Jump to content

Circus Accident


paulears

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Very nasty (properly career ending injuries) but it is now sparking a debate in america about performer rigging standards. Whereas in the uk & europe whilst there's not much regulation the industry has done a damn good job of self-policing and ensured that performer rigging is of the highest standards you'll find in the world but in the USA you'll find the actual standard of performer rigging is what would probably be classed as "third world" standard - ask any performer who's worked over there and they'll have a stack of horror stories about being given rusty rigging and (especially on the mega touring circus's) having to use third party crew because the kit has to be struck and reset 3-4 times a day. There's a very noticeable groundswell amongst the circus community that this time something has to change.

 

(note, I am talking about PERFORMER rigging, not general rigging)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article here suggesting that evidence has been found to say the failure of a carabiner led to this incident:

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/acrobats-injured-fall-circus-stunt-goes-awry

 

 

As a circus man, I'm sure Tom will have something to say about a single point of failure when lifting human performers, especially so many. I am not a performer rigger myself but I will be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

Investigators suspect that a snapped clip sent eight aerial acrobats plummeting 20 feet or more during a daring act in which performers dangle from their hair. One injured performer told her father she didn't notice anything amiss before her "plunge into darkness."

 

The clip, a common type called a carabiner that's used for everything from rock climbing to holding keyrings, was one of several pieces at the top of a chandelier-like apparatus that suspended the performers, fire officials said. After the accident, the 4- to 5-inch steel clip was found in three pieces on the ground with its spine snapped.

 

Providence Public Safety Commissioner Steven Pare stopped short of saying the carabiner caused Sunday's accident at the Ringling Bros. and Barnum and Bailey circus, witnessed by about 3,900 people, many of them children. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration is trying to make a final determination.

 

"We don't know if it was metal fatigue, if it wasn't properly positioned or something else," Pare said. "We just don't know."

 

Two of the acrobats were in critical condition Monday and all eight were still hospitalized with injuries including a pierced liver and neck and back fractures, as well as head injuries. None of the injuries appear to be life-threatening, said Stephen Payne, a spokesman for Feld Entertainment, Ringling's parent company.

 

The women are from the United States, Brazil, Bulgaria and Ukraine, the circus said. A dancer on the ground was also injured and was released from the hospital Sunday.

 

Roitner Neves, the father of one of the injured women, Widny Neves, said she broke her right arm and suffered back and neck fractures. Widny Neves, who had been traveling with the circus for more than four years, was in the center of the apparatus and was upside down when it fell, her father said.

 

"She didn't notice anything strange," Roitner Neves said. "It was like a plunge into darkness."

 

She is 25 and from Joinville, Brazil, where her family owns a circus academy.

 

"In this profession, you run the risk of being injured," Roitner Neves said. "It's like being a race car driver or a gymnast. There's always the risk."

 

Two women, Dayana Costa and Julissa Segrera, were listed in critical condition. Another injured acrobat, Stefany Neves, fractured both ankles and had her liver pierced by her ribs, her sister Renata Neves told TV Globo's G1, a Brazilian Internet news portal. She was in serious condition.

 

Police Sgt. Sean Carroll said one performer looked up at him after the accident and said calmly, "I can't feel my legs."

 

The performers — called "hairialists" — hang from their hair during the act, which includes choreography and spinning, hanging from hoops, and rolling down wrapped silks while suspended as high as 40 feet.

 

During the show, a curtain dropped to reveal the eight women hanging from the apparatus. Seconds later, as they began to perform, the women fell, and the apparatus landed on them.

 

The women landed on a rubber floor covering that isn't meant as a safety backup, Payne said.

 

The equipment has been used dozens of times per week since the beginning of the year, and a circus crew had installed it last week, Payne said. The crew also inspects it, he said, and performers generally check their own rigging.

 

Feld said Monday that it did not know why the carabiner failed, and that it is replacing each one in the show before the next performance, on Thursday in Hartford, Connecticut. The hair act will not be performed there, the company said.

 

The carabiner had a 10,000-pound rating, and the circus reported the performers and apparatus were 1,500 pounds, said Paul Doughty, of the Providence Fire Department. State and city officials have no role in inspecting such equipment, authorities said.

 

OSHA records show just a handful of investigations of the circus in the past two decades.

