Opera house ban moving of tallescope

[Guest lightnix]

Regarding Lightnix's post, I feel this is a rather odd and high handed way of looking at things...

Beg pardon, it was more supposed to convey a feeling of jaded and world-weary cynicism ;)

 

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.

So are you saying that all we need to be is "one notch better" than other people in order to be safe?

 

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...

What past precedent? What other risks??

 

... so I don't think that people in this industry should be slagged off for trying to produce a workable 'safe' solution.

I agree, but I do think they should be utterly condemned for (ab)using the risk assessment procedure in an attempt to legalise dangerous practice or subvert the manufacturers' instructions for the Proper Use of their product, which is what I believe showbiz is trying to do regarding tallescopes.

 

...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.

To begin with, the first part of that sentence (up to the comma) makes absolutely no grammatical sense whatsoever. To what "statistics" are you referring here, can you quote your source, please? Besides that, are you really saying that it's somehow "OK" to have a few deaths and injuries every now and then and that's just the price we have to pay to get the show up on time? :huh: :unsure: :blink:

 

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.

ar·bi·trar·y

adj.

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.

2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.

3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.

4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

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.

But it wasn't an arbitrary decision, it was based on the law, namely...

...the requirement in law to follow manufacturer's instructions. (PUWER Reg 8).

...QED. By the above definition, it's the arguments presented in favour of ignoring the manual which are "arbitrary", if anything is.

 

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.

Well at least we agree about the car crusher ;) At the moment, though, what any of us think is irrelevant. The law as it stands is clear and while the ABTT guidelines remain in draft form, it is the law which will take precedence, every time.

 

Are talles safe? You have to put away our beliefs, and the instructions and look at the data.

Again: What data? Where?? I'm sorry, but I have yet to see a shred of actual, empirically measured, hard data which proves it's OK to ignore the manual.

 

Face it, chaps: whichever way you look at it the Tallescope's days in entertainments are numbered :) Even if the ABTT do persuade the HSE that moving an occupied 'scope can be done safely, none of you will be able to afford the crew. You're going to have to find another way and whatever it is, be it pole operated lamps, scaff towers, Genies or anti-gravity harnesses, it's going to cost money. Get over it and start fundraising ;)

 

Another thing that strikes me as odd about this debate is the rather selective use of the "fatigue" arguement by the "pro-movers", i.e. if people have to continuously climb up and down a 'scope, they will become dangerously tired as a result. Funny then, isn't it, how often we are told (even by our peers) how we "sometimes just have to accept" that working two or three sixteen hour days on the run with minimal breaks "goes with the territory", but suddenly when it comes to climbing up and down a 'scope a few times it's, "Ooh no, can't do that, we'll get too tired to work safely." <_<

 

Double standards? Surely not :o

[dbuckley]

...to begin with, the first part of that sentence (up to the comma) makes absolutely no grammatical sense whatsoever.

Yep, 'twas broken.

 

To what "statistics" are you referring here

I have no idea, which is why I said "apparently". I have no data, is there any data?

 

Besides that, are you really saying that it's somehow "OK" to have a few deaths and injuries every now and then and that's just the price we have to pay to get the show up on time?

Yeah, I do, and so does everyone else. It is a fact of life that if we do stuff (and stuff can be anything) then there will be injuries and death. We make efforts to reduce the numbers, so we have traffic lights and speed limits, and we have H&S, but every now and again someone goes down. The trick is to use the approach which is the least dangerous possible. I say "least dangerous possible" rather than "least dangerous" or "safest" as there are always other factors at work which means that safety is a compromise rather than an absolute, however unpalatable that may be to see in black on blue.

 

If talles are allowed to be used at all (and as noted I would ban them "before lunchtime") it may be the case that it is less dangerous to move them with a body atop than for said body to climb up and down a lot. I dont know, and neither does anyone else it appears. But theorise with me a moment - if it were safer (and that would require statistics and analysis, both of which are in short supply) then I believe that the statistics should take precedence over the manufacturers instructions, which would be enforcing a less-safe method of working. Under these hypothetical circumstances a JR can be used to override both the word of the law and the HSE, as the intent of the Parliament is that the safer approach should be used rather than the less safe, and thus strict interpretation of the law is more dangerous.

