dje

Also common in CNC manufacturing. Some flatbed CNC machines use a vacuum table to secure the panel being cut, but you also find them in robot cells. Very common to use a rotating vacuum table with a robot so that the robot can reach all sides of the object being cut. The robot can pick up the object, place it on the table, turn on the vacuum to secure it, and then rotate the table so that the arm can see all sides of the object without reaching around it. I installed a lot of these during first lockdown when there was no stage automation to do. Although we used somewhat more advanced vacuum systems rather than a Henry rigged up to some pipe 😄

This is a common issue and besides dodging ticket fees and searches... the other major issue is capacity. If you don't know how many people are in your venue you can't limit it to the safe capacity, meaning that resolving one fire risk (ie, all fire exits being unlocked) simply creates a new one (venue being over-capacity). I think in the old days this was largely covered by simply putting door staff on them. A cost of doing business. Nowadays you can use solenoid locks and door opening proxy sensors, linked back to the fire alarm control panel, so there is no excuse. When no fire is detected, the solenoid is locked, meaning the door can't be opened. In the event the fire alarm goes off, all doors are unlocked... but that's fine because everyone needs to leave anyway. In the event somebody opens a door when there's not alarm (by way of either forcing the lock, or pressing the emergency release button), that acts as a fire alarm input and sets it off.

Indeed - the balancing yoke just moves the pivot point forward so that more of the lantern weight is behind the pivot. A slightly more elegant solution but also I suspect for any bar hanging over the audience, adding dead weight to the lantern in a manner not expressly designed in, is probably frowned upon and/or not insurable.

I think perhaps I was wrong in saying they're necessary but my memory of using 5s and 10s was that they were easier to focus with the balancing yoke installed. I think even if the weights are the same, at the end of the day the big piece of glass is still both (a) bigger and (b) on a greater cantilever! The nature of focusing a very narrow lens lantern is that you're often using it for long throw applications and of course the further you go from the stage, less movement at the lantern means more movement on the stage, so the ability to utilise finer movements is only ever a good thing. But I don't doubt that you're correct and they're not technically necessary.

In terms of Triple E, I would use UniBeam rather than Unitrack, for touring. It is more robust and you can use regular Unistrut channel nuts for mounting it, so if any disappear on the road you can replace them from the nearest electrical wholesaler rather than needing to go to the manufacturer. Also, once the bits are separated, the track joiners can slide down inside the end of the track section so there's no need to store them separately.

And this is why in theatre we flambar everything that might be used near pyrotechnics or sources of ignition. Nightclubs... I highly doubt it even occurred to them. We need sparklers and balloons and streamers and stuff I can get a hundred on Amazon for four quid, will that do? Yeah get those Procurement process complete

Perhaps then what we have to draw from this is that more information is needed from the OP in order to advise what level of staffing support might be reasonable to expect Yes and no. I'm not necessarily a fan of the principle that something having not gone wrong (or not been known to go wrong) frequently is intrinsic evidence that it is safe. From looking at the picture of that winch (which albeit is very basic, but I have worked with very similar winches in real life in the circus setting) I feel it probably doesn't comply with the design criteria laid out in ANSI 1.43 and since that document was put together by some of the most knowledgeable performer flying experts in the world and ultimately made it to publication (which is not to be taken for granted) we might like to take that into consideration. I don't want to come across as simply being a case of "it's not the kind of winch I'm most used to so therefore I'm turning my nose up to it"... I have my reasons and believe in standing by them. More importantly, as I alluded to before and did so with total respect to the skills of circus performers and crew, I should imagine the risk mitigation in that environment is predominantly skill whereas the risk mitigation in other environments is achieved through the machine. So I stand by my point that best practice - in the scope of the OP who seems to have not practiced aerial performance / performer flying before - would be to mitigate that risk via a more intrinsically safe machine (a point that frankly you also allude to at the end of your response too) and with more specialist support crew, because the skill and experience is not developed yet to a stage where it can be reliably considered to be the primary means of risk mitigation. Like I said in my last post, and you indeed did in yours, it's about scaling the solution to the situation and I think we are essentially saying the same thing there.

