Tallescopes

[peter]

I was rigging with the head of drama at school over the weekend and he re-itterated his statement that its perfectly safe to push people around in the top of a tallescope, as "thats what they're designed for".

 

Surely he's wrong? I've decided its time I let the school know, before the (16 year old) at the top of the tallescope gets killed.

[Paul J Need]

Although most of us seem to do it, if you read the instructions of the manufacturers, they INSIST the person at the top of the "talli" comes down to ground level before it is moved. (EVEN WITH THE OUT RIGGERS ON) I still ask people to move me around stage if I am up one, its faster, simpler and saves a lot of leg work........ I guess I have only "nearly" come a cropper once (that being on a 1in12 rake at Sadlers Wells) ............ however, if you do move it with someone up top, and it falls over............... the school will not have a leg to stand on.. heads will roll!

 

If you ask the aforementioned teacher for a written signed statement saying "thats what they're designed for" will he/she be willing to put their job on the line by doing so??

[peter]

I should have mentioned that the outriggers were not in use at this time... as you 'cant get close enough to the FOH bars' with them out. The person up the talliscope had never really worked at heigh before, and had to be taught how to focus anything more than a parcan.

[Paul J Need]

Hi Peter,

 

I did an experiment a few years ago during an opera tour. On-stage focusing consisted of 6 overhead LX bars, which could be focused inside 40 minutes. When I came down for each scope move, the focusing time was more like 3 hours.... and I was pooped! If you have a couple of sensible people at the bottom, and the instructions from the guy in charge. i.e. the person up the scope are clear - all should be ok.

 

Some older chaps like me will tell you the outriggers are a "pain in the butt" when moving the talli around stage...... some will say never use it without out-riggers in place at all times.

 

I did somewhere some chap using a tallescope in a hotel and he had to run up and down the thing as there was lots of tables in place for an event.... he would go up, focus, come down, move, go up etc.... he actually fell off and broke his leg due to being "knackered" with all the climbing. He was lucky. There are indeed lots of other horror stories concerning access equipment including deaths.

 

Another point about what you said in your last post........... there can be nothing worse than a person up a talli who doesn't like being up there or is not confident working at the height. They can create an even greater danger and I have seen someone almost tip a scope due to someone panicking up top.

 

The record of the use of scopes is pretty good considering the amount of "focusing flying hours" they are put through, but it only needs one silly mistake and someone loses their life. Common sense must prevail however.

[Bob in Derby]

Obviously this subject is one that everyone in the "community" will have an opinion on... but my thoughts would be along the lines of -

 

You need to do a quick (or in depth if required) risk assessment on whether there is more chance of an accident with constant climbing up and down the scope ladder - if you need to move to every lantern in a full rig this could involve a lot of steps to climb.

 

We personally prefer to move the scope with the person in the basket as long as it is within the given "area" i.e. do downstage lx, climb down - move scope, climb back up - do upstage lx, climb down etc. as trying to climb up and down (such as when using the scope to focus the rig on your own - something we never do, honest!) for every move becomes a little tedious never mind tiring.

 

HTH - Bob

[Paul J Need]

Forgive me Bob,

 

...........but for those readers not used to producing risk assessment documents, and specifically students not in a position to dictate to a teacher - how will producing a risk assessment make the use of a tallescope any less dangerous or more safe?

 

Does the fact of producing said document change things? Does the process of actually sitting down and writing out all the possible foreseen risks associated with use of access equipment alter anything? Do the thoughts of people using, reviewing the process, observing how the process is undertaken and this being committed to paper do anything common sense and a bit of training would not solve?

 

The highway code says - (70) maximum speed 70 miles per hour. Do people drive at this speed just because the code has it written in black and white AND the law says one should?

 

I have had this discussions with many production managers and drama school staff about this matter over the past few years and basically not one of them has come up with an answer I am satisfied with - apart from ..... "if" something does go wrong the full force of the law doesn't come crashing down on the people responsible.

 

Would love to hear your views

 

Cheers

[richard]

I have to say that I find it quite suprising that 16 year old students are allowed to climb a scope at all, when I was at school we weren't even allowed up a ladder! I would definately then not want the scope moved with a 'minor' up it, unless there were adults at the base of it, partly as ballast and partly as people should be trained in 'how' to move a scope. The sugestion above about only going accross stage is a very good point, as scopes moving sideways are really a very bad thing.

