Burma Spitire

[parsley]

LOL! 25 years flying and I have never needed to 'see' someone on the ground to avoid them. RAC/AA/Police motorway patrol, yes, wear HiViz. Bloke on airfield with perfect sight and hearing who should be looking for horrible nasty whirly props at 125db and Baldrick and co in a trench in Somerset with one JCB whose driver's responsibility is to watch for others...........sorry just dont buy it.

Whereas you might be able to "get away with it" at a light aircraft field you certainly need high viz if working on the ground at a large airport such as Heathrow....of course you may disagree...well certainly until a catering truck hits you that is

[DerekF]

Keeping people safe at work = lunacy? Amazing.

The result of "lunacy"

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/history/index.htm

The Health and Safety at Work act 1974 , introduced by a Labour government.

[Traveller]

I can understand hiviz at Heathrow etc. with many vehicles but I simply refuse to accept the same goes for Elstree/Sywell/etc. It is for the walking human to take responsibility and spot danger. I also said further up it is appropriate to RAC/AA etc. something chosen to be ignored by some of you. If anything the damn prop should be painted bright green!

I struggled to spot the human beings in these photos.....................


http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h ... DA&dur=141

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=photos ... B633%3B500

[Traveller]

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php ... lit=hi+vis


Have a read of at least the first page of the above. Then if you still feel it is relevant when digging a trench or walking at an airfield with virtually no vehicles and the odd aircraft (which of course you can hear), join that forum and complain!

[Traveller]

The HSE stuff Deref is absolutely right, to a limit. But it is the nonsense of how some interpret it. I don't know if I am right in saying there is no law that states for eg. hi vis on a building site. What is required is for the employer I guess to implement a system to meet laws. Which they may then interpret by mandating hi vis jackets.

And as for some of the tosh in that link above people have experienced......must hold hand rail when on stairs, cannot use stairs with hot drink must use lift............dear oh dear. Add to that hi vis at airfields for me and about another 100 pilots that clearly agree.

[DerekF]

On commercial airfields everyone should be airside trained so I would thought that busy GA airfield with amateur pilots , the wearing of highly visible clothing is even more important.

I'm struggling to understand what the problem is in wearing the appropriate PPE when necessary. Don't you want to give yourself every chance?

[Traveller]

The place to wear hi vis in a Tesco car park, not where there are so few movements and where I am constantly looking and listening. It's far easier to spot something at an airfield than it is in the mayhem of our streets, a place where it is so much busier. I just don't see light aircraft or the (one) tanker driver aiming for me as I walk across an otherwise deserted piece of grass, and then do the green cross code at the taxiway!!!

[parsley]

The HSE stuff Deref is absolutely right, to a limit. But it is the nonsense of how some interpret it. I don't know if I am right in saying there is no law that states for eg. hi vis on a building site. What is required is for the employer I guess to implement a system to meet laws. Which they may then interpret by mandating hi vis jackets.

And as for some of the tosh in that link above people have experienced......must hold hand rail when on stairs, cannot use stairs with hot drink must use lift............dear oh dear. Add to that hi vis at airfields for me and about another 100 pilots that clearly agree.

It may also be a case of employers having to comply with their insurer's requirements

[Spiny Norman]

To try and merge both threads with this one. For the H&S Deniers, why do you think Spitfires (along with other Allied aircraft) were painted with big black and white stripes before D-Day in 1944?



To make them more visible. To prevent unnecessary casualties.

If being seen was important enough for Johnnie Johnson and the rest of the Allied aircrew, it's good enough for you, so put on your hi-viz vest and stop being so blummin' childish.

(Especially for Dan: the government during the war was led by Winston Churchill, who certainly wasn't Labour)

[Traveller]

And the fact that those 2 guys painting it are not hi vis................so hard to spot them - I rest my case. Just look at how close he is to that prop, shocking. Someone will say we even used to hand swing them, in fact still do!!!

[psquiddy]

To try and merge both threads with this one. For the H&S Deniers, why do you think Spitfires (along with other Allied aircraft) were painted with big black and white stripes before D-Day in 1944?

To make them more visible. To prevent unnecessary casualties.

I dont think that is correct - wasn't it to make them more easily identifiable as being allied aircraft ?

[RRconway]

The other thing to point out in that Spitfire picture is that it was 1944.
Since then, unfortunately, there have been many incidents and accidents on airfields of all sizes in which many people have been injured and killed.
Because of those accidents, investigations were carried out, lessons were learned and recommendations made, some of them mandatory.
The professionals in aviation have learnt from these investigations and changed the way they work accordingly. That includes the military and civil and GA worlds.

Some people in all walks of life unfortunately believe they cannot learn from these lessons and think they are exempt and / or infallible.
I am not exempt from this. Having had a shower in Skydrol in my early twenties I now wear all the protective clothing appropriate to that task. It may not completely protect me but it certainly reduces the effects of any accident....but first you have to acknowledge and recognise that it can happen to you, hopefully before it does.
I learnt the hard way, I won't learn that way again, I'll use the easy way. There are too many people waiting at home for me each day.