Im familiar with how such shows are created... I've done 3 in as many years. "tiny skeleton" crew is not accurate though - creation teams are typically bigger than touring crews because they include the creative team, the creative team's technical team, and the touring technical team. As for accident causes... I don't like to say "all" because it breeds complacency. Probability - yes - but the fact we have a good track record shouldn't be justification to keep aiming higher.

I'm sorry if I didn't explain my rationale well but my justification was nothing to do with "how a niche operator" does it. My last post is the best explanation of distribution of roles that I can offer. That's not to say that its four or not at all. What I was getting at is this is where I got my original number of four from. I think with the OP being new to this, it is pertinent to start at four - with all bases covered (within reason) - and then perhaps that can be reduced through assessment of the show realities. Sorry if I haven't done a good job of explaining this, it makes sense in my head.. My number of four is based on being able to call the show, service all the equipment and deal with a range of rescue scenarios. I don't object to that number being reduced if there is no justification for having them. My only intention was to give a starter point to somebody tackling this for the first time. Better, I think, to expect 4 and reduce than to expect 2 and be understaffed. But I certainly never meant to give off the impression that it's based on the behaviour of any particular operator because that's just not accurate at all.

Sorry I wasn't happy with my previous post and was going to change it but fell asleep... but I think this has gone off the rails somewhat, my intention was not to drag "Cirque vs Circus" into it. I wish to discuss only Performer Flying, not Circus; because that is essentially where the OP pitched their question. The OP gave no indication in their post whether they are a circus, a theatre, or anything else... so to argue over the semantics of what constitutes circus, and its benefits and pitfalls is meaningless. To address Performer Flying , not Circus ; and in this case I think more specifically, automated performer flying because the OP asked specifically about using a winch; I personally feel that working within the framework of the roles assigned by ANSI 1.43, it is impractical that two people can perform the full range of roles expected in a performer flying operation. However that essentially changes dependent on the expectations of what is cared for in-house and what is cared for externally. My original estimation of four was based on the OP being based in the Dominican Republic where the ability to have manufacturer support on site quickly may not be practical. That number reflects the following assumptions: That the show caller should be specifically experienced in performer flying, and therefore constitutes one of the four as they would probably That the winch equipment will require some maintenance and troubleshooting from a skilled automation technician with experience in mechanical, electrical and controls which - in order to bring all expertise in-house - is beyond the scope of what a rigger can expect to learn on a training course That there will need to be a rigger in order to connect the performer to the apparatus, inspect the equipment, etc; and that typically this rigger will be the primary responder in the event of a rescue being required That whilst insightful, your example of rescue - brake release handle or, in event that can't be used, sitting on the winch and dragging it across the floor - doesn't constitute a one size fits all rescue plan and is specific to the environment in which it is used and possibly not suited to the OPs environment, and therefore my assumption for 'rescue team' included enough people to perform a rescue from height if required Therefore working within the ANSI 1.43 framework I would expect to need a minimum of four people with specific performer flying experience in the following job roles: A show caller with specific performer flying experience, who would be considered the Stage Manager and often represent the Creative Designer. An Automation Technician with specialist knowledge of mechanical/electrical/controls engineering as well as use of show automation control systems; who would be considered the Flight Sequence Programmer, the Flying Operator, and depending on how the theatre utilises their equipment, possibly (one of) the System Installer(s); as well as being responsible for the background maintenance of the system. A rigger with specialist knowledge of performer flying apparatus and procedures; and rescue and post-rescue care; who would be considered the Spotter, Rescue Rigger, Flying Supervisor and First Aid Attendant. An overall supervisor of the operation who would double check the work of the other relevant parties and act as the decision maker and command the team during a safety incident; who would be considered the Flying Safety Supervisor, Incident Commander, and User; plus additional Rescue Rigger (since if the aforementioned rigger has to climb to height to effect an aerial rescue, they too now require rescue cover). In some operations this could be more granular with an individual or several individuals per job role... but I feel four is the minimum number of specialists (and by specialist I mean person with specialist knowledge - it doesn't have to be their exclusive role) that should be expected when planning to include performer flying into a show. Granted there may be some equipment and operational ways in which that number can be reduced (which you already alluded to and I do not doubt). Nothing that I've worked on in the last 10 years has been able to fulfil that spec which is why I produced the number four as my minimum.