 

I do think however that a scope that you can't move with a person up it is a very bad thing overall and I am rather anti that, especially as to me the solution seems far worse (up, down, up, down, up, down....) But hey, what o you do?

[Rob]

What are the rules about Access towers??

 

Can you move someone about on the top of one? Everyone seems to do so - They are far more stable than a Tallie due to the improved base to height ratio.

[Nicktaylor]

I have only had to use a Tallescope in two locations, the first was in Enniskillen a few years ago at the Ardhowan and then last year at a local Boy's Grammer. I find the most nerve racking thing is getting in and out of the box at the top, and having to keep climbing a vertical ladder.

 

I know rules have changed in schools so don't want to be part of that argument, but if the person up top is aware of what is around them, for instance bars that can be held on to as the scope is moved, then I would prefare to stay up top.

[Bob in Derby]

Paul... as we appeared to post within minutes of each other I wasn't able to read your post before mine went out. You are indeed correct in that the risk assessment process does not actually change the facts!

 

If I had been able to read yours first I probably wouldn't have bothered replying as you seem to have said exactly what I meant to, but more efficiently!

 

I mentioned the "risk assessment" in order to raise the point about user fatigue from climbing the scope, the point that your illustration makes much clearer.

 

Maybe an "assessment of the situation" would be a better phrase - how many people are at the base of the scope, is the person in the basket confident (and able to give directional commands etc.), how old are they (is there an age restriction in place in the establishment as Richard mentions), is the stage raked, overhead / floor obstructions - and any other factors relevant to the "local" situation.

 

My view on scope use in general is that proper training is quite obviously VITAL - the confidence of the person using the equipment must be at a level where they are comfortable with the equipment and its use, but the dangers involved should be made quite clear - not to frighten people out of using the scope, but to make them appreciate its working limits.

 

I'm not sure if that has made my original post any clearer or not!

 

Hope no undue confusion / offence caused, Bob

[Paul J Need]

Maybe an "assessment of the situation" would be a better phrase

 

Hi Bob,

 

I wasn't sure what response I would get from you.. (probably used to too many flaming posts "next door") so was pleased to receive a calm and measured reply. WOW This place is great with on 60 members

 

I am not a great fan of risk assessments in the same way as I do not agree an installation electrician should be allowed to sign themselves off on completion of work. The past few times I have produced a risk assessment for some temporary lighting jobs, they have been identical. You know the stuff, possible trip hazard, (use proper cable management), lighting stands - possible tipping/or toppling (Supervision required). it is almost possible to produce a generic risk assessment. What concerns me somewhat, is when people get to a point during the working day, they are just about to start something not covered by the assessment, saying "oh, we didn't think of this, this isn't on the sheet of paper, its not on the risk assessment - what do we do". Now obvisously, the old pro's will tell you they used their common sense, discussed the problem and potential risks of a specific task with the people around them, what I call a Standing Risk Assessment before commencing the job or turning around to the production manager and saying.. "Naaaah - we need to get a cherry picker in mate". Should the fit up stop while someone pops home to write a new risk assessment? - Probably.

 

There is an inherant will to please in our business - the show must go on philosophy and it is when time is running out, short cuts are made and staffing levels are often too low for the work to be done - errors of judgement are made and people risk getting hurt. There is also a lack of people who will say "no - this is dangerous we should not be doing this". The responsibility of people to stop a work collegue doing something "daft" is as important.

 

Blame culture has a lot to answer for.

[Bryson]

Having also read the discussion in the Green Room forum of this...my 2p worth.

 

The primary thing to remember here is: The maufacturer says that to move the tallescope, you come down it. They made the thing, that's what they say. That said (and I know Lightnix will not agree with me) I think that there is a case for moving the tallescope with someone up it as a part of an overall safe system of work. (There's that sentence again.) But: and this is the tricky part: an overall safe system of work that would justify moving the scope with someone up it is probably not possible in 99% of venues in this country.

 

Basically, if you want to disobey the maufacturers instructions, you need additional safeguards to justify that decision.

 

I will explain what I mean.

