Opera house ban moving of tallescope

[david.elsbury]

The driveable JLG you are referring to is an Axxessor and is a VPP (vertical personnel platform) as opposed to the fixed IWP types. *snip*

 

That's what I meant. An Axxessor.

[Bryson]

Just to try and keep it clear. The driveable JLG you are referring to is an Axxessor and is a VPP (vertical personnel platform) as opposed to the fixed IWP types. It requires a different type of training from IPAF (my licence is for VPP's)

 

 

Actually, the IWP range is a type of VPP. I'll explain. IWP is a brand name. VPP is a generic name for vertical mast-type work platforms, inclusive of the fixed IWP/AWP type and the JLG Axxcessor range. (Among others.) I quote from the IPAF site:

 

Categories of MEWP -

 

Scissor Lift (SL)

Self Propelled Boom (SPB)

Vehicle Mounted Platform to 26m (VMP26)

Vehicle Mounted Platform over 26m (VMP100)

Insulated Aerial Device (IAD)

Trailer/Push Around (TP)

Vertical Personnel Platform (VPP)

Unusual model machines. (SPECIAL)

 

Mast Climbing Work Platform (MCWP) -

 

Someone will need to check with IPAF if your IPAF card counts for a self-propelled VPP if you did the training on a static one. (And vice versa.)

 

An issue not mentioned previously is that the self-propelled VPPs don't go high enough for most people. 6-7m is the max for them. (Which is a shame. I'd buy one tomorrow if I could get to 10m on it. As it is, it looks like I'll have to get an AWP, as the IWP doesn't fit in the lift. And if you think the IWP is slow, the AWP is glacial.)

[MarkPAman]

Hi All

 

ESCA 2000

It can be moved without the operator having to climb down and requires no assistance or power.

 

The theatre at work has had one for 6 months or so and I believe they are very happy with it.

 

Web site http://www.esca2000.co.uk/

 

And old Blue Room thread http://www.blue-room.org.uk/lofiversion/index.php/t4417.html

 

Not a solution to all problems, but could help some.

[Chris Higgs]

IWP is often used to mean Individual Work Platform (one user, such as a Genie Easy-Up) to distinguish from a MEWP which typically can accommodate 2 or more.

I suppose one could therefore have a MIWP these days, too.

The more types of access plant that get developed, the more we'll need to be careful when we refer to them.

[limelight]

Long and interesting thread - thought I'd add some thoughts. I personally think that a tallescope CAN be moved safely with a person in the basket, when this is done in a controlled environment with experienced and competent staff in the right circumstances, i.e. flat surface, little or no rake, enough personnel at the base etc.

 

I understood from my H&S training that the purpose of a Risk Assessment and ensuing action was to produce a method of work that was not only considered safe, but also importantly both "reasonably practicable" and that in the real world would be used by the employees. Therefore, introducing a practice which is not followed by staff (as L'pool, move the scope when nobody is looking) or which prevents the work from being completed in a reasonable amount of time using a reasonable staffing level goes against what might be considered good practice. If we are not allowed to come up with solutions to H&S problems that are inventive, practical and address the risks, using the skills and knowledge of the staff involved (as legislation stipulates) than what is the point of doing risk assessments? We would need to call in the HSE for all our assessments! OK, exaggerating a little, but you get my point I hope.

 

As a "reasonably practicable" solution that addresses the issue, I'd advocate a second point of contact approach, where the person at the top of the tallescope wears a harness and attaches to a second point (such as an empty c/w bar) and is only moved while clipped on to this second point. We use the system here, and it works petty well, only slowing the focus slightly. We've tested rescue methods (no we didn't deliberately tip the 'scope!!) and the choice of secondary point is governed by rescue capability.

 

As to accidents - I personally know one technician who came to grief on a foreign tour, but it was on a last minute rush job with an inexperienced local crew at the bottom on an uneven floor. I would contend that as stated before on this thread, the few accidents that occur are generally caused by poor or stupid use of the 'scope, by inexperienced and/or untrained staff. Incidentally, the technician who fell has seen our method here and heartily approves.

 

I think we have to find a method for 'scope usage that works - it is sometimes the only way to get to lights for focussing. Sure, perhaps it could be phased out and new methods brought in with new buildings and productions, but we have to address the here and now, and the reality of the shows and buildings we work with.

[Chris Higgs]

I think the use of any PPE in a 'scope has to be viewed with great caution. We did consider it carefully in the ABTT draft code of practice and I wouldn't rule it out, however there are two concerns.

Firstly, would it work if the 'scope did suddenly fail for whatever reason?

Typically a counterweight bar, even empty, is not designed to sustain a potentially large force. True it does depend on the circumstance, but it isn't always possible to have a 'spare' bar a metre above your head, and you certainly don't want to allow a snagged lanyard to create a destabilising lateral force on you at the top of the 'scope.

Secondly, let's suppose it didn't work, would the insurance stand given the non-standard use of the PPE?

We did think that in certain situations it would work where the anchor was rigid (perhaps a fixed pipe grid as opposed to a bar trimmed 10m below its suspension point) and when using an adjustable lanyard that ensures the fall distance is negligible. The need to recover the person is then the issue, and how to reach the person who is suspended above the now (potentially) dead Tallescope. Not to say it's impossible, but the whole situation needs careful consideration before being adopted as a safe system of work.

