The Dreaded Hi-viz vest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Dreaded Hi-viz vest
Went down to Barton today.
Apparently, the CAA recently recommended that all personnel airside should wear hi-viz vests and so it's been implemented - much to the disgust of all concerned - especially the students, who've all had to fork out and buy one.
So, does that mean that every trial lesson punter that comes along has to buy a hi-viz vest?
What constitutes Hi-viz? If I wear a yellow or orange t-shirt, in ordinary daytime conditions I'm every bit as conspicuous as the next hi-viz person. And in 35 years of airside aviation activities, i've never been hit by a taxiing aircraft. And neither has anyone else at Barton.
This isn't going to stop me walking into a moving propellor though is it (though I suppose it will make my bits more visible to pick up off the apron)?
The world has gone stark staring, cover-its-a**e, insurance company-driven, politically correct, jobsworth, Barking Mad.
How soon before we need one to venture out of our front doors?
How long before I have to buy one for my dog?
Why can't a respectable, comfortable hi-viz vest be made? One that could possibly double for a fashion item?
GGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Apparently, the CAA recently recommended that all personnel airside should wear hi-viz vests and so it's been implemented - much to the disgust of all concerned - especially the students, who've all had to fork out and buy one.
So, does that mean that every trial lesson punter that comes along has to buy a hi-viz vest?
What constitutes Hi-viz? If I wear a yellow or orange t-shirt, in ordinary daytime conditions I'm every bit as conspicuous as the next hi-viz person. And in 35 years of airside aviation activities, i've never been hit by a taxiing aircraft. And neither has anyone else at Barton.
This isn't going to stop me walking into a moving propellor though is it (though I suppose it will make my bits more visible to pick up off the apron)?
The world has gone stark staring, cover-its-a**e, insurance company-driven, politically correct, jobsworth, Barking Mad.
How soon before we need one to venture out of our front doors?
How long before I have to buy one for my dog?
Why can't a respectable, comfortable hi-viz vest be made? One that could possibly double for a fashion item?
GGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm....
Inclined to agree - at least in part.
I regulary work on the motorway and high speed roads - won't be seen without a high viz jacket. Also regularly work airside at LGW - usually with the protection of a high viz vehicle with various flashing lights - still always wear high viz. It's clearly in the (?)bylaws or MDIs for LGW and within my service protocols too.
At the end of the day it might only mean they know which service I work for when scraping the bits up! But unfortunately the crunch is... if I don't make every effort to be seen then the insurance payout WILL be reduced as I would be considered to have contributed to my own demise...
In my previous service we had an officer killed in a road traffic accident - his wife lost 25% of the insurance payout as it was ruled he contributed to his fatal injuries by not wearing a seatbelt.
Besides when you consider the cost of a jacket is under £10.00 - what percentage is that of your overall flying costs - and it never goes out of date...
As to what constitues a High Viz jacket depends on where you intend using it! Not sure which catagory an airfield fits - thing theyare based on type of road on which they will be worn...
Inclined to agree - at least in part.
I regulary work on the motorway and high speed roads - won't be seen without a high viz jacket. Also regularly work airside at LGW - usually with the protection of a high viz vehicle with various flashing lights - still always wear high viz. It's clearly in the (?)bylaws or MDIs for LGW and within my service protocols too.
At the end of the day it might only mean they know which service I work for when scraping the bits up! But unfortunately the crunch is... if I don't make every effort to be seen then the insurance payout WILL be reduced as I would be considered to have contributed to my own demise...
In my previous service we had an officer killed in a road traffic accident - his wife lost 25% of the insurance payout as it was ruled he contributed to his fatal injuries by not wearing a seatbelt.
Besides when you consider the cost of a jacket is under £10.00 - what percentage is that of your overall flying costs - and it never goes out of date...
As to what constitues a High Viz jacket depends on where you intend using it! Not sure which catagory an airfield fits - thing theyare based on type of road on which they will be worn...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So, does that mean that every trial lesson punter that comes along has to buy a hi-viz vest?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gertrude, the layout just ain't like that at Barton!
Airside is not secure and cannot be made secure because there are other businesses on the field who have operated for years and will not be told what to do.
Barton's an original airfield from a time when pilots and groundies alike somehow (I really don't know how) had the sense to realise that noisy things with propellors on the end bit you. And pilots, strangely enough, somehow inherently knew that these strange creatures walking upright on 2 legs were called h-u-m-a-n-s, and were to be avoided.
It seemed to work. I can't understand why though
Airside is not secure and cannot be made secure because there are other businesses on the field who have operated for years and will not be told what to do.
