Jump to content

Health and Safety


Fred Reid

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you are asking what the rules were by and large they were the model ones established by the Lord Chaberlain and then the LCC (and applied by most licensing authorities) which were developed over the years. One copy I found on line was the frist hit on this search "london county council regulations for theatres" but this site will not take the link.

 

You would have to ask others what the observance was from place to place backstage in the past especially with things like smoking, I am saying nothing, but FOH they would have been applied to the letter by and large. Incidentally smoking was permitted in auditoria for far longer than you might think. (This was not always the reason for cinemas etc burning down in the 1950s with everything lost except the insurance policy, but it was often blamed.)

Edited by Junior8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would be very little difference in H&S at work anywhere in any industry until you get back to pre-HASAWA in October 1974. You need to be a lot more specific about what sort of information you seek and what precise periods. The laws around theatre H&S date back to AD 27 and the Fidenae disaster. Look it up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The realistic viewpoint, Fred, is that most venues do now have systems to keep the places safe (or safer) than they were, but of course many venues are still terrible. Health and Safety is a two things - a system to keep people's health good, and make sure everyone is safe, but sadly, it's also the dreaded Health and Safety tag stuck on everything nowadays and frequently blamed for everything, and often run by idiots. In your College, Fred, you will have all kinds of rules - and many of them will be stupid. Put in place by people who really don't understand the purpose of the legislation. So in Colleges in the 90's when I started teaching, the students could do what people did in work - quite safely in most places I'm aware of, then these perfectly sensible things were decreed as unsafe - ladders got removed, lights couldn't be hung, sockets were not able to be used - even putting plugs on was banned in one college I know of. Theatres simply put in rules and systems that enabled them to carry on doing what they did before. Some venues still don't understand the way things should be done. Some had rules put in place, but then the staff had to break them as a matter of course. I know one that decided anything over 25Kg weight was a two-man(person) lift, yet they rostered single people, who had to lift stuff on their own, because the jobs needed doing. I'm guessing this is for some kind of assignment? What is for certain is that pre-2000, theatres were not dangerous places that are now safe. Most were safe anyway, and all that has happened is that people record, and assess, and re-assess and monitor. If things were dangerous, even before the paperwork became God, reputable venues sorted these thing out.

 

If you have specific questions ask away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course sometime the safety proceedures put in place actually introduce hazards.

 

As examples:

Paul mentions many places remove or restrict ladders and steps. Having worked in a place [not a theatre] that restricts steps to 1.5m tall, changing tubes in fluo fittings screwed to a 3.2m ceiling is suddenly working at full scretch and suddenly quite hazardous whereas a set of 2m steps is quite comfortable for the job.

 

I could go on ad nauseam quoting similar silly examples where the H&S blanket rules introduced problems or hazards, however I'm all in favour of H&S rules as long as their sensible, correct and not restrictive. Those are usually quite intuitive anyway and go unnoticed.

 

Paul seems to have put a pretty good summary forward.

Edited by sunray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course sometime the safety proceedures put in place actually introduce hazards.

 

As examples:

Paul mentions many places remove or restrict ladders and steps. Having worked in a place [not a theatre] that restricts steps to 1.5m tall, changing tubes in fluo fittings screwed to a 3.2m ceiling is suddenly working at full scretch and suddenly quite hazardous whereas a set of 2m steps is quite comfortable for the job.

And let's not forget, in that vein, the decision some years ago that decreed the practice of properly and organised movement of a Tallescope with a person at the top was outlawed... Despite there being few (if any) recorded incidents of Talles falling over on stages, that meant that the process of the focus tech having to descend and reascend the vertical ladder between positions AND the temptation to over-stretch to save on doing that so often meant that additional hazards (arguably more risky than the the proper movement) were introduced...

Yes, that's an old chestnut here on the BR, but still valid, nonetheless

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see that folk are having the chance to have a whinge, I'm sure they'll feel better for it.

 

I started my time in theatres in the mid 2000s, as H&S management started to be a thing. It certainly can have some negatives if an H&S manager with no experience is given all the authority and all the accountability with no knowledge of how to handle that. Couple that with the folks who spend a month writing a load of risk assessments that are never circulated to anyone who actually performs the task but the company is fine, the risk assesssment are done; and you can see that there is a lot of poor H&S practice out there. The issues (as ever) are poor management and poor application - not the law and/or guidance itself.

