Hi- Viz kit.

Do you have to be in the RAF to have a sense of humour?

Sometimes helps LOL

Your username might have suggested an RAF or SAAF background ; )

The issue is as usual about the correct time and place.

Yes there are circumstances where the use of safety gear like helmets, harnesses and safety fencing are absolutely necessary (e.g. working on elevated sites where a misstep could kill you), or where hi-viz gear is essential (e.g. being a worker close to continually moving machinery or traffic etc. where the operators of the machinery must be able to see you). But over use of hi-viz gear which is now seen everywhere (I’ve seen supermarket shelf stackers wearing it) has cheapened it’s effectiveness to the point of just being a fashion accessory for any outdoor or physical work.

That is the problem, because by over use we have simply reduced its value as a safety aid. Now it has just become another quick use tool for crowd control rather than what it was intended for which was to protect public safety in hazardous areas. And that cheapening of its effectiveness is down to those people who blindly follow rules without having the sense to understand where those rules are best applied. Safety rules are only effective if applied where they are necessary, not where some corporate or government drone can’t tell the difference between reality and farce.

It being Monday morning and a bright, pleasant day, my wife is off to Tesco’s to top up the household goodies. Mrs. Green, in her capacity as controller of supplies to the Green household knows a thing or two about personal safety matters.

Alerted by the warning alarms issuing from this forum, she’ll be kitted out in her normal life and limb, accident prevention, hi-vis kit to protect her from the kind of life threatening situations and wholly preventable accidents that loom large in most supermarkets:

Attack – accidental or otherwise, by runaway shopping trolleys
Ditto shopping baskets
Contact with a grape on the floor of the fruit counter
Aisle rage by frustrated shoppers
Cold coffee at the resusitation counter of the cafeteria

These are just a few of the potentially life threatening situations that Health & Safety Rules were designed for.

When we know that a shopping expedition is in prospect, we make sure that all hi vis garments are freshly laundered and pressed and have been checked for maximum noticeability via a spectrometer test.

Finally, Mrs. G’s helmet (do not make up your own jokes) is scanned for the integrity of its electrical conductivity to ensure that the complicated system of electronics that enables communication via a three feet long retractable antenna is in approved H & S operational mode.

May I remind all those of a cynical disposition that if we hadn’t adopted the kind of thorough practical applications outlined above, we could hardly have won the Battle of Britain.

Common sense is one of those things you either have… or haven’t
This is often compounded by the occasional pilot who thinks he knows better that the marshall.

A classic example of this was at one of the Kemble Airshows in the mid-eighties.
The Fly-in aircraft parking area was becoming full; so it was decided by the tower that the old finger hard-standings to the south-west of the taxiway would be used as an overflow area for further arrivals.
We duly walked the area and found that, over the years, the grassed area around the hard-standings had sunk, and there was, on average, a four-to-five inch drop-off from the concrete edges.
The decision was duly made by the tower that further aircraft would therefore not use the concrete, but would be parked on the grass. All arriving pilots were suitably warned not to try to depart by way of the concrete fingers; and the drop-off problem was clearly explained to them.

This all went to plan until the time of departure arrived. One Cessna pilot decided that he would do what he wanted, and would beat the other aircraft to the taxi-way. The marshall on point tried to stop him from using the concrete fingers by batting him off to the right… but to no avail.
Said smart-ass pilot completely ignored the marshalling signals, forged ahead with lots of revs and the nose-wheel oleo beginning to do the bouncy-bouncy bit that some Cessnas are a tad prone to do over undulating grass… especially when the pilot is trying to get a wiggle on… swiftly followed by a resounding clang as his prop tips bit into the edge of the concrete; completely knackering the blade tips, and probably stressing the crankshaft bearings at the same time.
Result… one Cessna gone expensively U/S, and said smart-ass looking like a bit of a knob to his passengers who would now have to catch the bus home.

The moral of this tale being… please follow the marshall’s instructions… he does actually know what he’s talking about.

Wings – I’m old enough to know that safety issues are important. I’m also old enough to know that it’s easy to whine about how things are. But at the same time I think it’s true that we’ve got into a situation where complaining about H&S nonsense is seen as a recreational pastime and nobody takes it seriously. What does frustrate and depress me is that society has grown to accept the more nonsensical aspects of H&S as an inevitability. Nobody seems willing or able to say that some (a lot) of H&S stuff is just ridiculous. As with so many aspects of modern society, we roll-over and accept stuff which is patently stupid. The high-viz jacket saga is a trivial but classic example. The notion that anyone is somehow safer by wearing a jacket is just specious. If that kind of notion was to be taken seriously, then we should all wear a jacket every time we stepped out of the house. I just miss the days when common sense prevailed and we didn’t need to have rules imposed upon us by people who are perceived to be “experts” at pointing-out either the obvious – or the not very likely! 🙂

This overall scenario was not improved by the wandering registration number and photographing Hi-viz hordes mooching about in the visiting a/c parking area… which is why we marshalls who wished to remain relatively intact chose to wear bright white boiler suits under the obligatory Hi-viz bib. That way, we had at least a working chance that said spam-can jockeys wold figure out who we were, and what we wanted them to do.

