The Dreaded Hi-viz vest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD, as I understand it from A Horses Mouth (mind you, with my ageing eyes it could have been the other end of the Horse), the missive arose out of an airfield inspection by the CAA. They "recommended" that hi viz vests should be worn. The Committee in their wisdom took this to mean that they MUST be worn.
On another point - Runway 02 has had to be be effectively shortened because same CAA airfield inspection noted that the proximity of the airfield land maintenance shed is too close to the existing threshold. It's only been there for zillions of years, with absolutely no problem at all.
Sounds like an over -zealous jobsworth has been at it (but interesting that this is all starting to occur now that Peel own the land? I wonder if someone is "tipping the wink" to higher authorities that Barton is somehow not operating in a pukka way? Far be it for me to be paranoid but.......
On another point - Runway 02 has had to be be effectively shortened because same CAA airfield inspection noted that the proximity of the airfield land maintenance shed is too close to the existing threshold. It's only been there for zillions of years, with absolutely no problem at all.
Sounds like an over -zealous jobsworth has been at it (but interesting that this is all starting to occur now that Peel own the land? I wonder if someone is "tipping the wink" to higher authorities that Barton is somehow not operating in a pukka way? Far be it for me to be paranoid but.......
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very funny thread...but you're all being serious...right?
I have to say that that's one thing I do enjoy about living in the US, they often have a much simpler approach to life. In England, you give a chap a uniform and he instantly turns into Hitler. It doesn't really happen over here. Must be the pioneer spirit or something.
I just wish they'd understand irony a little better.
I have to say that that's one thing I do enjoy about living in the US, they often have a much simpler approach to life. In England, you give a chap a uniform and he instantly turns into Hitler. It doesn't really happen over here. Must be the pioneer spirit or something.
I just wish they'd understand irony a little better.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PoetPilot, I don't think it's specifically Peel having it in for Barton. I just got a letter back from 'the powers that be' at Sherburn explaining that the rule was brought in after a CAA inspection. They (both the CAA and Special Branch apparently) were worried about the "lack of demarkation between airside and landside" - so it seems it's another case of such daft rules being based on 'security' rather than safety, i.e. anybody in yellow/green 'uniform' must be official.
Looks like the same CAA inspector got straight on the M62 after he'd visited you lot.
Interestingly, the letter also said:
Well, I've spoke to a few fellow polits at the club who all think it's a daft rule, but none, it seems, have been willing to make any effort. Just shows that the typical British habit of moaning to ones peers but not actually doing anything about the situation is alive and well. I'd suggest anyone who's unhappy makes their views known now. After all, if the CAA are worried about "airside demarcation" you can be sure that the same CAA inspector and/or Special Branch officer will be visiting VERY SOON recommending security fences, CCTV systems and ID cards. Just a thought. 
Looks like the same CAA inspector got straight on the M62 after he'd visited you lot.
Interestingly, the letter also said:
To date, the idea of wearing the vests has been welcomed, yours being the only adverse comment received
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points Knobby. Maybe there is a case for us pilots putting forward an alternative proposal to make airside more secure - but (and I'm trying not to moan, but just being realistically cynical) it would all be a waste of energy, since no matter how intelligent and constructive our proposals, we are dealing with a civil service organisation. In addition, because we in GA are such a bunch of individuals, getting consensus and organising counter proposals would be a severe challenge even to King Solomon.
Anyone who has worked inside one of these animals (civil service organisation, not one of the flying vet's patients) knows what they are like - they do not respond to logic or common sense & react against counter proposals in a generally officious and overbearing manner. I could quote many examples (but I have signed a piece of paper once that means I can't, otherwise they would have to shoot me).
So, as it stands, some erk in the CAA believes that no potential terrorist would be seen dead wearing a H V V.
I would have thought that these days, there are more people in all walks of life wearing the wretched things than not wearing them, therefore it must be considered de rigeur for Osama to be sporting one when he turns up at Steeple Bumstead airstrip to wreak havoc on the local church steeple.
"Sorry Sir, but you are not permitted airside carrying a suspicious package without a Hi Viz Vest"
"oooooh, so sorry, effendi..... <fishes in bag, pulls out yellow garment from amongst grenades, rocket launchers and circular object with "Bomb" written on it> .... I have one just heeeree..."
