Motorised Flying

[theatrcymraeglampy]

Hey All,

 

 

I was recently told that a Chiropractor in Sweden I think it was researched into the loading of counterweight flying systems, and found out and detailed how bad it was, and that this is now why the EU is making it compulsory in some countries, can anyone shed any light on this please?

 

 

Theatr Cymreag Lampy

[paulears]

this article in the stage is on the subject. As of today, we now have our LX1 and 2 bars of power winches as a result of a heath and safety visit - a manual winch which would have been ok for us, was deemed too labour intensive, so now we have buttons.

[robloxley]

See also http://www.auditoria.tv/index.php?page=news&id=1401 particularly with reference to recent changes in Holland, which are as near to 'banning' (I assume you didn't mean 'compulsory'!) counterweight systems as I've heard of.

Obviously the Manual Handling Regulations come into play in the UK, not just with the weight but the repetitive nature of the task.

Sadly motorised live-flying systems are out of the reach of most budgets, but I'd agree with Paul re motorised winches for LX bars, which are a different kettle of fish.

[Anton_Woodward]

The banning of counterweight systems in Holland is actually implementing an EU standard that we also have in the UK, it just isn't intepreted the same way (yet). It is primarily to do with the twisting of the back whilst loading counterweights and the possible future litigation for subsequent back injury if theatres are not doing all they can to 'reasonably' prevent the injuries. The days of counterweight systems are definitely numbered, but I would say that as I manufacture powered flying systems!

[Nick Evans]

I wonder if anyone has actually studied the frequency of incidents involving motorised flying vs. counterweight flying?

[Anton_Woodward]

I wonder if anyone has actually studied the frequency of incidents involving motorised flying vs. counterweight flying?

 

I did try once, in order to comply with IEC61508, as you have to provide statistical data to back up your risk assessment as it is an objective (rather than subjectve) assessment, however, nobody has been killed with either method of flying, so there isn't any useful data.

[Seano]

That stage article is essentially an advert for a retro-fit powered flying system - hardly impartial journalism.

 

Some of the numbers in that 'auditoria' article seem like a bit of a stretch too. The average show in a medium size theatre involves hanging 9 tonnes? A single loader in a touring house shifting 20 tonnes (ie: 2 thousand weights) over a weekend? Is that really representative of what is going on out there?

 

The latter article mentions that powered flying may enable one flyman to do the work of 5 working traditional counterweight sets. Thats just great. But lets not forget this also means that one flyman, momentarily distracted, can do the damage that 5 traditional flyman can only achieve if they all spectacularly feck up at the same instant.

 

Sean

x

[Grahame]

I feel we still have a way to go before power flying becomes the norm. Loading considerations aside, power systems still have issues with operational safety and reliability. I've yet to meet a power flying system that can sense when the bar is hitting an obstruction on the way in and stop! I've seen a lot of crunched scenery and bent flying bars in power systems.

And a case in point - I was at a certain recently refurbished London venue at the start of the year which had power flying (venue shall remain nameless to protect the guilty). Loading and getting bars into the grid was an absolute joy - none of that hanging on ropes on the end of the bars business to compensate for the overloading on big flying pieces. Show rigged, the crew break to leave the evening session to the lampys.

But then next day we were told that it would take 2+ hours to program the flying system to run the scene changes, which resulted in the stage having to be cleared and work stopped until this was done (we had not been warned about this in advance, so that time was not scheduled). The dress rehearsal consequently started about an hour later than planned.

Then in the performance. during the most critical flying change of the show, the system stopped. Nothing moved. The stage is in half blackout, the orchestra are nervously vamping on, wondering if we're going to have to stop the show, and it was a most agonising 30 seconds or so before system was reset and the offending piece of scenery finally deigned to fly out.

 

My point is that control is a lot more immediate when you have a man actually pulling on the rope, not pushing a button. And a man pulling a rope can tell when a flying piece hits something and (usually) will not continue to try and get it in. I think in general terms, manual flying is still "safer" than power systems at the current level of technology. I'm quite prepared to be proved wrong though...

[erroneousblack]

My point is that control is a lot more immediate when you have a man actually pulling on the rope, not pushing a button. And a man pulling a rope can tell when a flying piece hits something and (usually) will not continue to try and get it in. I think in general terms, manual flying is still "safer" than power systems at the current level of technology. I'm quite prepared to be proved wrong though...

 

Check out Hall's DGS system, it has software that recognises obstruction flying either in or out. It will stop and receed then wait for over-ride before continuing. Had it demonstrated to me at PLASA, cost is an implication, but they do various finance packages. Well worth checking out.