I just don't understand how that's possible. Are you saying that you commonly find two people who between them can perform the full range of rescue roles required in an acrobatic act, whilst also performing sometimes complex mechanical, electrical and controls faults, and calling the show? Like I said at the bottom of my post... I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't personally find it reasonable nor practical. And I should strongly imagine that if you are doing it with two people then you are relying on external support for at least some of those aspects. For clarity - are we considering a performer-flying-experienced SM as part of the two or not? My figure of four was inclusive. You may not be including? I am sure that this is not a popular point of view with those holding the purse strings but I strongly believe it's the right point of view. Performer flying is a very responsible act. It's funny that you say outside "Cirque and its clones" - is there no mileage in thinking that if companies like Cirque - who are arguably the most experienced companies in the industry - think that more than two people is appropriate... there might be a logic to that? It's certainly not due to any perceived abundance of money! ANSI 1.43 - the American standard for Performer Flying - identifies the following roles in a performer flying environment: As I said already - it's common that several of these roles will be jointly performed by one person and I have no objection to that; it's quite normal that some of these roles (Designers, Supplier, Programmer, Engineer etc) may not be present during the show flying sequence; and indeed some of these roles may not always be required (ie Observer) but even then... whether or not it is possible, is it professionally ethical to entrust the remaining responsibilities all to one or two people. You can claim I have the wrong experience all you like but like I said, I'm not disputing whether it happens, I'm disputing whether it should, and aiming to promote what we should consider "best practice", in the situation of somewhere like the OP's environment, where it would seem that performer flying is beyond the scope of normal work the show company is not familiar and experienced with performer flying as part of the show. In an environment where performer flying is a more regular occurrence and everyone involved is familiar with such practices then it would not be impractical to suggest that the number of specialists involved might be reduced since all supporting staff can be considered specialists to some extent. My number of 4 was also based on the OPs location of Dominican Republic and the fact that therefore complex faults may need to be resolved 'in-house' because it would not be practical to outsource the support in the event of an issue. Within regional touring shows or entertainment resorts this may not be an issue because of the ability for support to be sourced externally. So I think my original number of four may be being taken slightly out of context if both people who questioned it have not included the SM / Flying Director in that number and have assumed that more complex technical problems would be resolved by external technical support from the supplier. With those assumptions in place, and simple rescue facilitated by system design, two people does not become so impractical.

Well that's just not enough is it? I don't necessarily mean that there are four people whose job is exclusively performer flying... but I would say a show with safe performer flying would have at least four people besides the performer - for me that's: 1. The automation operator (who yes will often also be the maintenance/inspection/repair person for the machinery) 2. The rigger (who will attach the performer and lead rescue) 3. A flying director (usually, a show caller with particular knowledge of aerial performance, who'll call the rest of the show too) 4. A fourth person - mostly with rescue skills - because not all rescues will be plausible with one rigger only. Once you get into rope access etc, you really need a second. With regards to mech/deck staff as spotters, this is a trend that personally I disagree with. I know that it happens, but I don't agree with it (and I know that many automation operators with performer flying specialism are on my side with that one). The fact is that unless you are experienced as an operator you cannot be an effective spotter for an operator because a spotter needs to understand what the operator is looking for. In performer flying, if spotters are deemed necessary then they must have the ability to (a) know what to look for and (b) do that job exclusively during flying scenes... this is often not possible when it's given to swings etc. It is a practice which should essentially be eradicated... it's not done because it's right it's done because it's cheaper. In the 18 months prior to COVID I would say I operated about 300 shows which were all performer flying centric. Not a single one was only done with only 2 staff. Normally I would say that even the smallest shows I do will have a minimum of two riggers, an operator and a flying director (with the FD usually being the show caller) and for me if there is any scope of rescue having to be carried out this should be considered a minimum complement. Essentially what you describe here is exactly what I am proposing the OP needs. The OP would not in their current state be considered suitable to do this in-house hence why I proposed that they should contract this out to a specialist flying company. It's always up to interpretation of course but can "a couple of weeks with (manufacturer)" be considered grounds for "competence" to design, program, risk assess, inspect and maintain? I'm not disputing that this is your practice, or that Foy approved this... but I am not sure that I would.

