At my local shopping mall every workman and his dog plus old age pensioners now all wear their hi-viz jackets/ shorts/jumpers/ and even walking shoes with hi viz stripes down the side. Mostly all carry water bottles of coffee cups too. Crazy man...

I think this example from the electrical workers applies remarkably well to aviation professionals wrt safety culture,..:)

YouTube - Arc Flash Incident Palo Verde Arizonia 2008

...and another one.
 

Hi-Viz vests are now being worn by shoplifters, muggers, car-jackers, armed gangs and so forth. Why? Because it allows them to blend into the background.

PM

My brother recounted a funny story to me once (he files for a well known LC outfit). They wear hi-viz if they are operating crew, but they can be positioning as passenger in full uniform with no requirement for hi viz.

On of their captains alighted from the steps without high-viz, and within milliseconds a security vehicle appeared from over the horizon and made a bee line for him. The security guy jumps out and declares " Captain, may I ask if you are passenger or crew". The pilot looks at him sheepishly and replies "what's the right answer".

I see the reasoning behind hi viz jackets but I think its gone way over the top with policing and enforcement. However,

Can someone who works for Ryanair please enlighten me why their crews seem to wear their Hi Viz inside the terminal buildings and also I kid you not only the other day I saw a female cabin crew member getting off a bus in town and walking down the street with her hi viz on!!! :ugh:


Aka

Safety Culture
 

Turbocharged...Coming from one of the police units that used to supply cover to the unit that you are probably talking about. I find verging on offensive that you even repeat such pompous twaddle...do you actually think it's reasonable to assume that it is possible to tell something about the safety culture of a flying operation by the fact the crew put on their coats on when they land?

Just put the bloody thing on for the 5 minutes you spend on an apron. It isn't an inconvenience at all, and if it does annoy you, then you're easily annoyed and in need of some acupuncture!

I don't see why people make such a fuss about high-vis jackets. What is wrong with putting it on for 5 minutes, so you can do your walk around on the apron? Where is the problem in that? Do you think it "cramps" your style? You are paid to fly and do so safely. If 'looking good' is your priority then god help us.

Safety Culture
 

Mr G Box.

Don't shoot the messenger

For those who might like to wind up management who want people to wear hi-vis but who also wish to comply with the requirement, may I suggest you look VERY CAREFULLY at the wording of it? As far as I can tell most of the wording is something along the lines of "High visibility CLOTHING must be worn etc" Now, from what I have seen, most people usually wear more than the one item of clothing such as a jacket - skirt, trousers, hat etc (prevents bother with Plod with regard to indecency laws) so what is there to prevent you from wearing say a hi-vis green bobble hat, fluorescent pink skirt (or shirt if the lads prefer not to wear a skirt) with reflective strips or maybe a scarf? :E :E :E You would be complying with the requirement and would probably stand out from the crowd too whilst driving management slightly bonkers. :E

Now, lets see, what colour do the RAF paint their training aircraft so that they can be seen? - did I hear black? their hi-vis colour scheme!!

The theory being that the eye detects objects by contrast against the background, so to highlight objects they must be brightly lit or completely devoid of light. Therefore, the RAF paints some of its aircraft black and leaves the headlights on if poss. Hi Viz jackets are just more PC junk; if you stand against a similar contrast background there is no benefit at all. But I do wear mine where the risk is greatest, the walk from the carpark in the dark, where drivers are not required to have a special permit. I heard the LGW are employing sharp-shooters on the tower to pick off the guilty!

Jeremy Clarkson once said "the only people who should be wearing a hi viz is someone who's job could involve them being hit by a fast moving jet."

This includes most of us on this forum I would imagine, and what JC says goes!

Personal Protective Equipment is ALWAYS at the bottom of the hierarchy of controlling risks. Elimination, reduction, isolation etc. are always the priority and PPE is a last resort or supplements other controls.

I agree to some extent that hi viz clothing ALONE may not prevent impact with vehicles or pedestrian operated handling equipment, but safe operational procedures/working practices including marshalling for instance, training of staff and monitoring of workplaces/areas will certailnly reduce the likelihood, and hi-viz clothing is just one of the measures - not the sole method of accident avoidance.

Certainly one of the key safety measures in an 'apron' environment is effective traffic/people segregation.

This is an interesting report that suggests hi-viz clothing is ineffective although I believe it is unfair to dismiss the effectiveness of high - viz clothing outright in certain situations.

What cannot be substantiated however, is how many accidents have been avoided by workers wearing high visibility clothing.

TOWTEAMBASE you are correct in respect of being part of EU directives and guidance will state that PPE should be worn properly, however, risk assesments will determine as to whether there is a requirement for PPE in the first place.

The PPE regs (Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992)were indeed part of the '6 pack' which came into force in July 1992.

There is guidance to such legislation here although as I quoted earlier, PPE is the last resort of avoiding risk and should only be used when other controls cannot be reasonably implemented or is used as a supplement to other preventative measures.

There is some industry specific legislation such as The Dock Regulations that requires the mandatory use of Hi-Viz clothing for certain staff.

Remember - personal protective equipment is like a goalkeeper in a football match - when a striker has beaten the midfield and breached the defence, the goalkeeper is the last hope which unfortunately is not always effective.

Sure, a safety helmet may prevent something falling from height causing a head injury - but it is better to prevent the item falling in the first place!

Certainly here in the UK, It would be very unlikely that you would be 'complying with the requirements' as such 'flamboyant' clothing would not conform to British Standard BS EN 471.

The point I'm trying to make is not "high vis clothing is not a panacea" but rather that in an airport environment it can actually serve as camoflage.

I've seen it render people almost invisible, especially during a 'quick glance'.

The problem is, Sir Herbert, that I don't want to get squashed like a bug because I'm wearing a bright coloured vest that (a) does not contrast with the white, yellow floodlit paint scheme of the aircraft I'm walking around and (b) breaks up the 'human shaped' outline that is the primary visual cue my killer might have been able to use to spot me.

pb

Then how about wearing a 'bright coloured vest' that does contrast with the white, yellow floodlit paint scheme of the aircraft?

As I alluded to earlier, the PPE should be the last line of defence for protecting you and it would be hoped that to avoid being 'squashed like a bug', there are other supplementry safe working practices in place to avoid impact with vehicles.

The reality is that many airports have a mandatory requirement to wear such clothing in certain areas.

I generally accept that there is no authoritative evidence that confirms Hi-Viz clothing will prevent accidents, however, I supect there is no verification to suggest it has caused any either.

Surely that is what the rather natty reflective stripes are for Capt Pit Bull. To ensure that you are conspicuous are night.....