[Roderick]

I don't think that in this day and age anybody can afford to plan an outdoor event without carefully planned emergency plans.
Everybody has to agree that weather patterns have been changing and 'freak' winds are becoming more and more regular.

Emergency procedures should cover two things:
1 - How do we monitor conditions and what do we do if certain conditions are met?
As Tom so rightly points out, there must be a procedure that sets out who does what if a tent needs to be dropped. If you get a report that heavy weather is approaching, that is not the time to figure out who does what and why.
2 - What do you do after a disaster?
Who calls which emergency service? How do you explain them where to go? You may know where the festival site is, the ambulance driver may not. So contact the local emergency services and find out what information they need so they can find you. Again, when you need help is not the time to work out those details.

Make sure you document all your procedures and that all working crew on-site know them.
As for the punters, inform them. Most concerts or large events have huge video screens, use them. Have a set of Powerpoint slides ready for emergencies so you van bring them up on screen if needed, works much better than announcements alone.

[gibbothegreat]

cfmonk, on 19 August 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

Totally disagree. Sorry but structure collapse should be a major part of any risk assessment for an event that involves structures. If it's part of your risk assessment then you should have a plan for if it happens!

However, I also don't think what Kerry said is true. In any kind of catastophe like this I do not think it is possible to immediately and totally control the situation to a point where the public would not be involved in the rescue / immediate aftermath.

Chris

All well and good, except it wasn't 'just' a structure collapse (where of course I do agree with you) - it was predominantly a freak weather event (to judge by the pictures) of extraordinary proportions and rapidity, so much so that I believe it would have been well beyond what most people would probably plan for, and that, IMHO, would have overwhelmed any amount of planning precisely because of its unprecedented severity. For one simple instance, how would you communicate with people in that much noise? Yes, the camera seems to pick some of it up, but that's in one location, possibly very near to a source, I have my doubts that would have been clearly audible as soon as one moved away from the source - and that's even assuming the PA survived that onslaught.


But actually, that's all somewhat surmised, because it can only be guessed at from the pictures. More what I was getting at is the rather self-righteous tone, which is one of the biggest turn-offs to ideas of health and safety. It's all too easy to sit in judgement after the event. Saying people 'should be shot' without knowing the full back story is pretty unhelpful, IMO. I'd be more interested in discussing what we can learn from this, and whether we should now be including the possiblity of a big sky demon coming and stomping all over our sites as a standard contingency...

This post has been edited by gibbothegreat: 19 August 2012 - 09:53 PM

[ramdram]

I suppose one "good thing" to be got from the episode is that this "freak" occurrence has more than amply demonstrated the power of "Nature".

Hopefully the lessons to be learned are that the design, of a structure, has to be updated/uprated in the "withstanding the elements" dept'. In other words always plan for forces of this ferocity and you stand a greater chance of the structure surviving the gusts, even if these gusts are a rare event. Yet again perhaps these rare events may become more the norm, who can say?

Perhaps with this "global warming" issue this is the result...not global rises of temperature per se but a greater swing of the weather we experience?

A bit like the Indiana event, "they" knew the weather could be "bad" but they did not plan for the worst...goodness only knows why not. Bit pointless being wise after the event.

Perhaps also global warming really means greater extremes of weather conditions. Hotter, colder, drier, wetter, not to mention much windier?

If you used one guy rope last year perhaps you need to consider using two guy ropes this year...and three the next?

This post has been edited by ramdram: 19 August 2012 - 11:06 PM

[kerry davies]

Couple of points;
1) In Gibbo's home town they have emergency plans which have been implemented due to stage/tent damage at least twice in a decade at Hogmanay. Hardly never heard of.
2) Indianapolis had storm shelters which had been opened before the incident but nobody had a clue as to where they were, no maps! The US NWS warned three hours before the incident; "those in the path of the storm MUST seek shelter in a secure building, away from windows, preferably underground."
How "bad" but not "worst" does it need to get, Ram?
3) There were thunderstorms and 45 MPH winds forecast for the Dutch event and UK storm chasers were out chasing "weak" (74 to 110 MPH) tornadoes at the time. Actual wind speeds were measured at 45 MPH a few miles from the site and estimates put the peak wind at 60 MPH, not exactly "extraordinary".
4) Thunderstorms can and do cause supercells and mini-supercells are meteoroligically speaking "very common".
5) Tom confirms that professional outdoor events people are well on top of all this in the UK, those that aren't should not be involved in commercial outdoor events where TDS are used. Even Edinburgh City that cannot lay a tramline are well on top of it.

