dje

There will always be some things that some disabled people just can't do. I don't think accessible has to mean everyone can do everything. A friend of mine is a quadruple amputee (Afghanistan...) and whilst he'd like a more accessible world, I think he's accepted the fact that he won't be working as a pianist anytime soon. We don't have to try and design spaces to allow anyone to do anything - just allow more people to do more things. My suggestion on this front is that we could do more to make the stuff we do more accessible. Movers live in flight cases for protection - which is arguably less necessary in a permanent install. They could live in trolleys with the clamps exposed, and the bars brought down to a pre-determined height (mm accurate, thanks to encoders) and the lights wheeled onto the bar using side-opening clamps. I would say that for a theatre to be accessible, it would need procedure as much as technical provision. If there were people in wheelchairs on the team, then tossing cable all over the floor would have to be firmly off the menu. For what it's worth, I can't remember the last show I loaded in where we tossed cable all over the floor - they tend to react as badly to flight cases and set trucks as they do to wheelchairs... I find leaving them in their cases is much healthier. I think it needs a 360 approach... building design, procedure, policies, practices.

No... I'm saying that the hoists in the ceiling bring everything down to ground level so that all the work can be done at the ground. If you want the construction site to be fully accessible as well then I think you might be taking this a bit far. But sure - I'm sure you could build scaffolding with ramps up to that level if you really wanted a person in a wheelchair to install the motors.

I know I'm a bit late to this party... but it seems to me that people are saying nope! can't be done! on the premise that the traditionally built proscenium theatre with fly system on a slatted grid can't accommodate wheelchairs. Or thereabouts. The only requirement for what makes a building a theatre, is that it is a place where shows are performed. Perhaps rather than asking the question How do we make a traditional theatre grid, wheelchair friendly? The question ought to be what kind of overhead facilities would be best suited to the limitations of wheelchairs? If your concern is wheelchairs on the grid, then a tension wire grid will solve a great many problems that would be associated with grid slats. If your concern is evacuation plan from any form of wheelchairs at height, let's not have wheelchairs at height at all. What if the theatre was a black box studio, with hoists on the ceiling (controlled by a panel at ground level) lowering trusses onto which you can hang set, and movers? All adjustment of sets are done from ground level. Lights can be focused from the floor. Faulty lights swapped at ground level. Speakers rigged to trusses and raised to height. It seems to me, you could meet all your accessibility targets if your space was a box room with a flat floor, controls all at ground level, and hoists bringing everything down to the ground to be rigged and derigged, and anything in the air that needs moving being automated to do so. A theatre is made by what goes on inside it, not what facilities it offers.

If you can mitigate the risks associated with these by other means, then yes, that's fine. How that is achieved and how practical that is... is up to the person doing the work of course. But in principle yes you can fly a bar in and out without a spotter providing the risks are mitigated sufficiently.

I use Aalco for all my stuff Aalco - The UK's largest independent multi-metals stockholder

I think that's not unreasonable. Agreed - to be avoided. But they're not being bought for employee use, only for the convenience of visitors. I think that's a pretty back-handed way of saying buy your own 😂 but it's still hideously stingey. Casuals are usually zero hour employees rather than freelancers and thus should be afforded the same provisions as the full timers.

AFAIK this is not possible. Avolites are not a charity and as such they incur costs when developing their software. This cost cannot be met by giving software away for free and thus they sell their products to cover these development expenses.