"That's fine Sir, Have a nice day, and don't touch any propellors"
Anyone who has worked inside one of these animals (civil service organisation, not one of the flying vet's patients) knows what they are like - they do not respond to logic or common sense & react against counter proposals in a generally officious and overbearing manner. I could quote many examples (but I have signed a piece of paper once that means I can't, otherwise they would have to shoot me).
So, as it stands, some erk in the CAA believes that no potential terrorist would be seen dead wearing a H V V.
I would have thought that these days, there are more people in all walks of life wearing the wretched things than not wearing them, therefore it must be considered de rigeur for Osama to be sporting one when he turns up at Steeple Bumstead airstrip to wreak havoc on the local church steeple.
"Sorry Sir, but you are not permitted airside carrying a suspicious package without a Hi Viz Vest"
"oooooh, so sorry, effendi..... <fishes in bag, pulls out yellow garment from amongst grenades, rocket launchers and circular object with "Bomb" written on it> .... I have one just heeeree..."
"That's fine Sir, Have a nice day, and don't touch any propellors"
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One Barton pilot I spoke to at the weekend (neither of were in bin-man's jackets) said he'd ignore the missive. The Barton apron is apparently a public road (according to him), and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Barton mafia.
SSD
SSD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's spot on SSD. The joiner's business round by the fuel pumps has to have access for itself & customers, which necessitates going airside. There are probably other aspects of the Barton site which could possibly be proved to public rights of way (from what I remember).
The fact that the general public has up to now had and exercised access around these areas establishes use and basically knocks any Committee missives into the sewage farm where they belong (the missives, if not the Committee).
There was a member of the Committee when I was doing my service in the mid nineties, who had a pathological hatred of any non club members accessing any part of the airfield - particularly if they ran a business on the field. Not sure if he's still on the Committee or just forgotten but mouldering away in the committee room...
...But, just to redress the balance a little, if I were a Committee member now with a million other things on my plate, I might just think twice about fighting the CAA.
However, I might also just want to communicate things a bit better to the members who elected me there in the first place...
The fact that the general public has up to now had and exercised access around these areas establishes use and basically knocks any Committee missives into the sewage farm where they belong (the missives, if not the Committee).
There was a member of the Committee when I was doing my service in the mid nineties, who had a pathological hatred of any non club members accessing any part of the airfield - particularly if they ran a business on the field. Not sure if he's still on the Committee or just forgotten but mouldering away in the committee room...
...But, just to redress the balance a little, if I were a Committee member now with a million other things on my plate, I might just think twice about fighting the CAA.
However, I might also just want to communicate things a bit better to the members who elected me there in the first place...
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyer are having a competition for wording to go on the back of Hi-Vis Vests that they are intending to produce.
If you have a point to make you have the opportunity to do so here
If you have a point to make you have the opportunity to do so here
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evo - just had an email containing piccies of the winning entries, which I've uploaded here. According to my friend, apparently there were two winners - one under the "Spread the Word" category, and the more amusing one under the "Protest This Nanny State" banner
Seems like they didn't go with my entries of "Don't speak to this end" and "Does my ar$e look big in this?" !!
Seems like they didn't go with my entries of "Don't speak to this end" and "Does my ar$e look big in this?" !!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SX in SX in UK
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've decided that like it or not, H-V vests are here to stay, so I've succumbed to the inevitable and bought one. It cost £5.29 inc VAT.
Can anyone buy one cheaper? And I don't mean 'borrow-on-long-term-loan-fron-ones-employer' either!!
Can anyone buy one cheaper? And I don't mean 'borrow-on-long-term-loan-fron-ones-employer' either!!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Burgess Hill, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the Flyer winner, but really it should say "I'm wearing this because someone else thinks its covering their @rse"
Interesting discussion, at least the majority of people on here still seem to have some sense and see these damn things for what they are- completely irrelevant for GA flying. Yes, they might be relevant for busy airfields with a lot of vehicle traffic during Low Visibility Procedures, but not on a nice day when most of us go flying for fun.
To those of you who say if it might increase safety by .001% so I think we should wear them, I hope you live the rest of your life like this. I presume you never take your hi-viz jacket off as it is far more dangerous to cross the road or walk in the carpark than to walk around airside at most airfields. And you better wear it inside your car too, there is after all the chance that the colour will wake up some daydreaming driver who is about to have a head on collision with you.
