Safety Steels

[SomaJ]

What is the specific requirements as laid out by law regarding safety steels?

 

Where can I find what the LAW says is actually required? Or are there just recommendations?

 

 

If, for arguments sake, a light or projector is attached to a lighting bar by a bolt through the projector frame to the Bar (not using a G-Clamp) then is a safety steel required?

[SoLiEn]

What is the specific requirements as laid out by law regarding safety steels?

 

Where can I find what the LAW says is actually required? Or are there just recommendations?

 

 

If, for arguments sake, a light or projector is attached to a lighting bar by a bolt through the projector frame to the Bar (not using a G-Clamp) then is a safety steel required?

 

You mean Safety Bonds?

 

I would ALWAYS use a safety bond. golden rule, always cover yourself.

 

edit:

 

Would the ABTT CoP have this in?

[paulears]

There is no law that says you have to have a secondary suspension. Cranes - that pick up tons of weight and wave it over peoples heads have just a single cable. We treat safety bonds (previously chains) as sensible, common sense precaution. I think a while back we talked about this and nobody could ever cite a case when a bolt snapped - but loads of people had cases where things like hook clamps had not been tightened up, and a piece of scenery, or the top of a ladder managed to dislodge them. If you do decide to use them - and I can't think of a sensible reason for not using them, is to remember that once you put them into service, they then need to be safe - so marking, labeling and record keeping need to be done properly. So there isn't a 'law' that says they are required, but any piece of 'lifting equipment' needs to be safe if you're intending to use it.

 

That all said - I'd personally rather use an old safety chain, than not use anything at all - but it's then on my own head (or hopefully,not!)

[Steve Cavill]

There is one piece of information that comes up time and time again about safties, and if I remember correctly, its something like, the fixture can only be allowed to fall a maximum of 200mm before the safety is as full length.

[dave_m]

Where can I find what the LAW says is actually required? Or are there just recommendations?

As has been said, there is no law that says you have to put a secondary on, but if you end up in court, try explaining to the judge why you haven't put a secondary on. "I didn't think it would fall" probably wouldn't cut it!

[Brian]

... try explaining to the judge why you haven't put a secondary on. "I didn't think it would fall" probably wouldn't cut it!

...Unless you had done a satisfactory and sufficient risk assessment that showed that the likelihood of the piece of equipment falling and causing harm was small. Because there is no law that says you must have them you won't be pulled up on it in court: what you will be questioned about is your decision not to use them. It's a subtle but important difference.

[SomaJ]

Thank you for your comments.

 

For me it is now very obvious that is better to include "Safties" on any installation. It is is a practice that I have always adhered to. I see many installations that dont have "Safties" so I queried this as a point of LAW.

 

NO LAW -- Therefore common sense prevails.

[beamwalker]

Thank you for your comments.

 

For me it is now very obvious that is better to include "Safties" on any installation. It is is a practice that I have always adhered to. I see many installations that dont have "Safties" so I queried this as a point of LAW.

 

NO LAW -- Therefore common sense prevails.

I think you would find if something feel the crown prosecution service and the HSE would ask was it reasonable to have a secondary fixing? Almost always the answer is yes, apparently they are happy if the unit has two clamps for it not to have a "safety bond"

[leofric]

usual contra to this post I am NOT a lawyer or qualified law practitioner.

 

As I understand it there is a significant difference in ENGLAND and WALES between criminal law , where things are legislated against and civil law which is all based on case law ie decisions made by a judge interpreting the legislation governing a subject. there may be case law regarding safety chains/bonds in fact given our industries compulsive use of them I think there probably is I none of us are old enough th to remember it.

 

That said I am aware that the common test in the interpretation of health and safety law seems to be

 

' what a reasonable person would do' in a given situation but it should be remembered that said reasonable person is not a technician but 'the man in the street' or 'the man on the Clapham omnibus'

 

So yes common séance and compliance with the regulations can possibly be seen as the same thin.

 

 

PS was the man on the Clapham omnibus in fact John Major an if so please disregard as a point of reference.

[Simon Lewis]

I suspect you may be confusing the legal device which asks "what would the reasonable man do?", with the phrase "as far as is reasonably practical", which (despite a challenge from the EU) "implies that that a computation must be made by the employer in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice in the measures necessary to avert the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other."

 

Although 'common sense' is a welcome attribute, most health and safety laws rely upon "competence" (i.e. an appropriate level of training, experience, knowledge and skill) and "best practicable means", i.e. the most appropriate technical method or the one which is recommended by recognised experts.

 

Incidentally, the fictional 'reasonable person' is not the "average man in the street" - the reasonable person is "appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded".

[SomaJ]

Whilst not being any LAW that I have seen or been informed of here or else where, the follow excerpt from the book appears to be as close as one can get to definative:

 

 

"Technical Standards for Places of Entertainment"

The District Surveyors Association

The Assosciation of British Theatre Technicians

ISBN 1 904031 05 6 (Revised January 2005) £30.00 + postage

 

 

Page K12 -

 

K2.31 clearly states:

 

Provided equipment has been rigged and tested appropriately, secondary suspensions should not normally be necessary. If there are any doubts about the quality of the installation it should be reinspected by a competent person and rectified if necessary. Providing a secondary suspension to an inadequate installation could easily promote a false sense of safety. However, non-combustible secondary suspensions such as as chains or steel wire bonds, should always be provided:

a:) for equipment such as luminaries and loudspeakers hug on bars using hook clamps or similar fittings where an accident with a piece of moving scenery might cause the equipment to be dislodged from the bar;

b:) where equipment is rigged temporarily;

c:) where a combustible suspension, for example a fibre rope or a textile sling, has been used for convenience when rigging equipment.

Note: This does not apply to backcloths, drops and similar items rigged in the 'hemp house' where combustible suspensions are acceptable for all bars other than those used to suspend luminaries.

[Shez]

Note: This does not apply to backcloths, drops and similar items rigged in the 'hemp house' where combustible suspensions are acceptable for all bars other than those used to suspend luminaries.

 

Does this mean that lanterns should never be rigged on hemp flown bars? I've been in more than one hemp house where there was no alternative... :D

[LeeStoddart]

I certainly fly luminaires on hemp sets. Until recently our theatre was 98% hemp, the exception being the winched LX1 bar. I do use safety bonds on all lanterns flown on bars (and on barn doors too) but have not considered it necessary to have a secondary suspension mechanism for the bars themselves.

 

(edit - back on the spelling topic isn't it annoying that the spell check doesn't have luminaire but does have luminary)