Lastly the idea that these are freak events must be extinguished. In the UK we have had "once in a hundred year" storms in 1881, 1947, 1953, 1963, 1982, 1987, 1990 and 2000. The first ever supercell was defined in, of all places Wokingham, not the Great Plains. There were around 1,000 tornadoes in the US last year, the average is 800 a year. Nothing "freakish" about either Wokingham or events that commonplace.

The Big Sky Demon has been stomping us since we crawled out of the swamps, it ain't going away any time soon. Be prepared.

This post has been edited by kerry davies: 20 August 2012 - 11:53 AM

[gibbothegreat]

kerry davies, on 20 August 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

Couple of points;
1) In Gibbo's home town they have emergency plans which have been implemented due to stage/tent damage at least twice in a decade at Hogmanay. Hardly never heard of.
2) Indianapolis had storm shelters which had been opened before the incident but nobody had a clue as to where they were, no maps! The US NWS warned three hours before the incident; "those in the path of the storm MUST seek shelter in a secure building, away from windows, preferably underground."
How "bad" but not "worst" does it need to get, Ram?
3) There were thunderstorms and 45 MPH winds forecast for the Dutch event and UK storm chasers were out chasing "weak" (74 to 110 MPH) tornadoes at the time. Actual wind speeds were measured at 45 MPH a few miles from the site and estimates put the peak wind at 60 MPH, not exactly "extraordinary".
4) Thunderstorms can and do cause supercells and mini-supercells are meteoroligically speaking "very common".
5) Tom confirms that professional outdoor events people are well on top of all this in the UK, those that aren't should not be involved in commercial outdoor events where TDS are used. Even Edinburgh City that cannot lay a tramline are well on top of it.

Lastly the idea that these are freak events must be extinguished. In the UK we have had "once in a hundred year" storms in 1881, 1947, 1953, 1963, 1982, 1987, 1990 and 2000. The first ever supercell was defined in, of all places Wokingham, not the Great Plains. There were around 1,000 tornadoes in the US last year, the average is 800 a year. Nothing "freakish" about either Wokingham or events that commonplace.

The Big Sky Demon has been stomping us since we crawled out of the swamps, it ain't going away any time soon. Be prepared.

All of which is useful information, and we can learn from. Bit more helpful than just saying the management should be shot without explaining what they'd done (or failed to do) to deserve that.

[cfmonk]

*rushes off to check weather forecasts yet again as significant tentage up in Wokingham this weekend*

[Tezzachs]

cfmonk, on 20 August 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

*rushes off to check weather forecasts yet again as significant tentage up in Wokingham this weekend*

does the same as multiple tents up on ramsgate seafront this weekend

[kerry davies]

Note to self; Must get agency for those anemometers with mobile phone attachments for remote wind monitoring.

[ramdram]

Ref the "freak" thing. The context was to be taken as in "we" don't know very much at all what the weather could or could not do. There was feature film, fictional, about it a few years ago where the extremes were way outside any recorded data. In other words we don't know what we don't know.

The so called 100 year storm clearly is just some "Tabloid Press" type nonsense.

We know there have been ice ages virtually up to yesterday cf the age of the planet...we have no idea if the snow fell as on a windless day or whether it came as a blizzard. IE we have no real idea of the weather systems 10k years ago.

So, in answer to Q2 nobody has any idea, hence why it might a shrewd notion to review the overall design concept of TDS, just in case?

This post has been edited by ramdram: 21 August 2012 - 12:15 AM

[dbuckley]

kerry davies, on 20 August 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

Lastly the idea that these are freak events must be extinguished. In the UK we have had "once in a hundred year" storms in 1881, 1947, 1953, 1963, 1982, 1987, 1990 and 2000.

As my bosses boss noted at a presentation a little while ago: "We've now had two, one in two thousand five hundred year earthquakes. I'm over the numbers."

Any time someone uses the phrase "one in x year event" where x is a positive integer, they are full of it.