I would consider a safe system of work to be:

 

Trained and competant members of staff. (Both on the floor and in the air)

Full use of the outriggers. - that means engaging them with the floor, not hovering them an inch off the deck.

Full manning of the scope (3 people...at least)

Only moving the scope along the long axis. (ie if you're going up/downstage -then get down)

Engaging the brakes when stationary.

(Here's the biggie) A Fall arrest system supplied to the operator.

 

Now that last one is the tricky bit. Almost all theatres do not have sufficent shock loading on their bars to retain a fall arrest system (I do, but that's because the rig is new) If you could do this - I would Risk Assess it as safe.

 

Now, I know that there are safer ways to work than a tallescope. (I, myself use a genie IWP instead) But, there are arguements of cost and other factors (weight, for example) that justify their continued use in theatre.

 

 

 

 

Most Tallescope accidents are caused by:

 

Raked stages (I've been half-way up an anti-raked talley that was the wrong way round. Not funny)

People working alone and "pulling themselves along the bar" (This is so stupid I can't even imagine it happening...but it does)

Insufficently trained operators (Both basket people and ground crew)

Not using the outriggers properly. (!)

 

And the main hazard is the talley falling over to the side.

 

 

So: to sum up: In my opinion:

 

It is technically justifable to move a tallescope with someone up if you have sufficent additional safeguards but very few venues will be able to provide these safeguards.

 

And, of course, this justification has to be recorded in paperwork...

 

Lightnix?.. :blink:

[Paul J Need]

"Another tallescope accident to report. This time in a performing area within a Hotel. An Environmental Health Officer called the ABTT office to seek advice regarding the use of tallescopes.

 

Apparently a technician had come to focus and light the evening's entertainment. A number of tables and chairs had to be moved for the Tallescope to gain access to the lights, so the technician descended the 'scope each time he had to move. After climbing and descending the 'scope numerous times the technician fell and broke his leg.

 

The Environmental Health Department who were investigating the accident - because hotels and restaurants come under their control, concluded that the accident was due to fatigue. The manufacturers recommend that a person should descend the equipment before moving it. "

 

This was copied from the ABTT website.

 

Ok a few issues here........ Maybe the Tallescope has had its day. It was designed to gain access to heights above what a ladder could reach, a mini access tower which was easily transported and erected and de-erected very quickly. The theatre industry adopted it as it provided a means to "transport" an electrician around the stage therefore reducing focusing time greatly. I refer back to my initial post on this matter. They are dangerous tools and ALL of us should STOP using them other than how the manufacturers state how they SHOULD be used. This would FORCE ALL venues to find another, safer way of allowing its staff to undertake working at height with reduced risks, a device which is impossible to move with a person in the basket AND not in the lowered position. All venues will have to find several thousand pounds to replace the old equipment..............?

[Bryson]

Ok a few issues here........ Maybe the Tallescope has had its day. It was designed to gain access to heights above what a ladder could reach, a mini access tower which was easily transported and erected and de-erected very quickly. The theatre industry adopted it as it provided a means to "transport" an electrician around the stage therefore reducing focusing time greatly. I refer back to my initial post on this matter. They are dangerous tools and ALL of us should STOP using them other than how the manufacturers state how they SHOULD be used. This would FORCE ALL venues to find another, safer way of allowing its staff to undertake working at height with reduced risks,  a device which is impossible to move with a person in the basket AND not in the lowered position. All venues will have to find several thousand pounds to replace the old equipment..............?

I would submit that the ideal thing to use is This. You can drive around at the top, it goes up to a reasonable height. It's lovely. I had a demo of one, but sadly, it weighs too much for some of the rooms we were going to use it in. I eventually bought one of these. As you can see from the pictures - they know the market they're aiming at.

 

Oh, and by the way, they cost £10,000 for the JLG, or a more moderate £8,000 for the Genie. :blink:

[Paul J Need]

Oh, and by the way, they cost £10,000 for the JLG, or a more moderate £8,000 for the Genie. :blink:

Yup, thats about the size of it! Love the JLG by the way looks FAB!!!!

 

Thing is though will using one of those genies save people from getting hurt or worse?? If the answer is it saves one life............. worth every bloody penny and more!