 

Last year, a federal jury in Virginia awarded two brothers a $114,400 judgment. The brothers, who do a juggling act on horseback, argued that Ringling ignored concerns about placing the horse act immediately after a tiger act, saying the horses were spooked by the presence and scent of the tigers, creating a safety risk. Feld is appealing the verdict.

 

In 2004, a Ringling aerial acrobat using scarves was killed after the material gave way and she fell 30 feet to a concrete floor. That accident was not investigated by OSHA because the risk was part of the act, the agency said at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, I have remained silent on what happened yesterday here in Providence, RI at the 11:00 AM show of Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus presents "Legends".

As the head rigger on this show, I have a lot on my mind as well as dealing with OSHA, Providence Police Department and the Providence Fire Department. As this is an ongoing investigation, I can not say a whole lot about this incident.

I can say that a steel carabiner that had a stamped rating of 45Kn failed, causing the whole steel structure that supported the eight performers to crash to the ground. I am not going to speculate or share my opinion as to why the carabiner failed.

 

So, for all of those people in the entertainment industry who have questions about this incident, please keep the speculation to a minimum. Thank you.

 

Rigworld.orgArena Rigging Rigging Hardware Rhino Staging & Event Solutions StageHand Institute of Technology (S.H.I.T.) Entertainment Technician Certification Program (ETCP) IATSE Local 347 Luther Hicks III Shawn White Nicholas Adams Patrick Roll Patroller Supply Jason Evarts Amandizzle Cupcakez Lynn.

 

My bold & undeline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is now contesting that there was just a single point holding up the entire rig & that the rating of that carabiner was 45kN. By "european" standards that's a sorely lacking combination without any obvious performance requirements for this combination of equipment / lack of secondary. There's some confusion about whether the "45kN" figure is the rated load or the breaking load (carabiners /tend/ to have the later stamped on them though the precise make of this particular one hasn't been disclosed) however either way in optimum conditions this is only allowing 5kN per performer which is closer to half the "rule of thumb" used over here of 1ton per dynamic performer. The general chatter amongst the circus world all seems to be asking these same questions...

 

In the early stages there was a lot of speculation in the US press that the carabiner failed due to some sort of manufacturing fault which is why they're asking people not to speculate (remembering how litigious the US is) as right now it's not been established whether this was a rigging design fault or equipment failure which could prevent thousands of lifts whilst a equipment is recalled.

 

Personally (ignoring the equipment spec issue) I'm struggling to understand why the entire rig had a single point of failure that was rated so relatively low. If I was designing something for a performer and absolutely had no choice about having a single fail point (above the performer) I would have over-specified it by an order of magnitude http://www.blue-room.org.uk/public/style_emoticons/default/huh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if this will encourage people doing performer flying to look at ( or look at again) secondary safeties? I appreciate that sometimes this would be complicated or impossible for some acts -for example those that require swivelling points. But wouldn't the peace of mind be worth some tradeoff?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1399366634[/url]' post='499179']

I wonder if this will encourage people doing performer flying to look at ( or look at again) secondary safeties? I appreciate that sometimes this would be complicated or impossible for some acts -for example those that require swivelling points. But wouldn't the peace of mind be worth some tradeoff?

 

I think people doing performer flying are most likely always looking at secondary safeties when designing a new effect, but it's not always possible due to swivels as you've alluded to above. I worked on a dance show with an aerialist a few months back where the silks were hung off a single point - it's just that the point was rated (SWL) about two tons, so the chance of it failing under the weight of one performer, even if that performer is doing a silks routine, is small provided it is installed correctly and the kit was inspected before use.

To be honest, I didn't know you could get karabiners with SWL of 45kN - most climbing stuff is rated to a MBL of about that IIRC. With due regard to Bryson's comments about speculation, even as someone relatively inexperienced in rigging my first reaction was "surely that wanted to be a big bugger of a bow shackle?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a nice video. Hope the people involved make good progress with their recoveries

Whilst no-one has died there's a couple of spinal injuries and many broken limbs - as I alluded above this is a career ending incident

To be honest, I didn't know you could get karabiners with SWL of 45kN

Me either - I'm really hoping that there was a miscommunication at the press conference or that they were using some sort of special, unusual carabiner as all the "Steel D shaped" carabs I have list their breaking load as 45kN and come with a stack of manufacturers paperwork stressing that that is the fail point and the actual SWL is a fraction of that & that they should be replaced if they're ever subjected to forces over the SWL level. I have to trust that the rigging people at Ringling are pro's and that what's being reported is a misunderstanding or that they do use a special unusual carab....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Personally (ignoring the equipment spec issue) I'm struggling to understand why the entire rig had a single point of failure that was rated so relatively low. If I was designing something for a performer and absolutely had no choice about having a single fail point (above the performer) I would have over-specified it by an order of magnitude http://www.blue-room.org.uk/public/style_emoticons/default/huh.gif

 

That was indeed my question. It has already been stated publicly that the incident happened when a single carabiner broke. So to discuss the concept of a single point of failure in an acrobat system is NOT undue speculation, since it has already been established.