[Simon Lewis]

ramdram, on 21 August 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

The so called 100 year storm clearly is just some "Tabloid Press" type nonsense.

Actually, the probabilty figures are scientifically derived probablities, and are used widely by environment agencies, insurance firms etc. The problem that we are facing is that the data set (I.e. the weather events) is changing somewhat, so we can no longer reliably depend upon our easrlier predictions.
Whether one is a global warming devotee or sceptic, the change in the number and frequency of extreme weather events is a fact, and those of us involved with TDS will need to take this into account in our risk management strategies.

SImon

[ramdram]

Ref the probability figures, lol, more tosh, definitely tabloid press territory. (I recall a similar discussion ref the alleged life of leds...)These predictions are based on known or recorded data going back a few hundred years.

We know there have been global ambient temperature fluctuations going back over aeons. But nobody was there then so nobody knows what the weather was like.

If a degree or two increase in the Gulf of Mexico leads to "record" numbers of severe storms battering the US then a couple more degrees increase might render this "record" old news quite rapidly.

If the notion of global warming implies more energy knocking about in the air ocean in which we all live then perhaps it might be better to decree that we triple up on guys into terra firma and prohibit concrete anchors...

[Simon Lewis]

Yes, there's a load of rubbish that gets discussed, and the whole issue is prone to poltical and subjective assessment, as well as scientists who might even wish to emphasise the doomsday card to secure further research funding ;-) (I've no proof of that btw!).

However, let me assure you that environmental modelling is a) a serious science and b) can use indicators much further back than a few hundred years and c) is having to answer some very difficult questions right now. Whether we can safely put a tent up for a fete or concert is a relatively trivial outcome. The possibility of major flooding events and loss of coastal areas will have significant longer term impact.

The tabloids may well report science in a bad way. That doesn't mean that the underlying data and trends are wrong.

Simon

[kerry davies]

I wasn't actually rubbishing statistical "norms" merely pointing out that "once in a hundred years" is based as Simon states on the past and not the present. Even then if something doesn't happen for decades doesn't mean it will not happen ten times in one day. Stats is a hazardous area for those without experience to enter just as building stages is.

As for raising the game on TDS we have already done that with IStructE, the problem is that some people in this industry actually believe that Newton's Laws do not apply to them. What is worse, many more on the fringes believe that because we make it look easy that it is easy. Professional staging companies have design engineers and site supervision by people with structural engineering training yet there are many more who seem to think that is unnecessary. Endless queries on BR indicate that there are plenty of people out there building TDS and even simple unit staging that clearly should not be doing so.

It is more a case of "playing the game" rather than raising it and "get a man who can" rather than the amateurish "can-do", "show must go on" attitude. OK, doing it costs money but not doing it can cost lives. Again as Simon states so well, we have to live in the now, all previous bets are off. Continual monitoring, assessment and improvement on how we do things has to be the way we act. Must do better?

[adam2]

There seems to have been a substantial increase in severe weather events in recent years, with increaseing numbers of temporary and even permanent structures failing in extreme weather.
Climate change needs to be accepted as a fact*, and the regulations for both temp and fixed structures updated to take account of higher wind speeds and heavier rainfall.

With modern weather forecasts and communications, ordering evacuation when prudent should be easier than in years gone by, but in practice accidents and near misses seem to be on the increase.

Planning helps of course, but in relatively remote places one needs to consider what to do with all the people evacuated from a collapsed or at risk tent.
Conditions in the open could easily be dangerous due to exposure for the unsuitably dressed.
A temperature as high as 15 degrees is dangerous if wet and windy.

In some cases I feel that too much importance is attached to continual monitoring of the weather, and then to possible last minute evacuation, rather than looking at the 12 or 24 hour weather forecast, and considering "is it even sensible to start the event ?" rather than thinking "we can allways evacuate at a few minutes notice if we have to"

As others post, if it all goes wrong and the emergency services are needed, then some simple and reliable means of directing them to the right part of an extensive site is needed.
Coloured flags and/or signal lamps are worth considering.
In event that persons are feared to be trapped, dont forget to call the fire service ! they dont just put out fires, but are equiped with cutting and lifting plant which could save persons trapped.

*one may debate as whether climate change is man made or a natural fluctuation, though such debate does not belong in these forums.
It is however beyond all reasonable doubt that change has occured and is likely to continue.