 

However I've also seen venues move towards being much cleaner and clearer of crap, I've seen improvements to practice with 'toolbox talks' and proper planning happening, and proper application of risk assessment. I've seen fewer ropey old ladders, installation of work positioning systems, and more regular inspections of rigging and electrical equipment. I can think of several venues that were a wish and a prayer away from a really nasty incident that were turned around by application of the appropriate guidelines and practises following a change in management.

 

It is worth noting that most of the "HSE says no" is actually "the insurers say no" - very different things and widely miscommunicated. I had that very discussion around students working at height, and after a sensible communication with the insurers we put together a training process that satisfied them that certain students could work at height while supervised.

It is also worth noting that the main H&S legislation has been active since 1974, and as an industry we have been ridiculously slow on getting on with implementing it (see also: CoNaW and CDM...)

 

Re tallescopes - all HSE have asked is for us to follow the manufacturer's instructions - if we could persuade a manufacturer to say it was ok to move them occupied then we could do it. FWIW, as much fun as it was, and as much as it made the job easier - I don't believe we are less safe by following the instructions, especially if you rotate focussing duties around the talle team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is for not for a project Fred but merely personal interest I'd be inclined to do a search on Google for say major theatre/entertainment disasters and see if you can identify the two or three key markers along the way. If you are on some kind of performing arts course it will do you good to see the hard experiences that have shaped where we are and why we we should do things the way we do. You should never stop learning - until she mentioned it I had never heard of the incident GridGirl drew attention to. And you do need to keep your wits about you. A little test for you. In a venue I used to help out at one of the emergency exits led to a courtyard with a gate which had to opened while the public were in the building. One night I went along and found the gate open but with the padlock simply left hanging open in the eye. What would you do? Why?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall the Aggreko incident during the Olympics covered here - https://www.lsionlin...-safety--huwmd6

_

There's a huge golf between the management tool purporting to be H+S in some workplaces and the actual requirements set out by H+S legislation.

_

The budgets and numbers of H+S inspectors have also been slashed over the years- so there's roughly one inspector for every 63,500 people, contrast that with one doctor for every 229 people, or one police officer for every 529 people and you'll see how rare they actually are.

Edited by itiba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see that folk are having the chance to have a whinge, I'm sure they'll feel better for it.

 

I started my time in theatres in the mid 2000s, as H&S management started to be a thing. It certainly can have some negatives if an H&S manager with no experience is given all the authority and all the accountability with no knowledge of how to handle that. Couple that with the folks who spend a month writing a load of risk assessments that are never circulated to anyone who actually performs the task but the company is fine, the risk assesssment are done; and you can see that there is a lot of poor H&S practice out there. The issues (as ever) are poor management and poor application - not the law and/or guidance itself.

 

However I've also seen venues move towards being much cleaner and clearer of crap, I've seen improvements to practice with 'toolbox talks' and proper planning happening, and proper application of risk assessment. I've seen fewer ropey old ladders, installation of work positioning systems, and more regular inspections of rigging and electrical equipment. I can think of several venues that were a wish and a prayer away from a really nasty incident that were turned around by application of the appropriate guidelines and practises following a change in management.

 

It is worth noting that most of the "HSE says no" is actually "the insurers say no" - very different things and widely miscommunicated. I had that very discussion around students working at height, and after a sensible communication with the insurers we put together a training process that satisfied them that certain students could work at height while supervised.

It is also worth noting that the main H&S legislation has been active since 1974, and as an industry we have been ridiculously slow on getting on with implementing it (see also: CoNaW and CDM...)

 

Re tallescopes - all HSE have asked is for us to follow the manufacturer's instructions - if we could persuade a manufacturer to say it was ok to move them occupied then we could do it. FWIW, as much fun as it was, and as much as it made the job easier - I don't believe we are less safe by following the instructions, especially if you rotate focussing duties around the talle team.

I'm very good at whinging and one of my pet hates is H&S, however my main whinge [other than people doing dangerous/stupid things] is poor implementation of rules and powers and the inability to negotiate site rules when they are blatently wrong. I've called HSE 3 times from building sites and all 3 resulted in instant access visits and 2 sites being closed until hazards were sorted, the 3rd resulted in a revision of the compulsory PPE rules.