 

Basically I was surprised to see that so many performers were relying on one single point of failure, with no kind of backup, and I was interested to hear Tom's word over whether this was normal circus practice (clearly not, thanks Tom).

 

I think people doing performer flying are most likely always looking at secondary safeties when designing a new effect, but it's not always possible due to swivels as you've alluded to above. I worked on a dance show with an aerialist a few months back where the silks were hung off a single point - it's just that the point was rated (SWL) about two tons, so the chance of it failing under the weight of one performer, even if that performer is doing a silks routine, is small provided it is installed correctly and the kit was inspected before use.

 

To be fair, that isn't always the best approach either.as it only recognises the risk of the point failing due to over loading, it does not recognise any other condition which may lead to a failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to discuss the concept of a single point of failure in an acrobat system is NOT undue speculation, since it has already been established.

 

With respect t-c, 'it is' and 'it hasn't'.

 

At this stage all we have are comments reported in the media and we all know how reliable they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to discuss the concept of a single point of failure in an acrobat system is NOT undue speculation, since it has already been established.

 

With respect t-c, 'it is' and 'it hasn't'.

 

At this stage all we have are comments reported in the media and we all know how reliable they are.

 

 

I can say that a steel carabiner that had a stamped rating of 45Kn failed, causing the whole steel structure that supported the eight performers to crash to the ground.

 

 

 

What part of that - from the head rigger - is not clear?

 

If a thing fails, causing something to fall down, that is, categorically, a single point of failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also the local fire department and the OHSA (the american version of the H&S) have gone on record with these facts that the carab is under investigation have made public its specification (and had to spell the word for journalists) and have most definitely not made any comment at all about any kind of failure or malfunction in any secondary support system.

 

I'm confident stating that a carabiner failed, that it had "45kN" (or equivalent unit) written on it and that no other system or equipment (such as a secondary) has been reported as failing which would strongly suggest that there was no such secondary support in place, all based on the official statements release so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me either - I'm really hoping that there was a miscommunication at the press conference or that they were using some sort of special, unusual carabiner as all the "Steel D shaped" carabs I have list their breaking load as 45kN and come with a stack of manufacturers paperwork stressing that that is the fail point and the actual SWL is a fraction of that & that they should be replaced if they're ever subjected to forces over the SWL level. I have to trust that the rigging people at Ringling are pro's and that what's being reported is a misunderstanding or that they do use a special unusual carab....

 

To be fair the quote said "rated at" so it's not entirely clear what is meant by that. "Rated" is a flexible word depending on it's use. Safe working load is based on your nominated safety factor, and frankly if I was lifting even one person on a single point of failure, I would not be talking less than 10:1 safety factor, so what began in some components as a "2 ton" rated device might only be good for a ton by the time it was de-rated for the increased safety factor. Thus, a carab with an MBS of 45kN would only have a safe working load of 4.5kN by the time it met it's SWL, But with a safety factor of 5:1 as applied to lifting non-human loads, you would see a SWL of 9kN. This often over-looked and mis-understood nature of calculating SWLs is not helpful to the system as it only confuses people how something could have 2 different SWLs simply depending on what it was used for.

 

Perhaps in the coming weeks, the nature of this '45kN' figure will become more apparent and then people can begin to talk. Whether it is an MBS or an SWL is unclear. Unfortunately, 45kN is a common MBS, and I think this is why people are drawing their conclusions already.

 

As an interest point aside from the thread topic, I do have some Troll Rescue carabs which are rated much higher (maybe 80-85kN MBS) for rescue purposes since a rope rescue may have to take a dynamic load of 2 people abseiling on a single line. It's not the same one, but ISC who now produce a number of Troll's products (don't know if there was an acquisition or anything) make these steel carabs at 70kN - http://www.iscwales.com/Product/KH415-Large-Wizard-Karabiner/?from=%2fBy-Type%2fKarabiners%2f

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.