I might be wrong, (not for the first time !), but might there be an isurance matter that's worth considering here ? Can any club/airfield operators tell us whether the wearing of Hi-Vis reduces premiums, and hence fees etc. ?

Latest accident figures I can find for the USA, where what you wear only really depends on the weather, are from 2001 (PDF)

From what I can tell, only four people on the ground were killed by collisions with a plane, and only one by contact with a prop/rotor, and that was a security guard who walked into a rotor. One other person was injured. Two were killed in a car hit by a landing overun and would probably not have been saved by wearing a vest. So it would appear that this rule has no demonstrable basis in safety, if it's a safety argument then we should all wear a hi-vis vest when out shopping.

I don't think the debate is about being ASKED to wear a (Hi-Viz) jacket. It is about being COMPELLED to wear a (Hi-Viz) jacket.

My memory is a bit hazy but was it not Edmund Burke who is usually attributed with:

" All that is necessary for Risk Assessment Consultants, CYA Managers and their MWG Jobsworth enforcers to triumph is that good men do nothing"

I don't want to get over it. IMHO it is reasonable to expect that the people who make these rules should be happy to justify their decisions. I have still to see any cogent argument for making Hi-Viz compulsory.

(The quote might not be exactly word for word, but it was something like that.)

http://www.kemblecam.co.uk/ -- very funny; just saw some people WITHOUT yellow jackets walking from airside to AV8; with three aircraft parked on the grass -- Man, that was close; they could've died!!! Someone had better get out there and get them in yellow jackets to save them - fast! I would hate to be responsible for what happens next otherwise....

Andy :ok:

Andy,

I think you should ring Kemble.....

"Hello. I was just looking at your webcam and saw some people walking from their aircraft to the AV8 restaurant. They weren't wearing their yellow jackets. I just though I should call and let you know! Can't be too careful these days, you know?" :}

I wonder what would they say? ;)

If I wasn't busy (allegedly) working I might..!

Andy ;)

Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions? :confused: , i.e DON'T walk infront of a taxying aircraft with a big sharp spinny thing on the front of it? :ugh: I am pretty sure that the dreaded health and safty man has struck again :mad: :ugh:

The really depressing thing about this is that it isn't motivated by a genuine concern for personnnel safety. It is motivated by the fear of media generated criticism with the benefit of hindsight, should someone be hurt airside. You know the thing - "wasn't even wearing a hi viz jacket". It's the modern hype you get whenever someone gets hurt doing anything. Someone must be to blame and new rules must be written to stop it happening again, or more accurately, to stop me being blamed next time.

It's at times like this when I find myself being not sorry I'm the age I am. It's going to get so much worse.

At a MOD airfield (which has a very effective Health & Safety regime) I asked an officer why all the fuel bowsers were painted sludge green and hi-viz jackets were not mandetory for pilots or passengers of light aircraft.

He replied, with a perfectly staight face:-

"Well, we don't want to give our pilots anything to aim at!" :)

Good point! I regularly fly from RAF base currently, and was many years in the RAAF back home in Australia, and have never ONCE been required to wear high-vis vest in that context!

I guess it'd be the opposite of camouflage ;)

Andy :ok:

On the flight line in the RAF the groundcrew all wore the things but of course after two hours they were a funny dark shade of oily black. No-one else bothered (but this was a few years ago)

Thanks for all the inputs. Thread copied and pasted to Airfield Manager. Await reaction with interest

KMB01

Nice one KJ...!

Andy :ok:

You could just get a hi-viz poloshirt as being modeled below:

http://www.hivis.net/ProductImages/220.jpg

Saves having to stuff the waistcoast somewhere, though I can't see where you could attach epaulettes :cool:

:ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

That poor guy's catching hell in this place and, as far as we know, he hasn't even worn the epaulettes yet! But that has been one of the funniest threads I've seen in a long time! Nice to see the humour crossing posts!

Pitts2112

Quote:

" Thanks for all the inputs. Thread copied and pasted to Airfield Manager. Await reaction with interest "

You are assuming that he/she can read of course?

I'm afraid that the lunitics are truly running the asylum at airports in this new age world.

Chuck E.

airborne_artist, presumably a strategically sewn in piece of velcro is all that is keeping that polo shirt decent......

For those that do not see the PFA website forum, they have confirmed that Hi-Vis vests will NOT be required for the Rally.

If you want to know what he actualy said.....
----------------------------------
Graham Newby
Administrator
Member # 26123629

posted 28 July, 2006 10:16 AM

All
For anybody who is worried by uninformed postings on a non PFA forum, hi viz jackets will not be needed by pilots at the PFA rally.

Graham
----------------------------------

If you want to know what he actualy said.....

Rod1

Never Mind the Hi Viz can we have an embargo on the tasteless Shorts! :eek: