Now I’m starting to worry – I hadn’t thought about the possibility of the Jaguar appearing in some ghastly paint scheme. I suppose it’s quite possible given past experience with US warbirds, but let’s hope and pray that the owner doesn’t do anything ridiculous.

I guess any owner is entitled to paint his plane any colour he likes but it is very depressing .

Seriously. Don’t worry. It’s a coat of paint. It will come off. Some one is paying to restore old aeroplane with their own money. It’s hardly an insult to anyone nor is it worth getting depressed about. See it as an extension of the aircrafts working life. It will be a display aircraft and so it night have a nice bright scheme to boot. Like the red bull sea vixen . It eventually ended up in a scheme more appealing to enthusiasts.

Wh904

Be proud of your country by all means. Or not if you wish but who needs patronising at an airshow with such excess fervour.

Most people in this country are obsessed with Europe. What are you basing that on?

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.

Fantastic news. The bottom line is the site continues to be useful.

Can’t preserve every base intact and nor should we. Coltishall served it’s use as an airfield and now it will continue to serve producing electricity which the majority of us so absent mindfully waste (me included).

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.

Is this the historic aviation forum? Or have I stepped into the classifieds of health and safety weekly.

No phone number that I can see on their website but you could email them at [email]info@skyliveevents.co.uk[/email] or contact TVOC.