 

So far my experience of HSE is very positive and like J Pearce I am pleased to see so many dangerous/hazardous situations fading into distant memories due to the improved risk assessment capabilities we have become accustomed to subconsciously performing.

 

On the whole, I'm happy to agree that things have changed for the better since 1974 and the main negative issues are down to the incorrect application of the powers invested to people without the correct experience. Training courses are worthless without adequate experience in the field.

 

The thing about a Tallescope is the outriggers aren't properly deployed if it is movable, unless there are different versions to those I have experience of. Even then local rules may override the manufacturer. We had a platform designed and built by a reputable tower manufacturer specifically to allow it to be moved with someone on it. It consisted of a pair of 2m tower sections [without top spiggots] with 4 castors and a folding 6ft side panel welded to them to form 3 of the 4 sides in one item which could not be erected in any different format, 2 horizontal rails, diagonal brace and 2 platforms completed the minimal tower. As such it meant we were only able to use is on level surfaces [as the castors were not agjustable] and restricted platform height of 1.2m. to maintain the 900mm handrail, all properly certified and annually inspected by manufacturer.

 

We were frequently banned from moving it with someone on it because site rules didn't allow it, and even worse I was red carded for not going through the trapdoor in the platform even though it was only 18" or so above floor level [one of my calls to HSE].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say the major change is that things are more formalised and we are more aware of the various regulations we need to think about

 

We all did risk assessment back in the early eighties, in our heads, but no paperwork and certainly didn't introduce the proper controls. As an example, touring in to Norwich with three 40 footers full of steelwork, we laughed at the resident flyman in his sandals and socks. 'How unsafe' we thought as we unloaded in our latest Adidas trainers.

 

Similarly seeing riggers judge what to attach chain hoists carrying truss to by simply finding the biggest bit of steelwork (or timber) showed there was some judgements being made, often in ignorance though

 

There was far more drink and drugs around and drink in particular was tolerated. This was the era of Public Health advertising which asked if you really needed that third pint, before driving home, to give some context. Certainly in the West End at that time, some crew were regularly drunk on shows. On the touring circuit, if you didn't take the house crew to the pub at lunch time on the fit up days, particularly the Monday fit up and opening shows, things could get quite dicey as to whether you would go up on time

 

Remarkably there weren't that many accidents that I recall that you could put down to the lack of risk assessment and I don't remember many at the time, despite the many crazy things we were doing, particularly in the West End, where there were a run of massive musicals that structurally altered buildings. If things starting going a bit wrong, theatrical solutions were used. The back wall of the Dominion started bowing as the cantilevered arm with Laurence Olivier's head was revealed on 'Time'. The solution was French braces made of RSJ attached externally. Probably not what a structural engineer would have advised but it worked and the show continued.

 

As more theatres are centrally (corporately) owned also that has driven H&S culture upwards, overall as directors don't like to get sued or prosecuted. It all so means that standards should be the same in all those houses. Back in the day, some venues were known to be more 'risky' than others

 

Hours were much longer and overnighters seen as a badge of honour on fit ups. Going through several days at a time was not particularly unusual and just added to a quite macho environment. There were few women around outside of Stage Management and Wardrobe also which probably didn't help with the testosterone levels.

 

Also the role of the ABTT, PLASA, BECTU, Equity and the managements has been instrumental in this. Their engagement with HSE and the fact HSE trust them has meant that we can still work but in a much safer environment. Had we not had those advocates, able to speak at a Governmental level things could be very different and far more restrictive (Handrails on the edge of the stage?)

 

So, yes things are much better now because we understand risk and aren't just going on gut feelings and wishful thinking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll also add that it's easier to discuss issues now, back in the day approaching someone to tell them they were doing something wrong was considered none of your business but now it is and I find the approach is usually welcome in most trades, especially if offering a solution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong as I am not going to check but I'm pretty sure that in my collection of stage lighting books going back to the 30s the first one to even mention, let alone cover in detail as it did, safe access to equipment was Richard Pilbrow's in the mid 70s. Yet in many spaces it's always been replete with risk. Edited by Junior8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • 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.