Any company that expects you to share gloves with fellow employees isn't worth working for (I've certainly never heard of it), and boots? Has such a thing ever even existed? I've never heard of a company making employees share safety boots. @J Pearce has the correct answer - the kit you're given will be dependent upon the risk assessment and what PPE it deems necessary. If the RA says you need protective boots, the company must (legally) provide these for you. If the RA says you need a helmet, they must provide that. If the RA does not stipulate protective gloves then the company are not obliged to give you gloves. Some people choose to buy their own for comfort, but you should not need to buy your own for hygiene. I have never heard of an employer asking employees to share PPE items in this way. Harnesses, maybe. They're costly. But staple items like helmet / gloves / boots / hivis are always issued personally. The big advantage of using company equipment is that if it becomes damaged in use, they're obliged to replace it. The downside is that they're not obliged to provide you with anything more than the most basic option - if they want to give you £20 Screwfix safety boots then they're fulfilling their obligation, but you will probably not want to be on your feet in those for 10 hours a day 5 days a week... but if you want some nice Haix ones you will need to pick up the tab yourself - both on the first pair and any subsequent replacements, even if yours are damaged on company time. The other thing to watch out for when buying your own is making sure that what you buy is of at least the minimum specification required. For example if the company issued you a simple construction-type safety helmet, conforming to EN 397; and you decided to replace it with your own purchase of a Petzl climbing helmet - but you chose a sport model conforming to EN 12492... and you later had an accident in which you suffered a head or neck injury, you could find yourself in hot water. The company might argue that you failed to fulfil your obligations as an employee under the Health and Safety at Work Act by failing to follow the safety measures they put in place since you chose to wear a sport helmet instead of the company-issued PPE. The best way to mitigate this sort of thing in my experience is to be upfront with the company about what PPE you'd like. (Sadly this only comes with experience). Express your preference of particular items, and ask if they'll cover the cost, or at least meet some of the cost with you meeting the rest. This way you get the best of both worlds - it's still company-provided PPE but it's to your choosing.

Trifibre make good quality soft cases as well as flight cases.

Absolutely. It utilises a mechanical system to raise and lower a load in the workplace. It is lifting equipment by definition. I have heard some strange ones too - I met somebody absolutely insistent that manual chain blocks didn't need inspecting because LOLER only applies to electric motors!

“lifting equipment” means work equipment for lifting or lowering loads and includes its attachments used for anchoring, fixing or supporting it; I am quite curious as to why people think that they don't meet this definition? Is it like... well I'm only lifting a little bit ? Where do we draw the line between a hand-winch mounted to a manfrotto stand, and a hand-winch which takes a chandelier up to the ceiling? Is it because the lifting equipment only forms part of the device, it is not 'the device'? For me, a Manfrotto wind-up stand is most definitely a piece of work equipment used for lifting and lowering loads.

I notice my previous pointers to Area4 products didn't seem to spark any interest but I've just become aware of the 'Alpha Frame' product line from Sixty82 (I believe S82 are formed from ex directors of Prolyte)... https://www.sixty82.nl/upload/ARENA-FRAME-/Arena frame klapfolder .pdf This also seems to be sort of what you're looking for.

Just ask for help when you need it. Literally everyone I know would much prefer that you ask for help than keep quiet and do it wrong.

In my experience, spike tape does not adhere as well to the 'textured' stage surfaces as it does to flat painted stages.

This sounds entirely normal. I would expect a loud pop in the speakers if switching off the mixer prior to switching off the amps. The mixer will power down more or less instantly whilst the amp(s) will take a moment to discharge the capacitors and during this time they do remain 'switched on' to some extent... they will continue to amplify the input signal. A power sequencer like here will alleviate this issue nicely.

high friction Lindapters are fine on a pitched beam. if it makes you feel better, just use more.

Remember that for a pitched roof it'd normally be recommended to use high friction girder clamps. in the past I've used Type AF12s on pitched roof beams.

I took them as being: - fear of the stingers swinging around when hit by a ball - need for dismountable equipment to be inspected in case it is derigged and mixed up in lifting apparatus

So if you do as I said and have boom down rigging point manufactured, you can rig those to the beams once using a tower and then leave them up permanently. Have them made 'staggered' so that they compensate for the roof pitch and all your rigging points are the same height, and accessible from a ladder.

I was presuming if they can't reach the beam (this being the problem) then a beam clamp is not helpful. But yes if they can reach the bottom this is a good fit. Again it's a yes and no. If used solely as the top attachment point then no, it's not a lifting accessory. If used below the hook (beam clamps can, in some circumstances, be used inverted to lift I Beams) then it would be a lifting accessory. So whether it's a lifting accessory or not basically depends on how it's used, as much as what it is.

