AndrewR Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 The 950Kg figure was for our JLG axxessor. It goes up to 6m (basket floor height) and can be driven when fully up. But cant handle any kind of rake. It does lots of damage to doors and walls if you dont be very carefull though. Its no use to our theatre though. They have a rake, as well as a very old floor that would probably collapse. So they are stuck with a tallie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 The ABTT draft guidance was published ready for the ABTT show last year.It covers all aspects of temporary means of access used in theatres and similar premises.It was developed from a Tallescope guidance note years ago, two of us re-worked it in 2004/5 and it was further shaped by the committee.I believe very few were taken at the show and hardly anyone had any feedback to offer. The draft is still a draft, pending the outcome of current discussions with HSE and others.It may still appear with or without the 'scope section which proposed a specific system of work for the use of Tallescopes in the way many of us know to be as safe as any other traditional means of access.The HSE position is unchanged, move a 'scope whilst occupied and you risk prosecution.The manufacturers won't change their stance so the situation remains.So what is your solution? I think that the best answer may be a combination of using whatever appropriate access methods we can, including 'scopes, focus bridges, powered access where possible, IWP style machines and so on.We also need to encourage LDs to consider access more in their designs, using moving light technology as much as/where possible and considering ideas such as 'Nix suggests - are twizzle sticks worth considering in some cases? For the record, I am not particularly in favour of Tallescopes, but I don't see why sensible use over the last 30 years should suddenly be challenged. There have been accidents, but I suspect there are many more ladder or falling object related injuries than Tallescope related. Nearly all the reports we are aware of have been to do with incorrect set up or lack of maintenance, not from moving them whilst occupied.The problem is that in many venues including the 'Big 6', there really isn't often in the short term a practical alternative on stage assuming stage lighting is required to be focussed 'on the bar'. (My indignation was as a Director of the Association, not a safety committee member, on behalf of the blood, sweat and tears of many people that goes unseen by members. I am not aware that the safety committee is 'funded', btw, we act on our own behalf out of our own pockets.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 It's good to know that the draft exists still, and that there's been some progress of sorts. Is there any sort of estimated timescale for the document to progress beyond draft status, or are the other bodies involved dragging their heels to the extent that suggesting any sort of timetable for publication isn't practical? Where can I get a copy of the draft? I'd be interested in reading it. I'd have picked up a copy at the ABTT show last year, but if there were any on the stand at the time I visited they weren't in a prominent position. Why is there no mention of this on the ABTT website? The site is, after all, the ABTT's "shop window", and this is an issue that's of importance to many people at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 It was on sale at the left hand desk in the entrance lobby to the Halls. There were plenty left, I understand.To cover printing costs, the deal was that on publication you were refunded the cost of the draft. The office will be able to advise you, I'm sure. I don't know if anyone is dragging their heels; it isn't a fast process and there are many irons in the fire. Perhaps a question on the ABTT Safety Forum rather than here? There is no intended date for publication at present AFAIK because of the legal issues, but there may be a conference called to allow all parties to discuss it fully in public later in the year. I'm sure your queries will be answered if you post them on the forum. So what is your solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Thanks for the response, Chris - I'll post something on the ABTT forums in due course. So what is your solution?I answered that question in my post five days ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Some Bloke Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 For the record, I am not particularly in favour of Tallescopes, but I don't see why sensible use over the last 30 years should suddenly be challenged. There have been accidents, but I suspect there are many more ladder or falling object related injuries than Tallescope related. Nearly all the reports we are aware of have been to do with incorrect set up or lack of maintenance, not from moving them whilst occupied.The problem is that in many venues including the 'Big 6', there really isn't often in the short term a practical alternative on stage assuming stage lighting is required to be focussed 'on the bar'.Recently Will Hill, the Technical Manager at Norwich Theatre Royal, was discussing on these boards a research project into using tallescopes safely and practically. Perhaps an alternative research project would be to compare the figures for accidents from tallescopes against the figures for accidents from other forms of access. If, as I suspect, they turn out to be no worse for accidents than other forms of access, then we may wonder why we (society as a whole including all the H&S community) are worrying about this at all.The reason we don't ban alcohol is that, when used sensibly, it isn't a problem. The problem is its mis-use. If we move Tallescopes with someone at the top sensibly, then surely there isn't a problem either. Or am I wrong? Maybe some research would answer that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbuckley Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 The problem isn't that there is a problem with talles or otherwise; the problem is the HSE have stated they will prosecute any case that comes to light of accidents throigh moving talles. Which means someone needs to be willing to be prosecuted and plead Not guilty, and that is most unlikely to happen. If the HSE are unwilling to change their stance, the only legal avenue open is to take the HSE to court for a Judicial Review, but that is both (really) expensive, and fraught with risk, and its not entirely clear that there are sufficient grounds to mount such a case. However, the decision reached would be final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lightnix Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 ...the only legal avenue open is to take the HSE to court for a Judicial Review...Sorry, but I must disagree. As has been discussed before, the possibility of the judiciary (or Parliament) overruling the manufacturer's instructions is slim at best and thanks Heaven for that. Would we really want to be in a situation where we could be open to prosecution, because we followed the instructions in the manual??? ;) Nightmare scenario :( It's like this... Many years ago, the good folk of the Theatre and entertainments business deluded themselves into believing that they were somehow on a higher plane of existence than the rest of Mankind. This meant (obviously) that they were too beautiful (and clever) to be bound by the mundane rules and regulations which enslaved the grey, proletarian masses beneath them. Being on a higher plane of existence meant that they could use