That sounds to be the most sensible approach to me. Then when did common sense come into it ?

What drivel.

Your opinion of course. I’m heartened to know that a lot of people think H&S is complete rubbish. I’m happy to accept that a third party might be able to identify potential safety risks, but as you will know, we have gone a long, long way beyond this simple act. We’ve now reached a stage where pretty-much everything is perceived as a potential safety risk. The logic (and I use the term very loosely) of this concept is that every action has risks attached to it. Of course this is true, but we used to be able to accept this fact without today’s almost hysterical attempts to avoid risks (and the ensuing litigation, etc).

It’s a bit like the way that air shows have been made so “safe” that they are sterile. The height and distance from spectators means that the best view of the air show is inevitably enjoyed from outside the boundaries of the show site. What kind of absurdity is this? The safety of spectators is paramount, and yet the safety of the neighbouring residents evidently doesn’t matter? Madness!

I recall grabbing a few snapshots of the TSR2 at Cosford by swiftly stepping over the “safety” barrier. As I expected, I’d taken my photos before the museum official arrived to tell me that stepping over the barrier was a crime. The usual mutterings about safety followed, and yet just a few weeks later I was able to freely crawl all around the same aircraft without any restrictions when the hangar was opened-up for a model show. Presumably the aircraft poses less of a danger when the museum officials aren’t there?

As for high-viz jackets, it is simply a fashion, pure and simple. The very idea that somebody is “safer” in a fluorescent jacket is simply silly. Not only does it imply that everyone is so blind as to be incapable of seeing someone unless they’re fluorescent (which is patently untrue), it also implies that by wearing a jacket one is free to be somehow less responsible, as if the cure-all jacket will keep you from danger. We all know it’s utter nonsense. All that has happened is that another silly “bandwagon” effect has come into play, and everyone jumps aboard. Worse still, it becomes so entrenched in common practise that anyone who fails to conform runs the risk of litigation, on the basis that failure to use these silly jackets does actually pose a safety risk, when there is no evidence to suggest that a high-viz jacket has ever saved anyone from so much as a scratched thumb.

I guess a lot of us will have noticed how construction companies now have to erect fences around each floor of the buildings they’re erecting. It’s hilarious, as if the construction workers are likely to throw themselves off the building, even though (inexplicably) they’ve always managed to avoid doing this. The question that always worries me, is what safety precautions are put in place for the people that erect the fences? Do they have to be tethered to the building before they dare to venture out? If so, who protects the people who install the tethers? Actually, come to think about it, what about the safety of H&S people? 🙂

All you’ve done is continue to highlight extreme cases of over zealousness H&S. The TSR2 case is an example of over zealousness and inconsistency. It’s very easy to notice these moments but is it beyond your memory to recall any positive uses of H&S.

As for your comments about the vests you are again sticking to the Same old line about people not being visible without them. They make you stand out more against the largest variety of backdrops (white is also successful at this). No one is saying you are invisible without them.

I’m not for a second advocating that all Health and Safety is good or bad. Clearly there are lots of problems but if someone is going to start a thread on the subject why don’t we have a decent discussion rather than the boring ‘in my day’, ‘PC gone mad’, ‘H&S rubbish’ type comments which are never joined by any balance.

WH904 – I completely agree that there are occasions of overuse and illogicality to the application of health and safety but can’t you see that health and safety goes beyond that. Don’t you think some health and safety ( visitors to an industrial site for example might have to wear a hard hat etc ) has merit? See both sides of the coin perhaps? I see your side but I think you are focusing on that exclusively.

My, My… this is really going well!

The point of the original post was to suggest that once, long ago; your average private pilot could identify a marshall by his Hi-viz and, hopefully follow his directions. I was CAF 44-trained, and was always under the impression that all pilots had to be familiar with CAF 44 (Now superceded by CAP637) before they were awarded their PPL; (albeit, they rarely ever came across a ground handling marshall on their home fields.)
This unfortunately, was often proved to be a false premise, as a considerable number of spam-can jockeys didn’t seem to have the faintest idea what the idiot with the Hi-viz and bats wanted them to do at your average fly-in.
(And I can assure you that a rapidly-approaching prop that isn’t going where you want it to, is a sure way to increase the adrenalin levels!)
This overall scenario was not improved by the wandering registration number and photographing Hi-viz hordes mooching about in the visiting a/c parking area… which is why we marshalls who wished to remain relatively intact chose to wear bright white boiler suits under the obligatory Hi-viz bib. That way, we had at least a working chance that said spam-can jockeys would figure out who we were, and what we wanted them to do.

The point, which I made earlier, and which seems to be being overlooked, is that the H&S obsession is driven by litigation and insurance.

In principle the protection of individuals in a potentially dangerous environment is a good thing. It is the exploitation of the risk and and its consequences which is a bad thing coupled with the bureaucrats ability to find hazards at every turn.

What drivel.I guess a lot of us will have noticed how construction companies now have to erect fences around each floor of the buildings they’re erecting. It’s hilarious, as if the construction workers are likely to throw themselves off the building, even though (inexplicably) they’ve always managed to avoid doing this. The question that always worries me, is what safety precautions are put in place for the people that erect the fences? Do they have to be tethered to the building before they dare to venture out? If so, who protects the people who install the tethers? Actually, come to think about it, what about the safety of H&S people? 🙂

Yes, with out the safety fencing you do have to be tethered if working at height – it’s the law http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-at-height/the-law.htm

What drivel.

Your opinion of course. I’m heartened to know that a lot of people think H&S is complete rubbish. I’m happy to accept that a third party might be able to identify potential safety risks, but as you will know, we have gone a long, long way beyond this simple act. We’ve now reached a stage where pretty-much everything is perceived as a potential safety risk. The logic (and I use the term very loosely) of this concept is that every action has risks attached to it. Of course this is true, but we used to be able to accept this fact without today’s almost hysterical attempts to avoid risks (and the ensuing litigation, etc).

It’s a bit like the way that air shows have been made so “safe” that they are sterile. The height and distance from spectators means that the best view of the air show is inevitably enjoyed from outside the boundaries of the show site. What kind of absurdity is this? The safety of spectators is paramount, and yet the safety of the neighbouring residents evidently doesn’t matter? Madness!

I recall grabbing a few snapshots of the TSR2 at Cosford by swiftly stepping over the “safety” barrier. As I expected, I’d taken my photos before the museum official arrived to tell me that stepping over the barrier was a crime. The usual mutterings about safety followed, and yet just a few weeks later I was able to freely crawl all around the same aircraft without any restrictions when the hangar was opened-up for a model show. Presumably the aircraft poses less of a danger when the museum officials aren’t there?

As for high-viz jackets, it is simply a fashion, pure and simple. The very idea that somebody is “safer” in a fluorescent jacket is simply silly. Not only does it imply that everyone is so blind as to be incapable of seeing someone unless they’re fluorescent (which is patently untrue), it also implies that by wearing a jacket one is free to be somehow less responsible, as if the cure-all jacket will keep you from danger. We all know it’s utter nonsense. All that has happened is that another silly “bandwagon” effect has come into play, and everyone jumps aboard. Worse still, it becomes so entrenched in common practise that anyone who fails to conform runs the risk of litigation, on the basis that failure to use these silly jackets does actually pose a safety risk, when there is no evidence to suggest that a high-viz jacket has ever saved anyone from so much as a scratched thumb.

I guess a lot of us will have noticed how construction companies now have to erect fences around each floor of the buildings they’re erecting. It’s hilarious, as if the construction workers are likely to throw themselves off the building, even though (inexplicably) they’ve always managed to avoid doing this. The question that always worries me, is what safety precautions are put in place for the people that erect the fences? Do they have to be tethered to the building before they dare to venture out? If so, who protects the people who install the tethers? Actually, come to think about it, what about the safety of H&S people? 🙂

On the thread that spawned this one I mentioned that, to me, Time Team began to descend into the pits (or trenches) when those abominations called hi-viz and silly yellow plastic hard hats appeared, apart of course from the seemingly mandatory child friendly content (but that’s another gripe). Having worked in some iffy parts I personally think that anything that actually called attention to your presence was merely serving as a sighting aid. 😀

It was in the 90’s and It certainly highlights those with no sense of humour LOL – I have faithfully worn the damn thing ever since – I merely forgot that day because we were not used to wearing them ; ) – I guess you are not ex RAF then ; )

Do you have to be in the RAF to have a sense of humour?

So why be involved if you have problem with a reasonable request. Instead schoolboy sniggering on a forum about how you openly ignore a request aimed at keeping you and colleagues safe. Your comment just highlights how little respect you have for those working with you. Maybe your colleague was a jobsworth but maybe he was enforcing what actually seems to me to be reasonable. Your comment to the ATC chap just shows how little you get it – you might have been visible but depending on what you were wearing, what the backdrop you were set against was etc it would undoubtedly have been helpful to distinguish you against the background. The purpose of the high-vis isn’t to highlight individuals but to highlight any person airside. It won’t make that person 100% safe but it will help.

It was in the 90’s and It certainly highlights those with no sense of humour LOL – I have faithfully worn the damn thing ever since – I merely forgot that day because we were not used to wearing them ; ) – I guess you are not ex RAF then ; )

I suppose the H&S people would reply that we must ask ourselves how many lives would be lost if people did not wear high viz jackets. Either way, the figure seems to be less than one. Despite this, the nonsense continues. How I miss the days when people were responsible for their own actions and H&S was not a cure-all for stupidity.

What drivel. How is H&S a cure all for stupidity? You are taking the extremes of how people perceive H&S and actually confusing it with the fact that health and safety covers so many things in the workplace. I would imagine if you compared for arguments sake a steelworks in the 60s with one now you would find much safer working conditions.

Everyone slips up at work and does something absent minded at least once in their career, little safeguards might just help someone. Not because they are stupid but because they are human! Stupidity! What arrogance. I’ll repeat. H&S can be over applied and incorrectly applied, we all will gave different opinions on this but the gist here is just to throw all uses of H&S in one big pot. It’s just a bit lazy.

Yes indeed – just after we had been instructed to wear the yellow vests at Dunsfold – I was minding my own business on the flightline (sans yellow vest of course : ) ) when I was called to the line hut to answer a call from Air Triffic Control – ”why are you not wearing your yellow vest ?” says Mr ATC – I replied that he did not seem to find it difficult to see me : ) – closely followed by an interview with the boss LOL

So why be involved if you have problem with a reasonable request. Instead schoolboy sniggering on a forum about how you openly ignore a request aimed at keeping you and colleagues safe. Your comment just highlights how little respect you have for those working with you. Maybe your colleague was a jobsworth but maybe he was enforcing what actually seems to me to be reasonable. Your comment to the ATC chap just shows how little you get it – you might have been visible but depending on what you were wearing, what the backdrop you were set against was etc it would undoubtedly have been helpful to distinguish you against the background. The purpose of the high-vis isn’t to highlight individuals but to highlight any person airside. It won’t make that person 100% safe but it will help.

I remember being pulled up on the apron for not wearing one, pointing out to the ops jobsworth that I was more visible without it he couldn’t see it, even when I pointed out that in amongst the sea of dayglo madness, the only person he noticed was me.

Yes indeed – just after we had been instructed to wear the yellow vests at Dunsfold – I was minding my own business on the flightline (sans yellow vest of course : ) ) when I was called to the line hut to answer a call from Air Triffic Control – ”why are you not wearing your yellow vest ?” says Mr ATC – I replied that he did not seem to find it difficult to see me : ) – closely followed by an interview with the boss LOL

Should we stop to consider precisely how many lives have been saved on airfields and at air shows, aviation media events, etc. because of high viz jackets? I suppose the H&S people would reply that we must ask ourselves how many lives would be lost if people did not wear high viz jackets. Either way, the figure seems to be less than one. Despite this, the nonsense continues. How I miss the days when people were responsible for their own actions and H&S was not a cure-all for stupidity. It all rather reminds me of a classic scene in “Absolutely Fabulous” when Edina Monsoon is in Court for a driving offence. She rants about the parlous state of the country, and the way in which railings have to be erected to stop “stupid people” from throwing themselves into the road. “Tax the stupid!” she exclaims 🙂

I would say hi-viz is an issue in historic aviation.
This is the least-bad photo that I got of this replica from the Gold Pass area at the Wings Over Wairarapa Show.

Pearse machine by Errol Cavit, on Flickr

See also http://rnzaf.proboards.com/post/221968/thread (and other comments on that page.

I’m pleased to say that the Classic Fighters Omaka Show (or at least the participants) had a much better attitude!

Tally Ho! by Errol Cavit, on Flickr

Errol,

I sympathise that in your opinion it ruins your shot but there can’t be any doubt that in many situations hi-vis has saved lives whilst in other situations it is perhaps applied with too much vigour. Id rather your photo be ‘spoilt’ by the odd vest. After all, it’s easier to photoshop that out than it is for someone to deal with the consequences of an accident that could have been avoided by a few precautions. Sure there are occasions where it seems over the top but there is also a failure of so many to recognise the benefits.

Sometimes it’s easier to moan about health and safety and a lot more unfashionable to stick up for it.

You don’t see much ‘hi viz’ amongst the pit crews in F1. Some even wear black…..
mmitch.