This may be so. However, the OP was asking the question coming into the picture "fresh" (ie without prior experience), thus I would still suggest that they would be better adopting a system by contracting a performer flying automation supplier (any of the names mentioned above - not just Foy). Circus methods may be circus methods, but in that environment the experience and skill and knowledge of the environment - is mitigating the risk. If the OP does not have this experience, skill and knowledge of the environment; then that risk mitigation needs to come from somewhere else - be that employing the experience of somebody else, by using a more intrinsically safe machine, or, as would be best the case, a combination of both. Whatever it is that circus uses, I am going to stand by my belief that a newcomer coming forward and asking how to get into it should be given this advice - not to attempt to employ traditional circus methods. Thank you for your explanation I'm sure this will be interesting to many people, me included. 🙂 That said my personal belief is that we should still strive to utilise electronic and mechanical safety controls as far as possible to protect the everyone involved. There may well be times that skill and experience can mitigate the risk, however there are industry-leading performer flying companies still using complex safety systems in their winches because no matter how good you are, on a high speed move an electronic sensor can catch a fault faster than the human eye... this is a proven fact. And electronic sensors can monitor 1000 things at once where a human cannot. And electronic sensors can be programmed to respond in an exact way, over and over again, unaffected by emotions, tiredness, health, etc. The list goes on. Safety controls have developed in all industries because, when programmed correctly, they're better than us at spotting problems and dealing with them predictably. I have come across numerous winches of the style you showed whilst working in trad circus environments and none of them have featured the level of safety controls that you would find on a winch from one of the aforementioned suppliers. Also just because you mentioned it - even in bigger arena / concert touring flying acts, manual lowering of the flying subject is possible without needing to deploy a rescue team. The point of my first response was only that you still need to have a rescue team, in case, for whatever reason, manual lowering is not possible or safe. I always stipulate that a performer flying winch should feature a 24V motor brake and a release handle on the shaft brake, for that exact reason. 230V motor brake is usually cheaper but cannot be released from a drill battery. I don't doubt that what you are describing can be considered safe enough when used inside a well trained and experienced circus environment, with people who do it every day. I do think that it could be better - and when I've supplied systems to trad circus I have used a much safer design of winch for that reason. But in the scope of this particular question, I still think it is pertinent that we do not consider skill level of performers and crew to be a risk mitigation factor because if the OP is asking this question it is probably fair to assume they don't have any. PS - no dick waving meant. I understand what you mean. Also have sent you a PM about a project you may be interested in.

For clarity, prior to the pandemic I worked in performer flying for the biggest circus name in the world... but OK. No need for an argument - I'll happily take your word for it that this may be the case in more traditional / independent circus. My answer may not reflect all circus environments and that's absolutely fine. However, I do believe that my answer best reflects the process that would be the most practical and the most safety conscious, for an outside person without performer flying experience, wanting to incorporate a performer flying act into their show; so I stand by it. That winch looks fairly unsuited in my honest opinion, and although the picture is small and incomprehensive, I would consider that winch to be both fairly poorly performing and lacking in basic features that I would expect an aerial performance winch to incorporate. I would certainly not consider it to be a good example of what the OP should be looking for. Great video though 🙂

