Freelancers & Risk Assessments

[colinmonk]

We're not discussing RAs for a performance situation - of course individual shows are all different

 

Gareth seems as your originally wide area using the title "Risk Assesments", has now been given some context. As in you are now talking about focussing a lantern, etc... not producing a risk assesment for a specific job! Which is where my points are coming from, and which is why I dont believe you can copy and paste the same RA for each job!

 

Simple little things like focussing a lantern, or cable runs, yes are the same, agreed but they do have variables. But im talking about taking that production or job on its own and looking for the associated risks specific to it, like access, access equipment, crew, weights, equipment, etc...

 

bryson

No - you're assessing a method of work

Would that not be a method statement?

[SparkySteve]

Gareth, I have to ask ... have you actually read and digested my previous post in this thread before replying? Evidence suggests not ...

 

Like I said ... no two jobs are exactly the same.... focussing off the top of zarges might be the same task, but the risks can and do change..... for example, zarges on a raked stage is completely different compared to a flat stage, surely that should go in the uncut and unpasted RA as it is a whole different set of risks, it all depends on the circumstances.... which change every time we do something

[gareth]

ok - the point of a risk assesment is not too get in the good books of a HSE inspector is it? No! Therefore you dont jus produce a risk assesment on the basis that (s)he may ask for one. The risk assesment is there to help you reduce risks and ensure that all people around you understand them and work safely.

But if the brown stuff hits the whirly thing, H&S person is going to want to see evidence that proper consideration has been given to minimising risk as far as is reasonably practical - some relevant and properly-produced paperwork is going to be pretty useful in getting on their good side then. The fact that the risks and controls that you've documented for the prodedure of, say, rigging a counterweight LX bar on the job in question are identical to those which you documented for the last job isn't going to matter one jot. The important thing is that they've been considered at some point.

[colinmonk]

But thats not the point of a Risk Assesment, I dont care really if thats how you want to work, because at the end of the day its only you it affects!

 

Your wasting your time if your not going to produce it properly!

And as a freelancer as I said the Production Company will also be producing a Production Risk Assesment, of which will be provided for the Client, HSE etc...

 

You do your own one as well if you are in a position that you can produce one that actually has some use, but you have to asses the risks per job!

[gareth]

I can see we're confusing terminology here - our Rose Bruford friends are defining a risk assessment as being a complete set of RA paperwork pertaining to a job, whilst Bryson and myself are defining a RA as being an assessment of one specific isolated task. Either is valid, but the exact criteria as applied to one definition don't appear to be 100% portable to the other.

 

The long and short of it seems to be that Bryson and myself have been producing risk assessments in the course of our work for quite some time, we evidently have developed our own individual way of doing it, and that's the way we choose to work. Whatever Rosie B has taught you to do, I'm sure that's equally valid, and you're perfectly justified in doing it that way. I think you'd be hard-put to find two people or organisations who create risk assessments in exactly the same way and following exactly the same rules and criteria, but as long as due consideration has been given to any element which requires it, then the job's a good 'un.

[Bryson]

Would that not be a method statement?

 

No, it wouldn't. It would be an assessment of the work described in that method statement.

 

associated risks specific to it, like access, access equipment, crew, weights, equipment, etc...

 

All of which are frequently used in standardised ways.

 

Gareth seems as your originally wide area using the title "Risk Assesments", has now been given some context. As in you are now talking about focussing a lantern, etc.

 

Most jobs are simply comprised of a number of these simple, standardised tasks joined together.

 

Seriously, though, folks, if you want to write a brand new assessment for every job I applaud you. I think you're wasting your time as standardised risk assessments will cover a majority of the jobs you do, but it's your time to waste.

 

The crux of my argument or position is this: Every job will get it's own individual risk assessment in my head. Frequently, the conclusion of that assessment is: it's already covered in my "standing" assessments. If that isn't the conclusion, but only then, I'll write something to deal with it. .This procedure is quick, easy and reasonably practicable. I would suggest that your system is not.