Its nothing to do with cost, not wanting to wear these things, its the principle of not doing something just because someone somewhere has thought it is a good idea and has made it a recommendation without thinking it through. Then many other people without the gumption to question it have just blindly implemented an irrelevant recommendation as their rule. Why do you want to accept everything in this "nanny State" attitude?
I am sure that some of these CAA inspectors doing their audits have a list of trivial things to write in their report, hi viz jackets is one of them, its not that its important, it just that its something that fills the report, shows their bosses they are doing something and is also easy for the airfield to do, so they can show they are complying to the nice man from the CAA and he can show his bosses that the aifields are doing what he says.
Why doesnt the CAA inspector see that this is a nonsence?- he doesnt care, he is just doing his job, and it doesnt affect him. He has to wear one anyway, his bosses make sure of that.
Why doesnt the airfield manager protest to the CAA? It doesnt really affect him, he probably hardly goes airside and it doesnt cost himany money. More importantly why complain about this when he can show the CAA that he is complying with their recommendations, then they might be more sympathetic with him when he doesnt comply with some other recommendations which do cost him money and do affect him.
So the only way for us to win is to protest to the CAA ourselves, why arent we doing this instead of moaning about it on this forum?? Who do I need to write to??
I have to wear one of these at work, it started a few years ago for Low Viz procedures only, then obviously the legal dept or Health and safety dept had nothing better to do but made us wear them all of the time airside. The airport authorities are paranoid about it too. Its interesting that at Glasgow they wont let you airside from the security if you havent got the jacket on, "Safety you know Sir" but they dont bother clearing the snow and slush from the walkways!! Ive been chased by the airport manager at Guernsey a couple of years ago as we walked to the aircraft, two flightcrew wearing our hi viz jacket, but not the two cabin crew with us, he made them stop and put them on to continue the 10m to the aircraft parked about 20m from the building! Hasnt he got anything better to do?? As usual the passengers soon appeared wandering all over the ramp on their way to the aircraft, no hi viz jackets for them!!
It is interesting at airports abroad, all our staff have their hi viz jackets, but no one else does.
Some people are saying that these jackets are required on the majority of airfields, I don think that is true, the vast majority I fly to Ive had no trouble walking around with no hi viz jacket, on most of them I havent seen anyone else wearing one either. But then again I dont tend to fly into big airfields with airline traffic, I have enough of that at work.
remember flying is supposed to be fun!
Interesting discussion, at least the majority of people on here still seem to have some sense and see these damn things for what they are- completely irrelevant for GA flying. Yes, they might be relevant for busy airfields with a lot of vehicle traffic during Low Visibility Procedures, but not on a nice day when most of us go flying for fun.
To those of you who say if it might increase safety by .001% so I think we should wear them, I hope you live the rest of your life like this. I presume you never take your hi-viz jacket off as it is far more dangerous to cross the road or walk in the carpark than to walk around airside at most airfields. And you better wear it inside your car too, there is after all the chance that the colour will wake up some daydreaming driver who is about to have a head on collision with you.
Its nothing to do with cost, not wanting to wear these things, its the principle of not doing something just because someone somewhere has thought it is a good idea and has made it a recommendation without thinking it through. Then many other people without the gumption to question it have just blindly implemented an irrelevant recommendation as their rule. Why do you want to accept everything in this "nanny State" attitude?
I am sure that some of these CAA inspectors doing their audits have a list of trivial things to write in their report, hi viz jackets is one of them, its not that its important, it just that its something that fills the report, shows their bosses they are doing something and is also easy for the airfield to do, so they can show they are complying to the nice man from the CAA and he can show his bosses that the aifields are doing what he says.
Why doesnt the CAA inspector see that this is a nonsence?- he doesnt care, he is just doing his job, and it doesnt affect him. He has to wear one anyway, his bosses make sure of that.
Why doesnt the airfield manager protest to the CAA? It doesnt really affect him, he probably hardly goes airside and it doesnt cost himany money. More importantly why complain about this when he can show the CAA that he is complying with their recommendations, then they might be more sympathetic with him when he doesnt comply with some other recommendations which do cost him money and do affect him.
So the only way for us to win is to protest to the CAA ourselves, why arent we doing this instead of moaning about it on this forum?? Who do I need to write to??
