German regs

[Chris Higgs]

AFAIK, BGV-C1 replaces VBG 70.

I don't think (unless working in Germany!!) that you need to worry about the standard in terms of compliance, although the thinking is good (and not unique to Germany, either).

We will soon have a British Standard which (in my view, but I am on the committee) is better and less onerous technically - BS 7906 Part 1.

British Standard Code of Practice for the use of lifting equipment for performance, broadcast and similar applications.

 

I am fairly certain VBG 70 was conceived to protect people (typically the public)when required to be under a moving lighting system in TV studios and no other method of enhancing security was possible.

As far as we in the UK are concerned, LOLER requires employers to ensure that loads cannot be released unintentionally, and that where loads need to be suspended overhead and in similar situations, extra precautions are taken.

Because the regs are 'goal setting', we can decide how best to do it.

As L'nix (sort of) said, if you need to ask, you clearly aren't competent to decide how to achieve it.

With regard to 'where safeties need to be attached' both top and bottom - guys, please don't speculate. There is no way on this Earth you can 'safety' to the chain bag anchor, and why would you ever think of doing it? Likewise the other nonsense about safetries and steels. Sorry all, but there it is.

As I have said before here and elsewhere, again at the risk of being rude, this is serious stuff with potentially serious (and possibly criminal) implications for you and your employer.

I am quite happy to elucidate, but do not wish to be any more overbearing than I have been already...........

[Pete McCrea]

It's good that we have the likes of yourself in the forum to make sure that the point is put across. It is a risky, potentialy criminal law offending job. If you don't know, don't do.

 

Is there any way of looking at the new BS?

[Ike]

The reason I asked was party out of curiosity. I have just come back from working in Germany and couldn't help biut notice all chain hoists, controlers etc were labeled as BGV-C1 complient. I spent some time talking to a rigger about it however we didnt get very far as my german was non existant and, although good, his english didn't extend to explaining the complexaties of such regulations.

 

I'm sure we are all aware that rigging can be dangerous, just as electrical or pyrotechnic work can.

[Chris Higgs]

I hope I haven't given the impression that "people don't realise that this stuff is dangerous" - that would be silly, they know it may seriously injure or kill someone.

However, it is extremely worrying to see folks who clearly don't realise what their legal liability is, or have any insurance to cover it apart from clearly no idea how to do the job.

One of the first things an enforcement person will want to know is who gave the instructions on how to do the work (that went wrong, for example).

Inexperience I can handle, but 'the blind leading the blind' is a worry.

I hope you never discover the hard way, but I believe in telling it like it is so nobody gets nasty shocks.

Do us all a favour - a quick membership survey?

Check your policies - are you covered for lighting (or whatever) including the lifting/suspension of it?

Perhaps also check the bit that is concerned with work at height and access equipment.

Please post results or e mail me???.............

[Chris Higgs]

It's good that we have the likes of yourself in the forum to make sure that the point is put across. It is a risky, potentialy criminal law offending job. If you don't know, don't do.

 

Is there any way of looking at the new BS?

BS7906 wil be published later this year (at a guess) as it had its public consultation

recently.

BS7905 part 1 covers the spec for equipment used over stage, part 2 is for trusses and towers. Both are published standards.

BS7906 part 1 is the draft code of practice for the use of that equipment, part 2 is the published BS CoP for trusses and towers.

You can buy them from BSI or via ABTT or PLASA.

[Guest lightnix]

As L'nix (sort of) said...

Thanks Chris, you put it so much better than I ever could :(

 

I think the moral of this tale is: Hire a competent rigger to do it for you.

[Ike]

My PLI policy does cover lifting and suspension however there is a £1000 excess and £2000 if it involves lifting or suspending anything above the public.

[Guest lightnix]

My PLI policy does cover lifting and suspension...

Suppose the unthinkable happens. Suppose the gig gets pulled because the rig is condemned by the local H&S authorities because it doesn't meet their standards. Do you have insurance to cover you against being sued by the client ?

 

Suppose the even more unthinkable happens and the rig comes crashing down. Do you have insurance to cover you against being sued by your PLI provider, for all the payouts they made to the victims, in the event that they decided you were negligent ?

 

What would your defence be in such cases ? "Oh well, I asked a few people, that I've never actually met, in a web discussion forum about whether it was OK and they sort of said "Yes" " ???

 

Good luck.

 

Merely having insurance does not mean you are competent. You can't just go out, buy a policy and call yourself a rigger, you know. I know there is a dearth of proper rigging standards and training in the business at the moment, but the tone of this thread is starting to scare me.

[Ike]

I stated that in direct reply to Chris Higgs question.

Check your policies - are you covered for lighting (or whatever) including the lifting/suspension of it?