Barton's an original airfield from a time when pilots and groundies alike somehow (I really don't know how) had the sense to realise that noisy things with propellors on the end bit you. And pilots, strangely enough, somehow inherently knew that these strange creatures walking upright on 2 legs were called h-u-m-a-n-s, and were to be avoided.
It seemed to work. I can't understand why though
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PP,
Way of the world these days, I am afraid to say!
They are uncomfortable and do nothing for you street cred.
ISTR that we recently had another thread on this and it was put eloquently that pedestrians had to give way to the aeroplanes and if not we would be worse off in any case.
So far got away with not wearing one but think that it will not last for much longer.
Although I think they are bx I don't think I can get to head up about it either. Just chuck one in the back of your mount and see how long you can leave it in the wrapper!
FD
Way of the world these days, I am afraid to say!
They are uncomfortable and do nothing for you street cred.
ISTR that we recently had another thread on this and it was put eloquently that pedestrians had to give way to the aeroplanes and if not we would be worse off in any case.
So far got away with not wearing one but think that it will not last for much longer.
Although I think they are b
x I don't think I can get to head up about it either. Just chuck one in the back of your mount and see how long you can leave it in the wrapper!FD
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the recent club newsletter, the same has apparently been decreed at Sherburn. I haven't been down there since, so I don't know if people are actaully taking notice, but I really hope not. Anyone been recently?
No - the jackets are not expensive, not particularly uncomfortable, but also completley unnecessary! I could understand this if there had been an accident, or even a very slight chance of a near miss even, but as far as I am aware there has been no such incident to prompt this. Perhaps when the shorter nights come and we resume night flying there may then be an excuse.
Anyway, I won't ne wearing one, and if I'm challenged too often, will take my £80/hour elsewhere. Sorry, because this probably isn't the clubs fault, but it's them that will lose out. Perhaps more of us should make a stand on this kind of thing instead of just moaning.
Does anybody have a copy of the CAA recommendation? I'd like to get hold of the study/recearch they've done (if any) to back this up. Just how many lives per year do they predict it'll save? And how much did it cost?
No - the jackets are not expensive, not particularly uncomfortable, but also completley unnecessary! I could understand this if there had been an accident, or even a very slight chance of a near miss even, but as far as I am aware there has been no such incident to prompt this. Perhaps when the shorter nights come and we resume night flying there may then be an excuse.
Anyway, I won't ne wearing one, and if I'm challenged too often, will take my £80/hour elsewhere. Sorry, because this probably isn't the clubs fault, but it's them that will lose out. Perhaps more of us should make a stand on this kind of thing instead of just moaning.
Does anybody have a copy of the CAA recommendation? I'd like to get hold of the study/recearch they've done (if any) to back this up. Just how many lives per year do they predict it'll save? And how much did it cost?
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See and be seen They cost very little, can be seen for miles, and are very effective, and if it means someone doesn't have to waste time and money treating your injuries cos' you're a member of the "It'll never happen to me club", I'm all for it.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Half measures not enough
By all means; truly an excellent idea, and those who think otherwise are irresponsible, reckless reactionary fools who have no business at a dangerous place like an aerodrome.
But why stop here ... let's go one better and mandate the wearing of helmets, gloves and collarbone protectors. And of course, lace-up footwear is potentially unsafe and should be banned.
Perhaps we should also prohibit the actual flying of those nasty, noisy, environmentally-unfriendly private airplanes. MS Flight Simulator is good enough, and much safer.
knobbygb, hang your head in shame! There is no need for proper risk analysis; as there is the merest chance of perhaps, possibly, maybe saving one human life, we must act now!!!
You just can't be too careful!
But why stop here ... let's go one better and mandate the wearing of helmets, gloves and collarbone protectors. And of course, lace-up footwear is potentially unsafe and should be banned.
Perhaps we should also prohibit the actual flying of those nasty, noisy, environmentally-unfriendly private airplanes. MS Flight Simulator is good enough, and much safer.
knobbygb, hang your head in shame! There is no need for proper risk analysis; as there is the merest chance of perhaps, possibly, maybe saving one human life, we must act now!!!
You just can't be too careful!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
matspart3
CAP642
It is an advisory document and not prescriptive. It is targeted primarily at large airports and deals in large part with the hazards of airside vehicles and contractors plant.
Even so I can find no requirement for wearing Hi-vis clothing other than by push-back crew, and a reference to a requirement to ensure that contractors should be made to adhere to airport regulations if these require the wearing of hi-vis clothing.
That said, I carry a vest in the back of the aircraft and would wear it if I felt it advisable in any particular circumstances. Walking around the apron at night, in the rain, in poor visibility, with vehicles whizzing about being driven by drivers wearing clothing that reflects off their windscreen and makes it difficult to see out might be such a circumstance.