One more thought. H&S is not just for the individual to look after his or herself, they also have a responsibility to everyone around them.

Jeff.

[RRconway]

To try and merge both threads with this one. For the H&S Deniers, why do you think Spitfires (along with other Allied aircraft) were painted with big black and white stripes before D-Day in 1944?

To make them more visible. To prevent unnecessary casualties.

I dont think that is correct - wasn't it to make them more easily identifiable as being allied aircraft ?

I think that's what's being said psquiddy, wasn't it to prevent friendly fire incidents? They normally result in casualties

[psquiddy]

To try and merge both threads with this one. For the H&S Deniers, why do you think Spitfires (along with other Allied aircraft) were painted with big black and white stripes before D-Day in 1944?

To make them more visible. To prevent unnecessary casualties.

I dont think that is correct - wasn't it to make them more easily identifiable as being allied aircraft ?

I think that's what's being said psquiddy, wasn't it to prevent friendly fire incidents? They normally result in casualties

You are absolutely right - I had never thought of friendly fire as an H&S issue, but it obviously is - just in an unusual workplace.

[Traveller]

So now we are comparing aircraft in the heat of battle, adrenalin pumping, canon fire, possibly at deaths door.............to a lonely light aircraft pilot walking across the grass to get to his car/plane perfectly able to hear an oncoming Lycoming engine. shame it only allows 5 heads banging walls.

[psquiddy]

So now we are comparing aircraft in the heat of battle, adrenalin pumping, canon fire, possibly at deaths door.............to a lonely light aircraft pilot walking across the grass to get to his car/plane perfectly able to hear an oncoming Lycoming engine. shame it only allows 5 heads banging walls.

We are not comparing them - just making an observation that H&S is an issue in both cases - how that issue is assessed and dealt with in each situation is a different matter.

[RRconway]

We are not comparing them - just making an observation that H&S is an issue in both cases - how that issue is assessed and dealt with in each situation is a different matter.

I'd save your breath psquiddy if I were you....
I'll quote myself here....

Some people in all walks of life unfortunately believe they cannot learn from these lessons and think they are exempt and / or infallible.
....but first you have to acknowledge and recognise that it can happen to you, hopefully before it does.

Jeff.

[ericbee123]

I never want to be in the position where I have to say :

Thank God I was wearing :

My seatbelt.
My floatation suit.
My hi-viz.
My crash helmet.
My safety harness.
My rubber underpants.

I never once get out of car and think that seatbelt was a waste of time, didn't crash once on the way here.

I would however prefer to be in the position to think the above than be in the position of thinking "bugger" before something really bad happens that could have been avoided.

And anyway if Hi-viz makes no difference whatsoever then The Army might as well go back to bright red uniforms and white hats, as dark or green clothing isnt any less visible by the same arguement.

[garyb50]

search now called off

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21483187

[Phantom 892]

Very disappointing!

So what were the large areas of metal that they had seen under the ground with their x-ray equipment?

[DerekF]

That is disappointing. I guess finding lots of Mk. XIV Spitfires was too good to be true.

[King Cobra]

So now we are comparing aircraft in the heat of battle, adrenalin pumping, canon fire, possibly at deaths door.............to a lonely light aircraft pilot walking across the grass to get to his car/plane perfectly able to hear an oncoming Lycoming engine. shame it only allows 5 heads banging walls.

We are not comparing them - just making an observation that H&S is an issue in both cases - how that issue is assessed and dealt with in each situation is a different matter.

If H&S was a real issue in WW2 we wouldn't have declared war in the first place and most certainly wouldn't have embarked on some of the more daring escapades. Why were things camouflaged most of the time? Sadly in war men are seen as expendable, in industry they most certainly are not. Please get real.

[DerekF]

I would have thought that "modern" wars (WW1 onwards) were fought with "health and safety", or at least protecting your assets very much in mind. Hence armour, camouflage, concealment, bombers flying in the dark etc... and, if necessary high conspicuity such as D-day stripes. If it didn't matter about the men fighting, they would march in rows towards the enemy wearing bright red.

[Maisie]

Forgetting all this H&S bollox, no Spitfires were found and most likely never to be found, even by a man in a high-viz or not...!

[Spiny Norman]

So now we are comparing aircraft in the heat of battle, adrenalin pumping, canon fire, possibly at deaths door.............to a lonely light aircraft pilot walking across the grass to get to his car/plane perfectly able to hear an oncoming Lycoming engine. shame it only allows 5 heads banging walls.

We are not comparing them - just making an observation that H&S is an issue in both cases - how that issue is assessed and dealt with in each situation is a different matter.

If H&S was a real issue in WW2 we wouldn't have declared war in the first place and most certainly wouldn't have embarked on some of the more daring escapades. Why were things camouflaged most of the time? Sadly in war men are seen as expendable, in industry they most certainly are not. Please get real.

H&S is about minimising risk. Not trying to completely avoid it.

You could easily argue that the risks involved in say the Dams raid weren't worth the results. That "daring escapade" cost half the crews. And for what?

But back on topic: pity about those Spitfires. It caught the imagination of many but if it's not to be, so be it.