. What you need in the dark is a reflective jacket to make you more visible, otherwise you are better off just wearing light clothing.
For simplicity I have left out the poor visibility (fog, rain) cases and the above is much simplified, but I do not believe there are any safety grounds for insisting on their universal use on the apron. There may be other valid reasons for their use, but please do not confuse these with safety isssues.
I have spent much of my life trying to find the safest ways of "getting the job done" and believe me it isn't ever as simple as it seems. What seem like simple obvious safety measures can sometimes actually increase the risk to life and limb. However, they are often rather good at deflecting the blame elsewhere.
The question has to be; do you really want to make the working environment as safe as possible, or are you just looking for the easy way out?
When I am looking for a marshaller it used to be so easy; I would just look for a high-vis jacket, and it was all so easy. Now, I have to decide which of the many high-vis jacket wearers' is the marshaller. This cannot be done so quickly as before, or at such a long range.
In the event of a serious accident or incident, similarly, time could be wasted deciding which of the high-vis jacket wearers was the incident controller.
Do you see what I am getting at? By making their wear compulsary, you loose valuable information.
I refuse to wear a high-vis vest when hand starting the engine. Loose clothing is simply an unacceptable risk.
I remember when high vis vests were introduced on British Railways in the 1960's. There was a very good reason for their introduction which may not be obvious to those of you who have never worked on the track..... It is apparent that the train cannot swerve around anyone on the track so the person on the track has to get out of the way of the train. So why would a high-vis jacket help? The answer is simple: You cannot hear a high-speed train coming until it is almost upon you. The driver will always sound his horn (100 dB plus) whenever he sees anyone on or near the track and wearing high-vis vests enables him to see you at a far greater distance, and therefore give an earlier warning.
Now, compare this to the situation on an airport apron.... Aircraft are moving very slowly and can turn or stop well within the distance they see to be clear. Pilots should also have no difficulty in seeing anyone at risk without needing high-vis vests, certainly in daylight. (I'll consider the hours of darkness case later).
Even after the introduction of the high-vis vests on British Railways we were killing an average of one employee a fortnight on the tracks. (We didn't count the number of trespassers killed because of the unique nature of British Railways). So you can see there was a real safety issue to be solved, unlike the aviation case.
Unfortunately, at least three railwaymen were killed as a result of wearing high-vis vests until the vests were modified.
Now, lets consider the darkness case. A fluorescent jacket is of no help in darkness. There simply isn't any Ultra-Violet energy around to make it fluoress. What you need in the dark is a reflective jacket to make you more visible, otherwise you are better off just wearing light clothing.
For simplicity I have left out the poor visibility (fog, rain) cases and the above is much simplified, but I do not believe there are any safety grounds for insisting on their universal use on the apron. There may be other valid reasons for their use, but please do not confuse these with safety isssues.
I have spent much of my life trying to find the safest ways of "getting the job done" and believe me it isn't ever as simple as it seems. What seem like simple obvious safety measures can sometimes actually increase the risk to life and limb. However, they are often rather good at deflecting the blame elsewhere.
The question has to be; do you really want to make the working environment as safe as possible, or are you just looking for the easy way out?