 

Of course, unless anyone has a few years of hard data, this is truly hypothetical; my preferred solution remains the car crusher.

[Chris Higgs]

An interesting debate! At the risk of repetition, can I state I have no particular desire to see Tallescopes being used but they are still the only way of doing the job in certain circumstances.

 

I have to say that in my opinion, few of the views expressed are without a shred of truth. However, there are many venues that have used and will probably continue to use Tallescopes in the way they have for 30 years until the LA are at their door.

My concern is and has always been that we arrive at a practical compromise to allow theatres to function in the short term; in time something else will turn up that will replace 'scopes, maybe something even better.

The arguments for using powered access are valid, of course, but in many theatres powered access is not practicable for focussing overhead generic lighting. Why can this not be understood?

Of course the advances in technology should be considered, but we all know the economics don't work that way.

A recent discussion I had with the lighting manager of an opera house (several large bridges, always a Genie, often a rented cherry picker, loads of Zarges, several 'scopes and a stage that will support a MEWP) advised that this season there are 7 overhead bars being used by the various lighting designers. Around 300 lanterns. In this case a one hour turnround between shows would end up being a four hour turnround - it isn't going to happen, matinee down at 5, house opens less than 2 hours later. Yes, it's a planning issue and it is not insurmountable, and in years to come I hope this has percolated upwards (if that's possible) but it will take some serious persuasion at boardroom level probably with the incentive of a prohibition notice.

 

When I suggested to said lighting manager that LDs are perhaps told contractually in their brief that they may only use bridges or bars that can be reached from an access machine on a flat floor nearby, the feeling was (from someone who simply wants to his job the best way he can for everyone's sake) that creative policy does not allow that to happen. A familiar story from many national companies, one I have to say I think I agree with. However we need to compromise the artistic requirements with the practical. Back to the accident stats.

 

I am still interested in the 'data' - has anyone hard facts on Tallescope accidents we haven't heard of? Not slips on the ladder, but falls causing injuries.

[Guest lightnix]

Thank you Chris :)

 

Having read through the thread again, I'm not sure there really is any one solution to this problem. Lest we forget, the matter being discussed is not whether Tallescopes are safe, they are when used "correctly"; it's what constitutes "correct" usage that's under scrutiny once again.

 

If I was in a position where an enforcement notice was on the cards, I would be looking at a range of alternatives to reduce the risk from a number of angles. As I've said, one big contender would be the introduction of pole (twizzle stick) operated lamps. I'd also seriously look at scaff towers, I know you still shouldn't roll them with someone on top, but their larger work platform can make more lanterns accessible at once, thereby reducing the need for constant climbing. I'm sure that there would also be stepladders, Zarges and maybe even a tallescope in the arsenal of access equipment, but the overall aim would be to reduce their use to a minimum level, with pole and tower covering the majority of focussing tasks.

 

There is one thing that I really have to question, though...

...I suggested... that LDs are perhaps told contractually in their brief that they may only use bridges or bars that can be reached from an access machine on a flat floor nearby, the feeling was... that creative policy does not allow that to happen. A familiar story from many national companies, one I have to say I think I agree with...

While I would agree that such a requirement, as quoted, would be a little draconian, I have to say that I think LDs should bear responsibility, in conjuction with the Production / Chief LX and Production Manager, for the lanterns on their rigs being safely accessible by one means or another.

 

This comes from someone who, on more than one occasion, has been on the receiving end of LD megalomania and ordered to stop moaning and bloody well stand on the top rung of the Zarges / basket of the 'scope, along with a sarcastic apology for the stage not having been designed for me personally. Yes, I know I should have refused and walked out, but I had bills to pay :( Numerous similar anecdotes abound...

 

Maybe once a design had been produced by the LD, it could be gone over by the Production Electrician and an "Access Method" column added to the plot. This is only a germ of an idea, but I really believe that this is something LDs should be made to start thinking about, preferably without an accident and subsequent court case to force the issue.

 

And yes, without the Tallescope things may well take longer, but how much production time have we collectively allowed to be whittled away over the years, by accountants and managers who not only cannot, but WILL not understand what we do and what we need to do it safely. Isn't it time to start digging our heels in and winning some of that time back - if only for our own safety?