I am not sure whether Unusual still actually do it. I don't think they have a controls department anymore. But I'd also say in any case that in North America, your list would look more like (in alphabetical order only, no prejudice to quality): Chicago Flyhouse, Foy, PRG Scenic Technologies, TAIT, ZFX. In Canada you can also add FlyPatt, Niscon and Show Canada. BUT (and speaking in general now, not just replying to you)... the winch supplier is just one part of the puzzle. And, to some extent, one of the less critical parts. The management of the performer flying is of the highest importance. The control system is of great importance. The safety systems and backup, all as important as how they went up high in the first place. To use one winch in a show, you should expect to need: 1. A winch - and by a winch I mean a performer flying winch designed as such with appropriate safety features. 2. A control system - variable speed drive, safety controller, and motion controller (whether that be pre-written cues in a computer, or joystick control). 3. A power distribution system capable of dealing with electric motors and variable frequency drives. 4. Sufficient rigging infrastructure to install the winch, any necessary diverters etc, loading platforms if desired... all at 10:1 Factor of Safety. 5. Sufficient rescue equipment for the event of a performer stuck in the air. (Manual brake release is helpful but cannot be the sole method). A. An automation technician - to commission and maintain the automated flying machinery and controls. B. An automation programmer / operator - to program & operate the control system and run the cues. C. A flying director, to work between the show director, the aerialist and the automation operator to manage the flying operation, develop cues, etc. D. A rigger (performer flying rigger, different to arena rigger) to attach the aerialist to the apparatus and inspect the flying apparatus. E. A rescue team, to permit the safe lowering of the performer in the event of them being stuck at height - whether by their error or machinery failure etc. F. A DSM/Show Caller with performer flying experience, to call the show in a safe manner. G. A performer who is experienced and comfortable with performing on a moving winch. (note - in a smaller show it's possible that some of these roles can be shared - one person doing more than one role). But I would still say you need min 4 people besides the performer, and that number will be higher during creation / rehearsal. As you can see, a winch really is the tip of the iceberg. As a result, if you are not experienced in this yourself the right answer is almost always to outsource your performer flying operations to a third party company. If you are serious about doing this in your show, and you have the substantial budget required to make it happen, I would your next point of research would be to do some reading. I think a great place to start would be Jim Shumway's book on Performer Flying which I think, to save postage drama to the Dominican Republic, you can get on Kindle (which - btw - you don't need an actual Kindle device for, just a computer or smartphone will suffice). It won't teach you to do it yourself, but it'll help you understand your responsibilities and requirements much better. (And if you do decide to take the work to TAIT, you might get Jim on your project...). Once you've read the book, and you still think you want to do this - get in touch with one of the companies above and go from there.

Well the point was I was trying to teach some young lad how to be more forgiving of directors whose eyes have been bigger than their ability. Not give off the impression that there are no scumbags in the theatre industry. But thanks for your feedback.

As far as I know, that was a scam, not a bad show. No show happened. I still maintain that I know of no situation where a director has created a poor show on purpose and for the purposes of my comment, I think it is fair to assume that when you're having a bad time on a show that's not being well appreciated, you can generally assume the director did not create that situation through any kind of malice of conscience negligence. Art is just a thing which sometimes works out well and sometimes doesn't.

FWIW I think you should be more forgiving on the director than have been. Frankly a lot of new businesses are funded by the bank of mum & dad in the early days. Personally I think the university courses which give young people an unrealistic insight into show directing and present it as a plausible career option for a young graduate, are far more to blame for situations like this, than the parents who bankroll it. It sounds as though she's trying her best and clearly failing, probably due to a mixture of things she can't control and things she can but hasn't learned how to yet. But this is all an important part of her journey too. You have to respect that. There are experienced professional directors who go through the exact same emotions on much bigger commercial shows. You've been extremely unforgiving towards her in your post at a point in your career where I can only presume you're not quite perfect yourself yet either. I'd hold back on some of the criticism until you're blessed with a little more perspective. Also do not forget that at the end of the day this person is still your client and you have a reasonable level of responsibility when it comes to confidentiality, whether or not the show makes you feel like crap. Everyone on this forum will have had a crappy client, the professionals are the ones who keep the details of that to themselves. You need to get over this, not take it personally, and keep the exact details of your gripes private. Sometimes you have to work for frustrating people but as long as it's them footing the bill, you should treat them much the same as you'd treat an award winning veteran. Also trust me the most talented director I ever worked for was by far the biggest pain in the backside... creativity and practicality often seem to be inversely proportionate. You could have simply asked for advice on keeping your mojo when working on a show that's badly organised and is getting poor reviews. Everyone's been there. I don't think you needed to make it half as personal about the director as you have done - in terms of her age/experience/socio-economic background/parental backing/personal skills etc. Sounds like she's got a lot to learn but I'd be surprised if you don't too. Be more open to mistakes and be more forgiving. Bad shows exist across the entire spectrum and nobody does it on purpose.

