German regs

[Ike]

Does anyone know if my lodestar L would need to be safetied under German BGV regulations section C1?

 

Thanks

Ike

[Guest lightnix]

Not sure, but you could try asking the VPLT, a kind of German PLASA/PSA type organisation. Click here for their English language home page.

 

Otherwise PM me and I can possibly put you in touch with an ex-pat rigger in the Munich area, who may be able to help or give you some pointers.

 

It might be worth booking a German rigging company if you are in any doubt. German regs are very strict these days and you may well find that you need some qualified German crew (such as a Bühnemeister) on site to be legal. I was told a couple of years ago that VGB70 is a system of rigging, not just a set of rules and tech specs; so just because your motors comply with the standard, doesn't automatically mean that the installation will be legal.

[ianl]

I very much doubt that it would specify that you must safety a motor. as far as I know no regulations specify the need for a secondry safety bond.

 

they generally talk about safe systems of work and "so as to prevent injury" and leave it up to the competent person to decide the correct / best way to do this.

 

yes secondary safeties are generally used for this purpose but are not necesarily the best or only way and possibly in some cases could be one of the worst ways ( calculations on shock loading the roof would need to be done to confirm whether a secondry safety bond would in fact be safe)

 

also before giving an opinion you would have to provide more information on the circumstances ( for instance no I do not think it would need to be safetied whilst in the flightcase)

[Guest lightnix]

As I suggested, you really need professional advice from qualified locals, not half-formed opinions from the Blue Room, in order to sort this out properly (no disrespect).

 

Don't mess with the TÃœV, they'll really do you over if you do.

[Ike]

All hoists not compliant with German regulation BGV section C1 must be safed (secured) against accidental malfunction, mechanical failure or sudden drop. In short: all motors must be safed!...So called "roller safeties" or inertia wheels are concidered poor alternatives and local authorities have the right to deny permission of use during performances.

 

The above quote is from the PSA. Thanks nix for the pointers, I will look into it further.

 

I am talking about suspending loads over a performance area.

[Guest lightnix]

I know that once upon a time safeties were not mandatory over the performance area, although I know for certain that this has changed and that identical safety levels for rigging apply regardless of whether it is over the turns or the punters.

 

Do let us know what you discover and the identities of any contacts you make, I'm sure it will be useful to many others in the future.

 

I very much doubt that it would specify that you must safety a motor. as far as I know no regulations specify the need for a secondry safety bond.

This next comment may not be in "the spirit of the Blue Room", ianl, but I hope I never wind up standing under one of your rigs :o

[Jivemaster]

Ron at PLASA has been studying this recently, inc sourcing an official translation of the regs. It may be worth the money to join plasa as an associate member ca. £55 pa to get the gen in writing

[Pete McCrea]

Having just done a bit of rigging training with a guy from Tomcat, along with my practical experience, I was under the impression that if using a Lodestar type chain hoist they don't need to be safetied, and that it's up to the riggers discretion. Also you need to consider the dynamic (shock) load that a fall onto a safety could impose on the point, and that this may over load the point past it's SWL.

 

Most of the rigging I've done of late hasn't required a safety, just dead hanging on the hoist.

[Wilf dLampy]

Situation: Truss hung using motors.

 

Stretching the theory a bit- each motor/chain system has two points of connection- the truss and the roof. The truss has two independent connection systems- the steels and the motor/chain systems. This satisfies the "redundant suspension method" for everything doesn't it?

 

Out of interest, could anyone point out where to attach the "safety" to their motor? I'm not convinced the chain-bag hook is a good idea.

[Pete McCrea]

Not entirely sure about what your saying the Wilf. If you mean that the truss has a pair of steel safetys running from SEPERATE points in the roof from to the truss onto seperate steels round the truss then yes it does have a "redundant suspension method". The idea of a safety is to provide a completely seperate system. So connecting a safety to the motor from the roof only safeties the motor. If I was rigging a truss with motors and safeties, then I'd look for points seperate from the motor roof point, and again seperate to the pick-up point on the truss. Then get the safeties so they aren't taking load, but so they aren't slack to minimise the shock loading IF there is a failure.

 

And no I'd never put a safety off the chain bag hook. It's not as far as I know load rated properly. It'd be from the hook point if you were gonna do it, i.e. the rated points of the motor.

 

And as always, if your not sure DON"T BL**DY DO IT!! Phone a friend, ask the audience, but make sure your a competent and confident that what you are doing is correct and safe.

[Rob]

A lot of people safety motors rigged 'motor down' by using a clutch chain attached to the motors hook which is then hooked back onto the lift chain. However, I don't belive any of the manufacturers certify their chain for use in this manner.

[Wilf dLampy]

If you mean that the truss has a pair of steel safetys running from SEPERATE points in the roof from to the truss onto seperate steels round the truss then yes it does have a "redundant suspension method".

Yes, the normal way of flying a truss.

[Tomo]

The way I think about the problem is considering what would happen if I cut any individual component of the suspension system - although I usually assume that truss is unbreakable, so long as suspension is limiting the loading rather than truss rating.

 

If any of them would cause a disastrous swing or a significant fall, redesign the rig.

 

I think this exceeds all the safety standards currently in force - but please correct me if I'm wrong!

 

Of course, shock loading on points is something that's very hard to calculate - the impulse is easy, but the actual peak force...

[Pete McCrea]

I thought that's what you meant Wilf, but wanted to clarify things.

 

Must admit that I've never seen the use of a clutch chain in the way you describe. Sounds........interesting. Not too sure how that would work, and whether it'd actually be any use, but I guess it depends where the hoist and chain fail (either the actual motor assembly or the chain).

 

Little DJ

[Ike]

Just to clear up I was not asking how to rig a chain hoist, but on the implications of BGV-C1 on this activity, ie. does a loadstar l comply and if not what does a hoist need in order to comply.

 

I am slowly getting there thanks to a couple of members through personal message, I'm being a bit slow due to lots of work at the moment so sorry if I don't reply immediately but I do appreciate your time.