Using inertia reels in a central position (shudder), or a horizontal line with a fall arrest device that travels along it (bigger shudder) or even a dynamic belay (even bigger shudder) have been mooted in the past. This will almost certainly create a bigger hazard than using the 'scope in the traditional mobile manner.

[chrisfromtaunton]

HSE Have done research on falling from ladders, the "actors" were all wearing bungee type harnesses. For this and other reasons as you will know HSE have not banned ladders - they merely ask for a risk assessment. I've created a small fast one - if anyone wants a copy for their own use mail me clp@taunton83.freeserve.co.uk

 

Regarding falling from tallescopes - you need to justify moving it when manned either by a bit of applied physics proving that it can't fall over (spect that depends on how heavy and how fast you push!) or make your own educated guess.

 

Just for the record - how many incidents of falling from tallescopes have there been - anyone know of one ?

 

What was the injured person doing ?

 

Were they sober ?

 

Was the scope being pushed.

 

To a non theatre person like me (I'm a H&S consultant) they look like a brill idea that is basically safe for the environment it is ues in.

[paulears]

Chris,

The tallescope story is a very old, complicated and fraught one. Have a search on the BR for tallescope and have a read (and a weep, too).

 

Chris Higgs and Will Hill from the Theatre Royal knowledge are two people, amongst others who are pretty expert in this rather difficult area.

 

I won't even attempt tp paraphrase the zillions of posts - but the issue seems to be that the manufacturer of the tallescope sell a small proportion of their output into theatres, with our own very particular requirements and have stated that they don't consider them suitable for being moved with somebody in the basket. As the manufacturer, their statement leads many licencing officers to ignor common sense, personally derived risk assessments on the basis that the people who build them, know best! I'm also not quite sure what an "educated guess" has to do with safety? Doesn't look very good standing in court and saying "educated guess, M'lud?"

Paul

[chrisfromtaunton]

Educated guess means one which w'ont end up in court. If there actually is a risk of falling when moving then the manufacturers are quite right. Educated guess is a risk assessment with High Medium or Low as far as the competent person is concerned, taking into account what the surface is like that you are pushing over etc.

 

Has anyone used the Esca 2000 thingy or is it just not high enough - its designed for the man on the platform to wiggle it along.

[paulears]

Well, guess is "To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information."

so adding educated, still leaves insufficient. So in my risk assessment book, the word guess can't be included.

[ampcats]

Has anyone used the Esca 2000 thingy

 

It has been mentioned on here before, but not until your post did I realise it was mobile with the user at the top.... thinking the wheels were just for use unladen... and thought it was just an overblown warehouse ladder...

 

With this in mind, I've just scared myself looking at it... at least a tallescope has a reasonable amount of weight at the bottom and outriggers - with those things, all the weight is at the top, and judging by the two 6 inch bits they take out to get it through doorways, they look no wider than a zarges foot - and they expect me to wiggle around a room at the top?

 

In the testimonials, someone from northumberland county council says it is useful 'for all sorts of jobs around the schools – and on uneven surfaces outside.'... !

 

The videos are scarier - in one the man is looking up at the ceiling, not for obstructions on the ground, and running over cables in the other

 

I know which one I'd rather risk my neck in....

 

have just looked at the photo gallery - the taller ones are wider at the base than the one in the video I referred to, but above line still holds true...

[Andrew C]

have just looked at the photo gallery - the taller ones are wider at the base than the one in the video I referred to, but above line still holds true...

From memory, to get a taller one you add sections at the base. By definition widening the footprint as you go. I looked quite closely at it at ABTT and was reasonably impressed.

[andy_s]

I test drove an esca 2000 at the ABTT - not at full height, but probably with my feet at about 2.5m up. It felt very stable apart from the changing direction procedure, which was fine once you knew what to expect. certainly for travelling and once in position, it felt pretty solid - about the same as a good stepladder I'd say, with less movement than a 'scope. Can't say whether this impression still holds true for the taller version, but nothing in the design would lead me to expect otherwise. My main problem would be the size of the footprint which as Andrew says gets wider the higher you go, and as far as I could tell, to work on uneven or sloping surfaces seemed to involve more complicated adaptation than a 'scope, so I think the tallescope still fits our bill better for working on stage.

[MarkPAman]

Esca 2000

 

I got them to let me "have a play" in the college theatre where I work. Platform hight of this one is about 3m I think.

 

To move it you push down on a foot pedal, then turn the "handlebars" from side to side. It is possible to turn the handlebars through 360, so that you can turn the thing around, or even move backwards. Once you are used to the way it moves it feels very safe and stable; better than a tallescope IIRC. Although the footprint is quite wide, it looks to me to be smaller than a scope (also 3m) with the outriggers in position.

 

It is possible fold it flat against a wall like a step ladder in a couple of minuets, or take it apart and put it in the back of a car.

 

At the moment, I don't work higher than the drum riser! If this changes in the future, this is the product I will go for.

 

Hmm this is all a bit positive. I have no connection with the company, just think it's a clever idea.

[ianl]

Has anyone used the Esca 2000 thingy

 

 

I tested one, I hated it, I'm reasonably heavy (a bit over 100kg) and I found it really hard work to use and by the time I had gone the length of a lighting bar my arms were killing me

 

I also thought it felt unstable but would probably get used to that

 

yes it will fold into a big car but is fiddly and time consuming