Post by ChrisPost by Simon HobsonI challenge you to come up with reports of accidents caused by a pilot
failing to see a pedestrian, and where the wearing of a hi-vis jacket would
have helped. I'll make it easy and not exclude any particular type of
airport/airfield.
God, another w*nker. The attitude of "we will only do something when an
accident has happened strikes me as particularily daft."
No, it's not daft, and it's not what you seem to imply. You are applying the
pink custard approach*, I am being more practical. If the risk is as high as
you seem to think, then you'd expect there to have been at least one or two
reported incidents in the 4 or 5 decades that aircraft and airports have been
in widespread usage. The fact that no-one has yet come up with any examples
suggests that the risk may not be as great as is made out.
The corrollary to "lets see if something happens and then act" is "lets
assume something WILL happen and act in advance" - well that's the sort of
thinking that got us into this 'discussion'. People taking the attitude that
there is a risk therefore they WILL do something about it whether or not the
risk warrants the cost of the mitigation measures, rather than possibly
accept that the risk is not significant.
You could argue that the easiest way to eliminate risk at airports is to
eliminate airports and aircraft - which is exactly the sort of thinking that
the article quoted is aimed at.
What's needed is a more balanced approach. Calling someone a w*nker because
they are capable of thought and dare to question you opinion is not conducive
to reasoned debate. Quite frankly, with an attitude like that YOU are part of
the problem - you won't alloow any sort of argument against a 'safety' rules
of dubious efficacy.
Post by ChrisBseides which, it is a typically stupid challenge. The issue is how many
accidents have been prevented by people wearing the appropriate jackets. Of
course as there has been no accident , nothing to measure.
Pink custard
Post by ChrisIn construction, particularily on road works, the hi viz jacket has made a
big difference. Besides which it is not just an issue of pilots seeing
pedestrian but drivers of other vehicles too.
Which I hope you'll agree is a somewhat different environment.
For the average 'club' airfield (which is where the Flyer mag slogan is
aimed) then we are talking typically low movement numbers, daylight, VFR
operations. If the weather is good enough to be flying then it's good enough
to see people without hi-vis jackets. The dangerous end of an aircraft is
well known and fairly well defined (ie running over people while reversing is
not a significant risk).
On construction sites, particularly road works, then you have diverse
machinery/vehicles manouvering (including reversing), in varying lighting
conditions (including night), in varying weather (including cold and/or wet).
So if you have a lorry reversing, at night, in the rain, and it's cold, it's
mirrors and windows wet or steamed up - then hell yes, I'd say a hi-vis
jacket will make a difference !
But on a small airfield where (by law) few if any aircraft will even be
moving if the vis is less than 1800m or it's dark, then that's a whole
different kettle of fish.
Post by ChrisPost by Simon Hobson"Get real about risk, says health and Safety Executive"
Some people are just being silly about health and safety. That's the view of
Health and Safety Commission chair Bill Callaghan. "I'm sick and tires of
hearing that health and safety is stopping people doing worthwhile things,"
said Callaghan, speaking at the launch of a new practical guide to risk
assessment, published by HSC's enforcement arm, the Health and Safety
Executive.
I was at the launch of the guide and know exactly the context in which the
"get real" message was made.
Then it's all the more worrying that someone who appears to be involved in
the safety system should be so utterly blind to the problem that causes
people to use the slogan you so deride.
Post by ChrisIt was a contrast between real dangers and perceived dangers. As far as I
know, propellers and moving planes, fuel trucks etc comprise real dangers.
OK then, explain how wearing a hi-vis jacket will avoid someone walking into
a turning propeller ?
As for moving vehicles, are they a significantly higher risk than the moving
vehicles in your local supermarket car park ?
Post by ChrisI have no qualms about airports making conclusions about risks having gone
through an appropriate process and respect their decision. The fact that
some have decided not to do so is a call they have decided to make. No one
is right, no one is wrong. The process is about assessment and judgement.
What people are complaining about is the MANY cases where there has been no
such assessment. It's bleeding obvious that many places where hi-vis is
mandatory cannot possibly have done such an assessment - for the simple
reason that no reasonable assessment would ahve come to that conclusion.
It's one of those things where poeple don't have the
time/inclination/knowledge/whatever to do a menaingful assessment so they
simply look at what others are doing and mandate that - the south sea islands
effect**. The porblem with hi-vis is that it costs (almost) nothing for the
airport to mandate it but all the users end up paying. Because it costs
nothing, there's no incentive to really think about it.
Post by ChrisThere are many airfield where I chose to wear a Hi viz jacket whatever
because I have decided that it would be the right thing to do for me.
That's your call. There's some places I wear mine, but in general I make a
point of NOT wearing one where it's pointless.
Post by ChrisWhat does piss me off is idiots who try to rubbish a lot of good work that
is going on to reduce accidents of all kinds by childishness and immaturity.
Yhat you SHOULD be more pissed off about is the idiots that cause the good
work to rubbished by thinking people.
Post by ChrisThat applies to many who frequent the Flyer forum. So if it big wailing kids
you want to play with you know where to go. The Flyer list.
Which do you mean, the list or the forum ? You'll find me on the list (where
mostly we have grown up debates - most of us know that calling someone "God,
another w*nker" isn't the best way to get their respect !), not on the forum.
* Pink custard. Man sees his neighbour painting the gateposts with pink
custard, and asks why. "It's to keep the elephants away" comes the reply.
"But there aren't any elephants around here !" exclaims the man. "You see, it
works' replies his neighbour !
** South Sea Island effect
During the way, the US opened an airstrip on a remote isalnd in the South
Seas. The natives saw that by creating this strip of cleared ground and
talking into a microphone, big silver birds would come and discharge all
sorts of goodies. After the war, the US moved out, the control towers
decayed, and the airstrip became overgrown.
The natives didn't understand what the problem was, so they cleared the
strip, build a new tower, and even a wooden radio microphone to gabble into.
Alas for them, the big silver birds didn't return.
I believ ethis is a well known effect in many areas - business process,
security, health and safety. People look at what other people are doing and
copy it without understanding the underlying process - the result is
predicatly that they don't get the results they expect.
The most obvious application in health and safety is the mandating of hi-vis
jackets. People are told to do an assessment, they don't have a clue (and
won't pay someone who does), so they look at what others have done and simply
copy it. Imposing hi-vis is cheap and makes it look like something is being
done - it doesn't neccessarily improve safety.