If it makes you feel any better, in the last 5 years I have done two such shows, both were for internationally renowned show producers who you (and frankly, most of the theatrical world) would have heard of. Nobody is too big or too small to make a bad show. Not least because making shows is a very non-exact process. Some things look awful in creation that turn into hugely successful shows, others look amazing in rehearsal and go down like a lead balloon. But both my two shows aforementioned had budgets in the tens of millions, months of creation and rehearsal, huge casts and tech teams... and still had those kinds of audience reactions. It just happens sometimes. I feel you should try and sympathise with the director and/or producer a bit. These constraints were probably heavy on their shoulders too, and I should imagine whatever buzzkill you're feeling is being amplified ten-fold by the person who created it. It does certainly sound like they've bitten off more than they can chew... but on the other hand they must have got the gig somehow. I don't know anybody working at a high level of this industry that hasn't gone for a project a bit out of their league and learned a whole load of life lessons in the process. Some are big successes, others are big failures... but in the end, all are forgotten about fairly quickly. And that happens in the world of big shows. Frankly, the fate of the show in the village hall will be forgotten about by mid-January. I wouldn't worry about the 'good reference'... doesn't matter. There's plenty people working in theatre who only have bad references and are still busy. Like I said, this will all be forgotten about in no time. Besides, everyone working in theatre knows that bad shows happen and that bad shows do not reflect on anybody who worked on it in a technical capacity. Because it's simply not your problem or your fault. If it's making you sad, you can walk away from it. If you appreciate the money, stick with it. But don't worry about your future. You'll look back on this in a few years after doing some proper shows and realise your concerns were totally unnecessary. To summarise it in a pie chart... will working on a poor show in a village hall with a director nobody's heard of, affect your career?

I can't speak for others but the Chauvet Ovation ones take ETC lens tubes, I know that. That said, remember for 5 and 10 degree S4 lenses, you need to use the yoke adaptor (because the CoG moves forward with the long lens and puts rather a lot of cantilever load on the G clamp and makes it also quite hard to focus) and what I don't know is whether the ETC yoke adaptor will fit on an Ovation

I mean the strange thing is that, even if you were an amateur, what do they actually think you might do to it? Like besides physical damage (the causes of which ought to be apparent to people professional and amateur alike), providing they've taken a backup of their showfile, worst you can do is a total mess of a showfile in which case they just need to re-load their own when you're done. With lighting instruments I get it - I've seen lenses fouled with odd cleaning implements, bent shutter blades, broken iris mechanisms etc from heavy handed idiots. Oh and a gobo holder landing on the audience because the fixture was rigged upside down... but like, surely there's only so far you can go wrong with some buttons, faders and encoders... 🙄 Sounds like somebody's got an expensive toy they don't understand and they just don't want anyone to play with it

Or you could do split conduit. The plastic, hose like stuff

I presume you're referring to the text on the side. I'm stood in front of a piece and to be honest it's not that bad. It's still certainly a lot less unsightly than black cable in a lighter setting.

1.5mm - Lapp ÖLFLEX® CLASSIC 100 300/500 in Light Grey, part no. 0010074 RRP is £650 for 100m.

For our American friend, I would suggest Chicago Flyhouse as a company who could offer good advice on this. I mean realistically I could answer the question but there's a lot of questions... How heavy is the moving part of this revolve, and the things going on top of it? Is the motor driving close to the centre of the revolve or close to the edge? What desired speeds do you have in mind? With soft start and stop, I presume? What is stopping this? Running from a single motor is relatively unconventional in professional revolves because it can be tough to ensure the thing stays completely flat all the time and thus in contact with the drive wheel. More common would be to use maybe 3 motors, which shares the load better (meaning you can use physically smaller motors, which thus fit better in the floor cavity) but also at instances where there is poor friction between one drive wheel and the revolve structure, there should still be decent friction with the two others. Situations where none of them have good contact with the structure are rarer. If you have a single motor and you stop the revolve in an area with poor contact between the drive wheel and the structure, you could find a situation where the motor spins freely and the revolve doesn't move. There's enough variables involved in this that you're likely better off speaking to a company who do this locally to you, and know what's available locally, local regulations etc - I would say Chicago Flyhouse are a good example of a company who would tick these boxes. TAIT are there too of course, but likely well outside your DIY budget, and I'm not sure they'd even take this on.