Opera house ban moving of tallescope

[richard]

Interesting, it sounds as if you discussions have started the usual rumour mill going in the industry. It will be very interesting to see what the eventual outcome is.

[Tom]

Will,

May I add my thanks for clarifying this and repeat Garerth's request to keep us all updated with progress.

 

Their advice is; "If the dutyholder considers that their alternative procedure is safer than the manufacturer's and HSE guidance, their route to convince HSE that this is the case, is through trade bodies and meetings of industry representatives,"

Could you assure us that you are getting adequate and active support from the ABTT amongst others.

[Guest lightnix]

Hello Will, welcome to the Blue Room :wacko:

 

My thanks also - it's really great to hear directly from someone who's currently at the sharp end of this matter, even if they are in the unfortunate position of having been thrust there. Please keep us informed of any outcomes, I'm sure there will be plenty of avid readers :huh:

 

...After an initial investigation HSE Labs have decided not to further a study into tallescope 'mobile use'.

 

Their advice is; "If the dutyholder considers that their alternative procedure is safer than the manufacturer's and HSE guidance, their route to convince HSE that this is the case, is through trade bodies and meetings of industry representatives..."

Yes, we've seen how far that's got everybody so far - a draft which fudges the issue by declaring it safe to go against the manufacturers instructions, but making it uneconomic to do so (that's my reading of it, anyway).

 

AFAIK the PSA line on this is that the manufacturer's instructions take precedence and it's they whom you must convince as to the case for changing them.

[Just Some Bloke]

[snip] ... a draft which fudges the issue by declaring it safe to go against the manufacturers instructions, but making it uneconomic to do so

 

Absolutely right.

 

As I understand it, the best we can hope for is that the ABTT draft is considered acceptable by HSE. This draft increases the number of staff required for a focussing session from 3 (one up the 'scope, and 2 moving it) to 5 (one focussing, 4 moving) - an increase in staffing cost of 66%. With so many theatres struggling to stay alive at the moment this could well become the straw that breaks the camel's back and see an increase in the number of theatres closing down. :(

 

The alternative route (as taken by the Opera House et al) has technicians going up and down ladders all day and it won't be long before that, too, is considered unsafe because, as others have rightly said, it vastly increases the risk of falling from the ladder due to tiredness.

 

Risk assessments for focussing lights are a bl00dy nightmare! :o

[AndrewR]

Its fun when you explain to management that you can do it faster and safer, but you would need to reinforce or just replace the stage so it can support a self-propelled Geni at around 950Kg. But they do make the job fast, easy and safe! (assuming you have no rake etc etc)

Their eyes bulge at the costs!

[Andrew C]

Has nobody mentioned that you could use the same three technicians in relays running up and down the 'scope? Still tiring, but much less so, and little increase in cost. It will take longer to focus, which will increase costs.

[Tomo]

As I understand it, the best we can hope for is that the ABTT draft is considered acceptable by HSE. This draft increases the number of staff required for a focussing session from 3 (one up the 'scope, and 2 moving it) to 5 (one focussing, 4 moving) - an increase in staffing cost of 66%.

Really?

Every place I've been that moves the tallie has gone with the "Four at the base, one up top" route.

 

I've never seen the "Two at the base" methodology - maybe it's a southerner thing :o

[Roderick]

I believe this to be the biggest problem when moving tallescopes with people at the top (from a previous thread on the same topic):

That said, I've got a suspicion that the manufacturers are more worried about the dynamic forces on the structure of the scope when you move it with a person on, and the subsequent increase in metal fatigue on the structure and the joints - especially as aluminium (unlike steel) tends to fail catastrophically, rather than gradually. When you give the bottom of the tower a shove to start and stop it moving, there will be large lateral forces on the vertical part that it (probably) wasn't really designed for. So if you are going to move it with people on, if nothing else, it'd be worth regularly checking the condition of the structure for distortion, fractures, or cracked welds.

 

When you move the tallescope you would normally do that in the direction of the base which is where the ladder has the least strength. If you would move it sideways, you would greatly reduce the 'catapult' effect of the basket and the related forces on the ladder.

So, just for discussion, I quickly <_< drew up a suggestion that may help in that respect. Please note that I am not an engineer nor an expert on aluminium and this is just a concept.

http://www.stagesafety.com/assets/images/Tallescope.jpg

 

Comments?

[Chris Higgs]

Bit surprised about the ABTT being advised to get off their collective arses, Gareth. (Check my profile)

We look forward to your solution.

 

To get a document like that right, and include authorised, useful, up to date information on the Tallescope issue could create a great many difficulties for a lot of people if rushed. We also had the WaHR arrive in the middle of the process though that may yet help rather than hinder.

At present it is with the 'Falls' team at the HSE.

 

We are still trying to resolve the problem; I am very grateful Will has posted before his story got blown out of proportion. I know people are well inentioned, but this speculation doesn't help us, chaps.

 

Many people use Tallescopes every day, all year with no problems.

I was at a major venue last week where three are in daily use by a large staff and in over 25 years there have been two (separate) accidents involving Tallescopes, both caused by scenery applying a destabilising force to the 'scope. That is not a significant hazard.

 

The whole issue arose because the manufacturer has stated that they should not be moved when 'occupied'. The same applies to a scaffold tower and most other wheeled access equipment - they aren't designed for it and manufacturers understandably cover themselves.