[trussmonkey]

I've yet to meet a power flying system that can sense when the bar is hitting an obstruction on the way in and stop! I've seen a lot of crunched scenery and bent flying bars in power systems.

 

if you check out Kinesys K2 control system they have a collision warning system built in.

 

My point is that control is a lot more immediate when you have a man actually pulling on the rope, not pushing a button. And a man pulling a rope can tell when a flying piece hits something and (usually) will not continue to try and get it in. I think in general terms, manual flying is still "safer" than power systems at the current level of technology. I'm quite prepared to be proved wrong though

 

control systems these days have all sorts of fail safes built in to stop collisions happening (see above point). I agree that the initial set up might take a little more time but if known in advance can be built into the schedule. I am believe that manual flying is not as safe as powered flying. If your man/woman on the fly floor has a 'moment', heart attack, spasm or whatever he can realistically loose control of the rope/set piece he is in control of. How is this safe??? With powered flying the system can be set up to act in one of the following ways

 

1) have a dead mans switch built into the system where by if the button is released the system stops moving

2) when the 'GO' button is released the system stops moving.

 

I would check out the Kinesys website for their range of intelligent flying control systems.

 

http://www.kinesys.co.uk/

 

TM

[Anton_Woodward]

All scenery hoists and lighting bars should have slack rope detection that stop the hoist in the downward direction and an overload device, preferably a load cell, to detect overload and stop it in the up direction. In addition a move must not be started unintentionally, the operator must be able to see the piece being moved and the emergency stop system must be to Category 4 by EN954-1. These are not 'nice to haves' but mandatory.

[trussmonkey]

dont recall anyone using the phrase 'nice to haves' !!!

 

we were just discussing the pros and cons of manual vs powered flying. Of course slack rope/chain detection is necessary. of course the e stop should conform, of course the operator should have line of sight. these are all elements that are part of any good and safe powered flying system.

[Bryson]

How does "Slack Rope/chain" detection;

 

A: Work when you're trying to deck something?

B: Actually make anything safer? (As in, it'll only operate when it has already hit something.)

 

Just wondered.

[mumbles]

B: Actually make anything safer? (As in, it'll only operate when it has already hit something.)

 

Just wondered.

That was what I thought, as in order to have slack on the rope/chain, the weight of the scenery must be being taken by whatever it is resting on. So, the set flies in, lands on a cast member, and said cast memebr is squashed, but it's all ok as the machine has stopped it moving. :P

 

Have I got the wrong end of the stick here? or is this the case...

[Seano]

How does "Slack Rope/chain" detection;

 

A: Work when you're trying to deck something?

B: Actually make anything safer? (As in, it'll only operate when it has already hit something.)

 

A: It doesn't, you need to override it in order to deck something (on a load-out for example).

 

B: Well, quite. I guess its something that may prevent the full weight of a piece from coming to bear on something its snagged on - but if there's an impact as it hits something, the inertia of the moving piece is another matter. Funnily enough, its exactly the same situation with a correctly balanced counterweight bar.

 

I'd say the same to Trussmonkey's comments on counterweight flying - a correctly loaded counterweight bar does not plummet to earth the second you take your eye off it, even if the brake has been released. I don't think the likelyhood of a flyman being struck down with illness the instant he's set something rocketing towards the stage is significantly higher than that of an automation op having a petit mal epileptic fit and leaning on a dead man's handle as carnage ensues. But feel free to prove me wrong, counterweight flying has been around for long enough that if you're right, the trail of destruction really shouldn't be that hard to find! :P

 

In the short term at least, I suspect a rapid migration to powered flying would result in carnage. Nothing to do with the kit, merely that there are a great many skilled, conscientious flymen out there. Automation operators of a similar standard are *very* much harder to find - they need the technical aptitude of an lx board op, but have to maintain a *very* much lower error rate. I mean no disrespect to board ops, but can you imagine if every unintentional DBO or skipped cue resulting in splintering wood, screaming thespians and headlines in the local paper?

 

If there really is going to be a mass migration from counterweights to power, I hope its good and slow - there's going to have to be a *lot* of retraining going on. Of course theatres are all such great employers that we don't even have to worry about their being ready to invest in a lot of training for their staff, right?

 

Sean

x

 

edit: Mumbles, I was writing my post as you were posting yours. Of course it won't prevent a piece from hitting a member of the cast, but it could well make the difference between an injured cast member and a dead one. The same care needs to be taken as with counterweights, its a stage management issue.