[SparkySteve]

our Rose Bruford friends

Completely irrelevant!

 

I think you'd be hard-put to find two people or organisations who create risk assessments in exactly the same way and following exactly the same rules and criteria, but as long as due consideration has been given to any element which requires it, then the job's a good 'un.

 

hmmmm that sounds so much like my argument for not copying ra's because everything is different!! people and things are different... so should risk assessments!

[colinmonk]

Ok Gareth - lets jus point this one out ok, im not talking from a "Rose Bruford" head here, im talking from a "Freelance" Head within our industry!

 

I have worked many a job, do all sorts, TV, Theatre, Corporate, Touring, Concert, Events, Architectual etc... whatever ok. So I know what is required when producing a Risk Assesment!

 

You and Bryson arent the only people in the industry, I accept you have your way of doing things and thats fine, but im pointing out the role of an RA! And why it is an important part of our job!

 

Also as a side note - Bryson if that brown stuff does hit the whirly thing like Gareth describes, and that risk is "mentally assesed" do you think your HSE officer, who will investigate will accept that as an excuse.

 

" Er sorry guv, but I thought about it, but couldnt be bothered to write it down "

Dont think so!

[gareth]

our Rose Bruford friends

Completely irrelevant!

No relevance to the discussion in hand is implied - but both of your profiles state that you're Rose Bruford students, and I just happened to refer to you as such. Apologies if I've offended you in this.

 

I think you'd be hard-put to find two people or organisations who create risk assessments in exactly the same way and following exactly the same rules and criteria, but as long as due consideration has been given to any element which requires it, then the job's a good 'un.

 

hmmmm that sounds so much like my argument for not copying ra's because everything is different!! people and things are different... so should risk assessments!

 

Not really - my point is that as long as a set of risk assessments for a particular environment or job takes into account any risks which that job is likely to present, then it's work is done. Whether or not you choose to assess every individual task from scratch on every occasion is up to you. As Bryson has said, if you have the time and inclination to do that, then great - more power to your elbow. Personally, if I know that a job will involve using a Zarges on a rake (to pick up on the example you cited), and I have already assessed the risks involved in that operation on a previous occassion, then I will use that information again rather than covering old ground unnecessarily.

 

No-one's claiming to be the "be-all and end-all" of anything - I'm just saying that you can't completely discount the recycling of some elements of risk assessment paperwork when the circumstances permit. That's not what you choose to do, and that's fine - but your way is not the only way. (Neither is mine, but I've never suggested otherwise.)

[Bryson]

Woah there, Colin. Let's not get personal. It's a discussion board. We are discussing things. The Rose Bruford reference is relevant - that's where your training (and therefore, use of terminology) comes from. Neither myself or Gareth have ever claimed to be the "be all and end all" as you so charmingly state it. We may have implied, as is the case, that we have more practical experience of this area of work, but that is all. People are allowed to disagree with you.

 

And please, Colin, read my posts: I do not only mentally risk assess things - I decide whether or not it's already covered, and if it is, don't write it down again. But it was written down in the first place.

 

For your information, last year we were unfortunate enough to have an accident with a performer, and my Risk Assessments received the full treatment. Nothing was found wanting.

[colinmonk]

our Rose Bruford friends

 

The reason it possibly caused offence is maybe because you tried to use it in a be-littling way? Because we are studying at Rose Bruford we dont know the industry of which we are active in?

My use of teminology doesnt just come from RB, it also comes from working in the industry and working with various different people in different locations. TV, Theatre, Exhibition Halls, Hotels, Air Craft Hangers, etc...

 

I didnt discount that some "elements" such as, hanging a lantern on a truss with a primary and secondary fixing point cant be re-used because they can.

 

The part I am in disagreement with is the we can use the same risk assesment for all our jobs and make mental notes of the bits that maybe different, because that isnt fullfilling the aims of a risk assesment is it? If that isnt what you meant then I interpreted your post wrongly. Sorry!