Modifying or adapting the structure is most unwise without the manufacturer's consent.

I have spoken on behalf of ABTT with the manufacturers, service agents and sales people for the UK.

Hooped ladders are almost completely unrelated to this matter (It was HSE contract research by Safety Squared, actually, nothing to do with Lyon. CRR258, available from the HSE website).

 

 

We need to arrive at a compromise in the short term and at the same time find alternatives wherever possible, with the aim to not need Tallescopes after, say, 2010.

Lighting and scenic designers need to be part of this, as do planners and consultants.

The newer builds are perhaps less of a problem, but many of our venues are not suited to powered access, tension wire grids or bridges. The growth in intelligent lighting is also a help, but does not eliminate the need to work at height.

 

All contributions welcome.

[gareth]

Bit surprised about the ABTT being advised to get off their collective arses, Gareth. (Check my profile)

We look forward to your solution.

Chris, I don't need to check your profile, I know you're on the ABTT safety committee (and it wasn't 'advice' - more of a speculation than anything else, I suppose!). To be honest, I was hoping you'd respond - I think it's time we heard something new from the ABTT on this subject. No disrespect intended to you personally, Chris, but the ABTT have been promising the tallescope guidance notes for what seems like years (how long has it been now, out of interest?). I seem to recall it got as far as a draft, but now that seems to have gone away again. Yes, I know it's a complicated subject, and yes, I know the goalposts aren't exactly static - but it's a pressing issue (and becoming more pressing as time goes by), and it isn't going to go away. My solution? I don't have one. But isn't it one of the functions of the ABTT safety committee, funded by the subscriptions of members such as me, to act as our representatives with the relevant authorities in order to 'broker' (and publish) such a solution? You have to admit, there's not a lot of information on this front coming out of Farringdon Road at the moment ... out of interest, what is the estimated timescale for the publication of some sort of authoritative guidance note for the use of tallescopes in a theatre?

[Guest lightnix]

...you would need to reinforce or just replace the stage so it can support a self-propelled Geni at around 950Kg...

They don't have to be that heavy, a quick :) has revealed this PDF brochure for one which weighs just under 350kg. Much heavier than a tallescope, I'll admit, but maybe fewer stages would need to be strengthened than previously imagined and maybe those that do, won't need quite as much work.

[gareth]

a quick :) has revealed this PDF brochure

I used to work at a venue which owned two of those beasts. They're quite nice pieces of kit, but they can't be moved when elevated (the outriggers have an interlock system which means that the platform can't be raised unless all four are inserted and bearing down on the floor). It's also not as light as the brochure would seem to want to have you believe - that shot of a bloke loading one into a pick-up single-handed ... well, I'd like to see him try that for real! :)

[andy_s]

- I think it's time we heard something new from the ABTT on this subject. out of interest, what is the estimated timescale for the publication of some sort of authoritative guidance note for the use of tallescopes in a theatre?

 

I seem to recall an article in a recent "sightlines" magazine on the use of tallescopes - not admittedly the "authoritatve guidance note" we need yet, but at least an indication of things happening.

 

we operate two tallescopes, one of which we've just purchased after much discussion of the options. We also have a zip-up tower and a selection of zarges and stepladders. We decided against the powered access solutions for several reasons. One was certainly cost - I know that cost and safety issues are awkward bedfellows, but we looked at refurbished genies at lower cost, so it was not the only factor that ruled it out. One important factor to my mind was the difficulties I've experienced in venues using genies in getting the towers into position on stage sets. this could be to do with weight on false floors; it could be to do with the larger footprint required by the compulsory outriggers. Another factor was that it's easier to maintain a decent inspection regime for a scope; it's not a complicated piece of kit, and the training supplied by Aluminium Access clearly teaches you what to look out for.

 

Others have remarked that although potentially very serious, tallescope accidents in the theatre are not particularly common.

 

At its most basic, my general risk assesment of many things that we do in the theatre is "it's dangerous; be very careful". Details of how to be careful in specific circumstances can then be added.

 

I've recently been re-reading books from the Swallows and Amazons series (I have an interest in children's literature as I work at Unicorn Theatre) and a line from Captain Walker (the childrens' father) springs to mind. His pernission for a particularly adventurous sailing expedition is sought; his response (via telegram - an early form of textspeak) to the risk of drowning is "Better drowned than duffers. If not duffers, won't drown." I think it's as important to ensure that we are training our staff to not be "duffers" as it is to ensure that the equipment we use is as risk-free as possible.

[Guest lightnix]

Just as a side note, might it not be time for "theatrical" manufacturers to consider adopting TV-style pole-operated mechanisms for focussing? I know they aren't suitable for everything (e.g. profile shutters and irises) and would add to the cost, but surely they would also reduce the need to work at height in the first place (the "ultimate goal" IIRC).

 

Back in my "TV period", just about the only time I used to get off the floor was to focus the very occasional gobo or special.

[Light Console]

TV-style pole-operated mechanisms for focussing? I know they aren't suitable for everything (e.g. profile shutters and irises)

Yes, perfect idea, that's why I like my Polaris' so much! As to shutters and gobos, have you seen ADB's Warp lanterns?

Clickety

I am very interesed to see them at Plasa, perhaps they could make a pole operated version.