anything to do anything, for their chosen career path had endowed them with mystical and intuitive techical insight into things like how to defy the laws of physics; esoterical knowledge which was beyond the confines of the mere printed page or simple human mind. Instruction manuals were merely guides on how to get a piece of equipment up and running and the safety advice contained therein only intended for those silly old Ordinary People, who were uninitiated in the arcane and mysterious arts of stagecraft. Manufacturers were timid fools, too afraid to realise the true potential of the wonderful machines they had created and so it fell to the Showbiz Elite (as they had dubbed themselves) to lead the way towards a New Age of Enlightenment by demonstrating that so long as your intentions are Good, then everything you do will be safe... ...Yeh, Right :) Sorry you picked the wrong tool to do the job, guys, but it's too late to whinge about it now. Maybe you should have :** laughs out loud **: a bit better, before you spent all that money :P :** laughs out loud **: OK fine, you can "safely" move a Tallescope with somebody in the basket, just as I can "safely" drive at 90-100 mph, or pull masses of wheelspin at the lights and whizz off in a big cloud of smoke. My car may only have two seats, but there's room to lie a small child across the space behind; there may not be a seat belt, but a couple of bungee cords should stop it from falling out. Anyway, who the hell are the Police and other safety nazis, to tell me how to drive? I've had nearly twenty claim / conviction-free years behind the wheel, of course I'm safe - it's all those other nutters you want to watch out for; they're the ones who are dangerous, not me. I know what I'm doing and I'm not going to hurt anyone, OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Some Bloke Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Wonderful post, 'nix, as always! However: It's not the car manufacturers who are telling you not to drive above 70. Imagine if all the car companies got bought out by just one supercompany who then decided to say we shouldn't do more than 50 - and they put that in all the manuals. Then how would you feel? Wouldn't you say "hang on, we've been doing 70 for years and the safety record is not that bad. There is no reason why we shouldn't do 70"? That seems a better analogy. IF it turns out that the safety record for moving a tallescope with someone at the top is no worse than the safety record for driving at 70 on a motorway, or (more to the point) than using any other form of access in the theatre, then at least we can be annoyed at not being able to! However, at the moment we don't know. Hence the need for research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew C Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 First up, I don't have a 'scope, nor have I used one often or for a long time. I also haven't ever read the instructions. My thought is this:- Are the instructions "catch all" in their wording? "Don't move with anyone in the basket" may make more sense if on a building site, or outdoors where the hazards could be significantly worse than a clear(ish) flat(ish) stage. In fact, the last picture I remember of a scope shows a chap changing a lamp, parked in a shrubbery. That said, I don't see why the manufacturers are so reluctant to change the wording if this is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 The scope that I last looked at had a label that said something along the lines of 'Do not move with men or materials in the basket' - whether this means that a naked woman could be moved I'm not sure (maybe I should call the HSE and check) However, I am not aware of whether the original scopes had this instruction, or whether this is something that has been brought in recently. Regarding Lightnix's post, I feel this is a rather odd and high handed way of looking at things. I often see far worse things than moving a scope happening on building sites, and have seen many people moving genie lifts around while people are up them - both abroad and on building sites here, but never in theatres here. While I agree that everyone should follow the manufacturers instructions, there is also a past precedent here, and the other risks from following those instructions so I don't think that people in this industry should be slagged off for trying to produce a workable 'safe' solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbuckley Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I think 'nix has missed the point. As I understand it, the situation is as follows. a) The manufactures say "dont move with a body on top" in the instructions. I'm not sure how long that has been the case, but it doesnt matter. b) There is apparentlyly a few decades of experience that shows that the risks of moving someone in a talle when done in a specific manner, and the statistics apparently say there are few incidents of injuries or death caused by moving talles. c) The HSE have made an arbitrary decision based on no more than reading the manufacturers instruction books that talles should not be moved with a body atop. Its arbitrary as they have done no research. If the aforementioned is all correct, then that arbitrary decision can be questioned, and the final legal backstop (other than a change in legislation) is a JR. Do you believe talles can be safely moved whilst someone is on top? I dont know. Do I believe they are safe? I think every talle in the land should be put in a car crusher today, they are, in my opinion, unsafe at any speed, including standing still (based on no data, just a personal view). but in the end thats just what we think. Are talles safe? You have to put away our beliefs, and the instructions and look at the data. If in fact the things do not have an acceptable safety record then the HSE are correct, folks shouldn't be moving them whilst there's a body atop, and any screwups should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Higgs Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 The HSE are obliged to refer us to the requirement in law to follow manufacturer's instructions. (PUWER Reg 8). Let's hope they never read any hoist manuals but do read the instructions for STAC...... Gareth, I can't see your solution in the post, sorry. I'm interested to know what you propose as the way forward. There are alternatives that may work in many cases, and where that is possible we are obliged to use them. There are also many situations where it is known that there are not practicable alternatives AND the situation has been managed for years. Can BRers supply any Tallescope statistics - all information is useful. We know of 3 major ones and a handful of anecdotes.What about tower, ladder and climbing/falling accidents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Light Console Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Right, used same one twice in two years, not fallen off! Powered access not possible due to weight limits on the floor. Where access is not possible via Tallescope, a tripple extension ladder is used. Tallescope is in a school and tested anually by outside firm. Pupils are not allowed to use any access equipment, only staff, or outside adults, such as myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Gareth, I can't see your solution in the post, sorry. I'm interested to know what you propose as the way forward.As posted five days ago ...My solution? I don't have one.And neither does anyone else, by the sound of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.