I have to wear one of these at work, it started a few years ago for Low Viz procedures only, then obviously the legal dept or Health and safety dept had nothing better to do but made us wear them all of the time airside. The airport authorities are paranoid about it too. Its interesting that at Glasgow they wont let you airside from the security if you havent got the jacket on, "Safety you know Sir" but they dont bother clearing the snow and slush from the walkways!! Ive been chased by the airport manager at Guernsey a couple of years ago as we walked to the aircraft, two flightcrew wearing our hi viz jacket, but not the two cabin crew with us, he made them stop and put them on to continue the 10m to the aircraft parked about 20m from the building! Hasnt he got anything better to do?? As usual the passengers soon appeared wandering all over the ramp on their way to the aircraft, no hi viz jackets for them!!
It is interesting at airports abroad, all our staff have their hi viz jackets, but no one else does.
Some people are saying that these jackets are required on the majority of airfields, I don think that is true, the vast majority I fly to Ive had no trouble walking around with no hi viz jacket, on most of them I havent seen anyone else wearing one either. But then again I dont tend to fly into big airfields with airline traffic, I have enough of that at work.
remember flying is supposed to be fun!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wales
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why doesnt the airfield manager protest to the CAA? It doesnt really affect him, he probably hardly goes airside and it doesnt cost himany money. More importantly why complain about this when he can show the CAA that he is complying with their recommendations, then they might be more sympathetic with him when he doesnt comply with some other recommendations which do cost him money and do affect him.
Much as I don't like these things, and if I had my way, no one would "Have" to wear one, at a busy airfield there are some pretty big applications for these things. And I don't mean mopping up spilt avgas.
If it is dawn or dusk for example, they suddenly become very useful. If you are wearing a green flightsuit and standing on a grass taxiway, they make you stand out.
Well, that's my second lot of two penneth
WF.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kolibear,
I've got a source of high viz vests at three for a fiver.
However, I'm not telling you where, as I'm selling them to raise money for the Blue Cross for my camel trek. I've been getting over £10 for them on Ebay. The good news is I'll sell them to any PPRuNers at £5.00 plus £1.00 p & p. The bad news for any large size people is that I only have size Medium left. 
PM me for an address to send the money if you want one, anyone.
I've got a source of high viz vests at three for a fiver.
However, I'm not telling you where, as I'm selling them to raise money for the Blue Cross for my camel trek. I've been getting over £10 for them on Ebay. The good news is I'll sell them to any PPRuNers at £5.00 plus £1.00 p & p. The bad news for any large size people is that I only have size Medium left. PM me for an address to send the money if you want one, anyone.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I could be bothered,
I'd willingly pay for a batch of 500 to be produced with the logo "It'll never happen to me me" on the back, with each vest I'd include a photograph of a dead engineering colleague who was minced up by a prop by a pilot who willingly admits that had the individual being wearing hi - viz clothing, he would have seen him.
This occurred at a small, G/A aerodrome, please explain the difference.
I'd willingly pay for a batch of 500 to be produced with the logo "It'll never happen to me me" on the back, with each vest I'd include a photograph of a dead engineering colleague who was minced up by a prop by a pilot who willingly admits that had the individual being wearing hi - viz clothing, he would have seen him.
This occurred at a small, G/A aerodrome, please explain the difference.
The Dreaded Hi-viz vest
I read on the paper today that Hi-Viz vests are required to be carried on cars on Italy to be worn if there is an emergency (flat tyre, engine trouble) by the car driver on the road at night.
It seems that the Italian adminstration laid out some rules regarding the design of those jackets that are meant to eliminate most of the companies they are making these vests. But this is a whole different story.
Any comments...
Rwy in Sight
It seems that the Italian adminstration laid out some rules regarding the design of those jackets that are meant to eliminate most of the companies they are making these vests. But this is a whole different story.
Any comments...
Rwy in Sight
Must confess I have not read the entirety of this thread but I wondered what they do in the USA where there is far more activity than in the UK. Are they required to wear HiViz jackets there?
If not, what would the reaction be from GA in the USA if HiViz jackets became a requirement?
If not, what would the reaction be from GA in the USA if HiViz jackets became a requirement?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about getting out of the way but ....
.. frankly this is feeble. If it was that dark that he couldn't see your mate then maybe he shouldn't have been going flying! More like he wasn't looking - in which case a helmet with an anti collision beacon on top probably wouldn't have helped, never mind a hi viz vest. When will people take responsibility for their actions.
Aiglon
who willingly admits that had the individual being wearing hi - viz clothing, he would have seen him
Aiglon