[Andrew C]

I'd also seriously look at scaff towers, I know you still shouldn't roll them with someone on top, but their larger work platform can make more lanterns accessible at once, thereby reducing the need for constant climbing.

Just too pick up on this point. Why are the ABTT hedging on moving 'scopes, but coming down firmly against moving zip-ups? (book at work so I can't give chap & verse) Given a sensible method statement and sensible height/base ratio surely there is no more, or perhaps even less, risk than moving a 'scope?

 

Are we again being hit with rules designed for the construction industry where towers are used outdoors, in the wind and a damned long way up the side of a building? Whereas in most cases in theatres they are used on a flat floor and with platforms at 3-5m. Granted some are significantly higher, but in the larger venues MEWP may be viable and better solutions all round.

[Ellis]

I'd also seriously look at scaff towers, I know you still shouldn't roll them with someone on top, but their larger work platform can make more lanterns accessible at once, thereby reducing the need for constant climbing.

Just too pick up on this point. Why are the ABTT hedging on moving 'scopes, but coming down firmly against moving zip-ups? (book at work so I can't give chap & verse) Given a sensible method statement and sensible height/base ratio surely there is no more, or perhaps even less, risk than moving a 'scope?

 

Are we again being hit with rules designed for the construction industry where towers are used outdoors, in the wind and a damned long way up the side of a building? Whereas in most cases in theatres they are used on a flat floor and with platforms at 3-5m. Granted some are significantly higher, but in the larger venues MEWP may be viable and better solutions all round.

 

Playing devils advocate, many theatres have raked stages. That is not level ground. The use of a ladder, Zarges or otherwise, on a raked stage is almost definately against the manufacturers instructions to use on a level surface. And how many Genies or cherry pickers instruction manuals say that they should be used on a level surface?

 

If God had meant us to work at heights, he would have given us the abllity to do it without access equipment!

 

Being realistic, manufacturers have to produce their instructions for the wider audience. Specific, minority users cannot be accomodated in the general instructions supplied with equipment. If we really want a solution to this, someone (the ABTT?) is going to have to convince either the HSE that there are specific situations where general manufacturers instructions should not apply, or convince the manufacturer to produce an application note detailling an alternative working practice that may be followed if a risk assessment identifies a greater risk from following the general working practice. That way the liability for the decision still lies with the risk assessor, not the manufacturer.

[andy_s]

If God had meant us to work at heights, he would have given us the abllity to do it without access equipment!

and He / She would have never let Westminster Abbey or St Pauls Cathedral (etc etc etc) be completed.

[paulears]

They did have a somewhat lax attitude to death in those days - Just look at the number of deaths during the railway, mining and tunneling industry in Isambards days - lost half a dozen navies? Get some more!

[Bryson]

Go on then, I'll bite.

 

I have a Tallescope. I'm looking into alternative solutions, but it's complex. I need to access 7.5-8m. I have a sprung floor, so I have a absolute weight limit. But I have time constraints.

 

If I'm honest, the reason why I'm looking at alternatives is because I can put less people on a show. I don't think the Tallescope is dangerous, if used "properly". There haven't been lots of accidents. If we all switched to genies tomorrow, we'd have the same accident rate.

 

The problem is, there doesn't seem to be a product that offers access to that height, that moves while you're up it, and weighs something sensible.

 

I'll say it again: the only thing in my opinion that is wrong with the Tallescope is that the manufacturer doesn't care about the needs of this market. But then tallescopes are made by Upright, who make...powered access. Smart move, Upright.

 

Sometimes I worry that the "Tallescope ban" will happen for real, everyone will have to buy Genies, and then, because they have no time, they'll try and move it while it's up. Something that would have caused no problem on a scope will end up killing someone.... And no, those people won't have been "in the right", and of course they were being stupid, but I really think it'll happen, and a nasty accident will have been occasioned by a manufacturer refusing to acknowledge a new way of using their product.

[Guest lightnix]

I'll say it again: the only thing in my opinion that is wrong with the Tallescope is that the manufacturer doesn't care about the needs of this market. But then tallescopes are made by Upright, who make...powered access. Smart move, Upright.