 

 

 

ps: be all and end all removed

[SparkySteve]

ok, can I ask a question.... it might seem total irrelevant, if so just humour me.

 

would you, or have you ever "recycled (i.e. cut and pasted)" from another show from an ld's point of view, sound, effects whatever?? have you ever re-used parts of plans because they looked good in xxx show?

 

secondly,

 

 

Every job will get it's own individual risk assessment in my head

whats wrong with putting it on paper and sending in a nice crispy new job specified risk assessment for each job??

 

Some content removed out of respect - apologies, steve

[gareth]

our Rose Bruford friends

 

The reason it possibly caused offence is maybe because you tried to use it in a be-littling way? Because we are studying at Rose Bruford we dont know the industry of which we are active in?

If you read it as be-littling, then apologies. And there was no suggestion of not knowing the industry within which you are active. The fact that you are arguing your case so strongly for your particular method of risk assessment suggests to me that it's something in which you place a great deal of store based on solid practical experience, and that's to be respected. As I said - more power to your elbow. But sas you yourself have said, there's no definitive right or wrong way, and I'm as entitled to champion my method as you are yours. You do it your way, we'll do it our way, and everyone's happy.

 

Personally, although I am sorry to hear of Bryson's 'performer-related incident', I'm glad that it sounds as though it all turned out OK, not to mention encouraged to hear that someone whose strategy of risk assessment seems to bear more than a passing similarity to mine has been given a 'clean bill of health' by the HSE.

[Bryson]

would you, or have you ever "recycled (i.e. cut and pasted)" from another show from an ld's point of view, sound, effects whatever?? have you ever re-used parts of plans because they looked good in xxx show?

 

Absolutely. If the FOH cover covers, I'll leave it there. I get plans all the time that say: we'll use whatever FOH cover you use. Why do that? It's more efficient, but just as effective.

 

with no offence intended (lets just get the no offence bit clear - I would deeply hate to get another warning for launching personal attacks) from your last few posts I really do get the impression that if the brown stuff does hit the swirly thing, you don't really care unless your backs covered... I could be completely wrong and this isn't intended as a "personal  attack".... but it is actually very frightening and concerning looking back over the posts

 

Indeed, you are completely wrong. Have you ever watched the Fast Show with the "no offence" woman on it? :** laughs out loud **: I'll leave that point there and let you think about exactly what you accused myself and Gareth of.

 

you've got paperwork thrown together from previous gigs, events, whatever.... I get the impression that if you can get off from a charge because you've got crap paperwork your happt to do that because in their eyes you've done the job right.... it isn't necassarily about that, its about going through the tasks and risks yourself and making yourself aware about what is happening

 

But, and I can only explain this one more time before I give up, the paperwork is not "thrown together" it is prepared in a slightly different way, with great care, to cover more than one event. I agree entirely with your interpretation of what the RA is for, but I disagree that you have to prepare a new one for every event.

 

but whats wrong with putting it on paper and sending in a nice crispy new job specified risk assessment for each job??

 

Because, as I have repeatedly stated, that isn't an efficient or useful use of time.

[SparkySteve]

QUOTE 

with no offence intended (lets just get the no offence bit clear - I would deeply hate to get another warning for launching personal attacks) from your last few posts I really do get the impression that if the brown stuff does hit the swirly thing, you don't really care unless your backs covered... I could be completely wrong and this isn't intended as a "personal  attack".... but it is actually very frightening and concerning looking back over the posts

 

 

 

Indeed, you are completely wrong. Have you ever watched the Fast Show with the "no offence" woman on it?  I'll leave that point there and let you think about exactly what you accused myself and Gareth of.

 

ok, I'll admit, I probably am wrong, I've got no problem with that, but all I'm saying is from my perception of these posts I get this impression, I was actually gonna go back and elaborate I bit more but forgot to... anyway, my point isi would never accuse anyone outright of anything, unless I had seen it first hand, hence I wasn't actually accusing either of you of anything, jus merely a misinterpretation of words on my behalf and yours