I fly in fine weather in daylight from small fields with few or no airside vehicles.
There is an insidious creeping malaise where people cover their backsides by making rules that have no relevance but are put in place because it is a requires a lot less thought to implement the rule than it does to carry out and record a proper risk assessment. If you want to make a rule it should be on the basis of a proper risk assessment. Anything less devalues the entire process.
Mike
CAP642
The advice and guidance in this document is best described as ‘Accepted Good Practice’ and represents an acceptable way of doing things. It illustrates how risks
might be identified and provides advice about how airside safety can be placed within the context of a systematic and structured management approach – a Safety Management System. It is impossible to guarantee that adherence to the guidance in
this document will always satisfy all regulatory requirements under all possible circumstances nor will it guarantee safety. This is simply because service providers (at every level) themselves are ultimately responsible for deciding on the appropriateness and applicability of any particular safety arrangements with respect to their own specific circumstances and for monitoring the suitability and success of the arrangements.
might be identified and provides advice about how airside safety can be placed within the context of a systematic and structured management approach – a Safety Management System. It is impossible to guarantee that adherence to the guidance in
this document will always satisfy all regulatory requirements under all possible circumstances nor will it guarantee safety. This is simply because service providers (at every level) themselves are ultimately responsible for deciding on the appropriateness and applicability of any particular safety arrangements with respect to their own specific circumstances and for monitoring the suitability and success of the arrangements.
Even so I can find no requirement for wearing Hi-vis clothing other than by push-back crew, and a reference to a requirement to ensure that contractors should be made to adhere to airport regulations if these require the wearing of hi-vis clothing.
That said, I carry a vest in the back of the aircraft and would wear it if I felt it advisable in any particular circumstances. Walking around the apron at night, in the rain, in poor visibility, with vehicles whizzing about being driven by drivers wearing clothing that reflects off their windscreen and makes it difficult to see out might be such a circumstance.
I fly in fine weather in daylight from small fields with few or no airside vehicles.
There is an insidious creeping malaise where people cover their backsides by making rules that have no relevance but are put in place because it is a requires a lot less thought to implement the rule than it does to carry out and record a proper risk assessment. If you want to make a rule it should be on the basis of a proper risk assessment. Anything less devalues the entire process.
Mike
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing that these same idiots protesting loudly against the wearing of hi viz vests are also probably those who are totally anal about safety in the air, and complain incessantly about the lack of airmanship of others or the horrible risks they experience at the hands of 'incompetent' ATC sevices. Would be interesting to check their post histories for safety related stories.
You can only imagine how truly dangerous these kn#bs must be if they take the same attitude into the air with them. No transponder operating even though fitted. No contact made with ATC unless they absolutely have to. No anti-collision lights operating. Failing to maintain correct altitudes.
Of course, I'm just being silly because none of these are an imposition on their precious human rights. These things are obviously done as they are required by law, or the CAA has provided the individual concerned with a full beakdown of the statistical research in the area, so of course they are happy to comply.
Ever heard of risk assessment people? It is something most responsible organisations do to minimise risk where possible, and it shouldn't require a history of accidents in a particular area to trigger it off.
Personally, I reckon the single biggest safety improvement possible is to ban turkeys like you from airfields altogether, hi viz jackets or not.
You can only imagine how truly dangerous these kn#bs must be if they take the same attitude into the air with them. No transponder operating even though fitted. No contact made with ATC unless they absolutely have to. No anti-collision lights operating. Failing to maintain correct altitudes.
Of course, I'm just being silly because none of these are an imposition on their precious human rights. These things are obviously done as they are required by law, or the CAA has provided the individual concerned with a full beakdown of the statistical research in the area, so of course they are happy to comply.
Ever heard of risk assessment people? It is something most responsible organisations do to minimise risk where possible, and it shouldn't require a history of accidents in a particular area to trigger it off.
Personally, I reckon the single biggest safety improvement possible is to ban turkeys like you from airfields altogether, hi viz jackets or not.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always keep one in my nav bag, it folds up quite small and is no hassle to carry all the time.
If you have to wear it you may think you look like a pratt but if you land somewhere without one and they insist on Hi Viz they send somebody out to your aircraft and 'escort' you to and from your aircraft, then you really do look like a Pratt
If you have to wear it you may think you look like a pratt but if you land somewhere without one and they insist on Hi Viz they send somebody out to your aircraft and 'escort' you to and from your aircraft, then you really do look like a Pratt
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"protesting loudly against the wearing of hi viz vests" doesn't really give a true picture though. I own such a vest already, and wear it where I consider appropriate (twice so far), so I'm not 'anti-vest', just pro-choice.
