"High vis" is just utterly stupid. And, I need to underline, in the general aviation context, it really is mostly a "british" thing. Ils sont fous...
What really annoys me though is people flying with the thing on (nowadays often seen in the UK, particularly in the flight training scene). Now that really looks stupid and really takes the beauty away from private flying. Would make me feel like a freakin' busdriver...!
Rant off...:-)
Well, as a very early reflection, there do exist busdrivers that I would not qualify as freaking - rather the contrary - it's a hell of a job, round here, and I am often surprised at the smile some of those gals/guys manage to put up in hard circumstances. Myself at the wheel of my -errm- vehicle not being the least of these hardships... here's what to the good cheers of busdrivers! Your good health, and many of them!
At second thoughts: yes indeed. To wear the ridicule when required is bad enough. To stick to it afterwards is beyond common good taste.
I am with PiperArcher, just wearing it, but most other posters' attitude begs a question: would you willingly wear hi-vis if these clothes were comfortable to wear and looked good and stylish? A good friend of mine, also a pilot, is married to a fashion designer, and I'm tempted to challenge her next time I visit them to design a few articles of good-looking hi-vis. I imagine it may be possible to inject some aesthetic appeal into this kind of clothing - at least for the young.
It has nothing to do with comfort, wearing something that burns near an aeroplane is just plane bonkers! If you covered a cushion with it you would not be allowed to sell it. Having spent most of my time near aeroplanes wearing camouflage so that no one can see me, I have never observed any issues apart from the fact they can't see you to tell you off. I really don't think it has anything to do with insurance, insurance companies only respond to measured risks. If there was any risk of litigation the Americans would be wearing them! Life is becoming more dangerous because of the buffoons who talk safety but seldom think about it.
Lots of risks can't really be measured, but they still have to deal with them (Fukushima).
I've heard lots of stories of people who've walked into propellers or who've fallen into propellers whilst starting an aircraft. I can see why fluorescent jackets might be useful around big aircraft with fuel trucks and baggage handlers buzzing around them. But can anybody recall any stories about people maneuvering a light aircraft into a person?
Perhaps the way to go is to sacrifice a yellow jacket to the god of YouTube, with a little avgas sprayed on for good measure.
p.s. the correct retort is to question how many pilots have been incinerated by dayglo jackets...
Next they will require all pilots to pay for and undergo full criminal background checks every two years to be issued with a card, which if not worn will result in a $10,000 fine and a criminal conviction.....naahhh, who would believe that?...oh, I forgot; there is the Great Southern Police State I suppose....but even they (the Aussies) don't require dayglo vests
I think an ordered society requires a certain amount of pragmatism to be applied when making and applying rules....in the UK this is generally also supported by the heavy inertia in the system when trying to bring in new rules (thankfully).... If there is no pragmatism, any round table discussion about the risk of say terrorism (or health and safety) and the measures needed to prevent an incident, will inexorably lead to very heavy handed requirements....unfortunately Australia does not have the rule making inertia and the pragmatism dial is turned down to zero....resulting in the above ASIC rubbish...as well as similar draconian consequences for not having a CASA approved secondary locking mechanism to prevent someone stealing an aircraft...(and these are just a few examples from the aviation sector)...That is the point about resisting the dayglo....it is perhaps the canary in the mine...
Didn't Australia mandate a chain+lock around the prop? I recall reading this from a pilot out there.
I think locking fuel caps would be much more useful!
I think locking fuel caps would be much more useful!
Yes, but in Australia it would be about preventing petrol sniffing in the outback! (a real problem)
Didn't Australia mandate a chain+lock around the prop? I recall reading this from a pilot out there
Prop chains are one way of complying....more commonly there is a throttle lock
Oxford airport mandates high-viz for "anyone working airside". Given I have a PPL and am not permitted to 'work' with said licence, rather than a CPL, I figured that the privilages of my licence PREVENTED me from wearing a high-viz vest, as to do so would be an admission of engaging in work, and put me in breach of the ANO.
Needless to say, this train of thought was met with a glassy stare by the management......