I can't think of any reliable method to pole op a rigging point really. Even if it's possible for attachment I think it'd be a major pain for detaching. In terms of permanent anchor points, I think you could make a T-shape welded construction with an eye on the bottom, such that the extension required to bring it down to ladder height wouldn't swing around if struck. I share your concern that a rope around the beam with a karabiner could be wrongly interpreted to be a lifting sling. My suggestion to combat that would be to forego the carabiner, and to use as thin a 'rope' as possible. Some climbing accessory cord would be fine. You'd have to fail the competent person test to clip a chain block into accessory cord and claim you thought it was a lifting point! As another alternative... I used to do a venue a lot which was just out of reach of 14 rung Zarges as well... I thread some fairly thin paracord through a tennis ball and would throw the tennis ball over the beam and then pull the spanset over. Tennis ball was heavy enough to carry the paracord and easy enough to handle... but also soft and light enough that if it came back and hit me in the face it didn't hurt. At the end of the day, if liability is your concern then your best bet is still to remove everything and install fresh each time.

I like @cedd's solution. In terms of inspections and leaving baskets in, technically it's actually OK because the basket is not actually a lifting accessory in the scope of LOLER. A lifting accessory is used to attach the load to the lifting machine - so a spanset between the hook of your chain block and the lighting truss would be a lifting accessory but the spanset between the chain block and grid would not. That said - we tend to inspect baskets because (a) it is clearly a good idea ("best practice") on account of the fact that they're exposed to all the same wear and tear as lifting accessories; an also (b) in the event that the basket were removed from the roof and used as a truss pickup, it would need to have the inspection. So if we can't guarantee that baskets will only ever be baskets, we ought to inspect them as lifting accessories. So: - Technically, you could leave them up, yes. You could probably give them an in situ visual inspection whenever you use them, to that end. - Best practice, you'd be better using a 'permanent' anchor point... .for example a 'deck eye' welded to the RSJ or a custom lifting bracket on Lindapters; and a short chain stinger down from that - with the chain 'permanently' linked to the eye by way of a clevis link, so that it can be considered one accessory. Realistically, that could be inspected with the RSJs (if they have some kind of inspection regime). - Or as cedd said above, you could leave a piece of rope in place to pull the spansets in as required.

I mean I get it, the mentality. But like, it just seems to go wrong a lot. 6 years ago I was working at a well-known hire company and was asked by a former lecturer if I could design and provide the lighting and rigging installation for a new venue at my old university. I put together a well-suited package at a good price. The university insisted it had to be done through their tendering process from their approved suppliers, of which my company wasn't one. A well known installer of stage lighting equipment took the gig on and charged them more money for facilities panels than I'd quoted for the full install. By the time they'd finished buying facilities panels and custom steelwork (which wasn't necessary), there was so little left in the budget that they got 4 Chauvet Lustr copies and 4 very disco-looking LED strobes... I'm sure all those custom facilities panels would be really useful if they actually had any equipment to plug into them. As it is the students play in the dark. But the purchasing department are still convinced that what they've got is top of the range because the supplier was a leading supplier of stage lighting equipment and they said it was a good install. It seems funny to me that the formal process is there to stop the spending being abused because in many cases it seems to do the exact opposite... but's it's OK as long as the company doing the abusing have a track record of doing it to other people too.

Yeah I mean to be fair there are many companies... if I were to be totally impartial I'd say to do it through a rental/sales supplier - and as local a company as feasible - just because there'll tend to be more scope to have somebody come to assist you as part of the deal.

I completely agree but the three quotes system can be a total waste of peoples time as well. You know what you want, you know the best company to get it from, you know why they're the best company to get it from... the deal is done in your mind but you have to get 2 more quotes anyway and the waters will invariably be muddied when one of those quotes comes back either (a) cheaper by a few quid or (b) much cheaper because they offer you completely different equipment and somehow manage to ring somebody higher up your organisation, bypassing you completely, and convince them that the inferior product they're offering is actually the same thing with a different badge... causing a kerfuffle whilst you push a square wheel uphill attempting to debunk the myth.