But entertainments represents such a tiny portion of the overall tallescope market and the product was never intended for use specifically in a show production environment. For them to change their product or it's instructions solely for the benefit of the entertainments market would be like... welll... the Blue Room opening a c0mput3r or d0m35t1c 3l3ctr1c5 forum, due to the insistance of just a dozen members.

 

Sometimes I worry that... everyone will have to buy Genies,... they'll try and move it while it's up... will end up killing someone... and a nasty accident will have been occasioned by a manufacturer refusing to acknowledge a new way of using their product.

Or maybe by the users ignoring the clearly-stated instructions (depending on which way you look at it).

 

I suppose that, if anybody, it's Genie that might be more open to suggestions from entertainments, given their touring roots, but again: it's such a tiny market in the global scheme of things, that it's simply not worth a large company taking the project on - the return on the investment to create the product would probably be too small to bother about it. Feel free to prove me wrong. If there are any budding engineering students out there who reckon they can design an alternative to the Tallescope which can be safely moved with someone up top, get it patented, have it pass worldwide product regs, get it made, marketed, be able to bang it out at a price the average penniless British rep theatre can afford and still make the venture worth the years of their time it will take to even bring such a product to the market, then I wish them all the best :huh:

 

[Devils Avocado]

On the other hand, an equally enterprising (if somewhat less scrupulous) soul could just as easily have a few hundred cheapo "Scope-a-like" products knocked up in China, with a manual that says it is safe to move the beast with someone in the basket and market it on that basis. I'm sure there would be several takers; from the discussions in these forums, there would appear to be a considerable market for such a work arou product :D

[/Devil's Avocado]

 

[Devil's Avocado 2]

Maybe another way forward here would be for "pro-movers" to be able to sign some kind of legally binding document, saying that they are knowingly ignoring the manufacturers' instuctions (and by default, PUWER) because they believe it is safe to do so. HOWEVER, should their assumption be proved wrong and an accident results, they agree in advance to offer no legal defence against any prosecutions or lawsuits which arise as a consequence. This might cause a few problems with insurers, though :blink:

[/Devil's Avocado 2]

[Just Some Bloke]

Suggestions for a new product:

 

Behringer UltraScope: movable access for all entertainment venues - only £99.99 from your nearest supplier! :blink:

 

More seriously, I agree entirely that more research needs to be done on this and, to start the ball rolling, have set up a poll on the lighting forum to see what happens at the moment. Perhaps all contributors would look here for pro venues or here for amateur venues and vote on what happens now. If anyone who has been involved in an accident from any form of access equipment would also like to PM me giving details, I will happily compile the information and pass it on (without names so anonymity can be preserved).

 

Thanks for your help.

[Rob]

You're going to have to find another way [and] whatever it is, be it pole operated lamps, scaff towers, Genies or anti-gravity harnesses

 

Maybe we need to be taking some lessons from television studios where pole operated lamps are common-place. Perhaps we need to be looking at making more equipment (especially profiles) focussable from the ground in order to minimise work at height. Obviously this won't be a viable solution for every venue, but it may well be a step in the right direction...

[andy_s]

But entertainments represents such a tiny portion of the overall tallescope market and the product was never intended for use specifically in a show production environment.

 

 

Maybe I just spend too much time at work, but I've only once seen a tallescope outside a theatre / entertainments environment. Have I had a sheltered life?

[Guest lightnix]

Not at all, but the lack of general visibility of Tallescopes in the wider world may also say something about the size of overall market for them, i.e. very small.

 

They may have they're uses, but be honest, they're not the most flexible access solution, or the most easily stored; not everybody has a room the size of a scene dock to put theirs in - a scaff tower (when broken down) takes up very little space.

 

As I said before, though: the main problem for everybody will be cost. The choice of either maintaining a "safe" crewing level of five people on a 'scope or replacing it with something else is really just a choice of whether you want to spend lots of money slowly or quickly. Maybe some effort would be better spent on campaigning for better Arts funding, so that the simple replacement of virtually obsolete kit isn't such a major issue in future :blink:

[Brian]

Maybe we need to be taking some lessons from television studios where pole operated lamps are common-place.

The problem with pole-op kit is the maximum length of pole. Over a certain length you get too much wobble and it's nigh-on impossible to use. Longest poles used to be around 4.5m.