The airfields I usually fly to and from are generally small grass fields with one or two aircraft manouvering at any one time. As with Mike C, I fly only in fine weather, and am trained to know where not to stand/walk around these a/c. I do not let any passengers out of arms reach while walking around airside and always give a brief about propellors first.
The arguments above (witchdoctor) (I can't decide if some or all of the post is in jest actually) do hold water to a certain extent but could equally be applied to the crash helmets etc. hinted at by MLS-12D
Any recommendations about wearing hi-viz clothing have probably been in place for a long time yet there are a lot of very clever, well trained and highly experienced pilots on airfields all over the world who have made an informed decision that it isn't always necessary.
The airfields I usually fly to and from are generally small grass fields with one or two aircraft manouvering at any one time. As with Mike C, I fly only in fine weather, and am trained to know where not to stand/walk around these a/c. I do not let any passengers out of arms reach while walking around airside and always give a brief about propellors first.
The arguments above (witchdoctor) (I can't decide if some or all of the post is in jest actually) do hold water to a certain extent but could equally be applied to the crash helmets etc. hinted at by MLS-12D
Any recommendations about wearing hi-viz clothing have probably been in place for a long time yet there are a lot of very clever, well trained and highly experienced pilots on airfields all over the world who have made an informed decision that it isn't always necessary.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True rotorboater. Not only that, but at Sheffield city, if you don't have a High Vis they charge you £5 per escort, so that's £5 to the terminal then £5 back to the plane!
So that makes it Ok then, Bodie? Proves it's 'A Good Thing'?
There may be locations where these bin-man's jackets are appropriate. Barton ain't one of them.
SSD
So that makes it Ok then, Bodie? Proves it's 'A Good Thing'?
There may be locations where these bin-man's jackets are appropriate. Barton ain't one of them.
SSD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting responses
Just for the record, I've had a lightweight hiviz vest in my flight bag since 1993. I use it at times and in places where it is a positive aid to safety, not an excuse for a jobsworth to play games of "those are the rules". It's also orange rather than yellow. So I stick out and make myself more visible.
I also take safety airisde and in the air VERY seriously. That's how I've managed to fly for so many years without incurring the wrath of ATCs, CFIs, airport official, etc. Spotless record on that score, thank you. Both my a/c are fitted with txponders & VHFs and I USE THEM.
They key point is that this another blanket directive imposed by authorities & bodies who are scared s less about liability - yet, as pointed out, I don't recall any cases in GA where lack of a hi viz garment has resulted in a death or injury.
A pilot who failed to notice a two-legged being in his forward field of vision whilst on the ground airside should arguably first go and see an optician and then perhaps gracefully hang up his/her flying boots and take up building airfix kits.
Another recent thread complained about overactive A/G radio emanating from the tower at Barton. Arguably, all these things accumulate to the point where the bureaucratic clutter is so magnified that people WILL start having lapses - because everything is so uniform and regulated.
As I said before, take this to its logical conclusion and we will all have to wear hi-viz to step outside our front doors. Arguably, the car driver/pedestrian mix is a much bigger threat to personal safety. Ooops - better not give the Brusselcrats any good ideas
Just for the record, I've had a lightweight hiviz vest in my flight bag since 1993. I use it at times and in places where it is a positive aid to safety, not an excuse for a jobsworth to play games of "those are the rules". It's also orange rather than yellow. So I stick out and make myself more visible.
I also take safety airisde and in the air VERY seriously. That's how I've managed to fly for so many years without incurring the wrath of ATCs, CFIs, airport official, etc. Spotless record on that score, thank you. Both my a/c are fitted with txponders & VHFs and I USE THEM.
They key point is that this another blanket directive imposed by authorities & bodies who are scared s
less about liability - yet, as pointed out, I don't recall any cases in GA where lack of a hi viz garment has resulted in a death or injury. A pilot who failed to notice a two-legged being in his forward field of vision whilst on the ground airside should arguably first go and see an optician and then perhaps gracefully hang up his/her flying boots and take up building airfix kits.
Another recent thread complained about overactive A/G radio emanating from the tower at Barton. Arguably, all these things accumulate to the point where the bureaucratic clutter is so magnified that people WILL start having lapses - because everything is so uniform and regulated.
As I said before, take this to its logical conclusion and we will all have to wear hi-viz to step outside our front doors. Arguably, the car driver/pedestrian mix is a much bigger threat to personal safety. Ooops - better not give the Brusselcrats any good ideas