 

My original question was about german regulations not a question on rigging safely as a lot of people in this discussion seem to have started talking about. I most certainly would not blindly listen to peoples advice.

 

I do not design large rigging/staging systems however I do carry out fairly simple rigging work as part of my job. I have been on a number of courses, have worked closely with other more experienced riggers, have had a fair amount of experience in many venues and production companies across Europe and feel I am competent to do what I do.

[Knut]

Hi Ike,

I am lightingtech in germany - and we are using 'verlinde 1t chainmotors' they are much to old to convenience to BGV C1 standard wich said your motors must have a second brake on chain. So we have to safty our rig, after briging it up with drosses taking at least ten times as much as our rig wight, to match with BGV C1/VBG 70.

 

hopefully this information is helpful

 

for additonal information click BGV C1.pdf

I´am afraid I only found it in german - it´s a german rule so :P

[Jivemaster]

Latest PLASA news included that the official translation of the german regs is available through PLASA, though of course the german language is the original and official edition.

[Chris Higgs]

My PLI policy does cover lifting and suspension however there is a £1000 excess and £2000 if it involves lifting or suspending anything above the public.

That is a good start, then! As 'nix says, though - check the scope.

 

As our colleague in Germany has helpfully shown us - irrespective of standards and laws, they do what any sensible person would do anywhere - make sure it can't fall down! This does not only cover the hoists, of course.

The hoists referred to would have been manufactured to meet (if I remember correctly) VBG 7 which would be the standard used in Germany for a basic chain hoist in any industry.

It is therefore sensible to consider secondary suspension since their design and manufacture was never intended to include the kind of use we put them to.

Please don't believe that the electric chain hoists used until about 1998 were designed for the entertainment industry, they weren't. They were only adapted. There had had not been the volume to interest large manufacturers (and still may not be to any extent).

 

You may need to move stuff as part of the show, so the only way is to use either smart hoists or load arrester (not fall arrest) systems.

That may also be the most cost effective way to do it over the year if you provide a suspension facility in-package at a venue.

Efficiently spec.d and rigged secondaries are fine, too.

Redundancy in numbers of suspensions is another way.

 

'Technical Standards' (ISBN 1 904031056) already specifies that a permanent system that conforms to standards should not require any secondaries BUT beware, because IF you comply with the published standards, you will already provide a safety factor of at least 8:1 which is regarded as sufficient by the licensing authorities and building control departments. The book has been adopted into the UK Building Regs, incidentally.

If the above means nothing to you, then it may serve as a measure of one's competence. To be competent in this regard, you should be able to demonstrate understanding and ability to comply with the law.

 

I hope that helps rather than opening another worm tin.

[adeblack]

Folks,

 

To help clear up the matter....

 

In order to help with liability insurance problems the Germans produced a code of practice for rigging called VBG-70. This was recently updated & renamed BGV-C1.

 

In short what it meant was that insurance companies could say to customers "unless you follow BGV-C1 we won't insure you or your premiums will be higher". It isn't law that you have to use C1, however it might as well be as pretty much no insurance companies will touch you in a German speaking country now unless you follow it. It is also being adopted in other countries as no other similar codes exist that allow them to beat their insurance down.

 

The code is not just for chain hoists but all elements of a flown structure (truss, motor control, etc.).

 

With regards to chain hoists, C1 means that you can move a structure over peoples heads, without having to have a separate safety system. For instance you could have a moving truss grid doing its thing over a performers head, a la every 1980's metal outfit....

 

In order to meet C1 a chain hoist must have the following features:

 

Double independent brake

 

10:1 Safety factor (A normal chain hoist is 5:1)

 

4 Position limit switch (2 working, 2 emergency)

 

If the hoist is lifting an object in unison with another hoist or hoists then it must be fitted with a device capable of detecting a slack chain (i.e. when the hoist is not pulling its weight)

 

There are a number of other lesser requirements that I won't bore you with at the mo.

 

You cannot self certify an object to C1, it has to be done by a qualified third party, such as TUV.

 

As well as the hoist, the control system must also be compliant of C1 (which means a whole load of other requirements, especially those needed to monitor the extra features of the hoist).

 

As well as C1 we also have another code, BGV-D8. This is the code that a "standard" hoist is rated at. This allows you to lift a structure into place, however it must be secured once in position & during the lifting operation all persons should be removed from the danger area.

 

There are also discussions at the moment to produce another code, BGV-D8+ which will allow a static structure to be flown over people without a safety. This is different to C1 which allows you to move the structure over their heads.

 

With regards to the previous mention about PLASA obtaining translations, I would like to make everyone aware that the PSA is actually driving this forward more aggressively. In my position as the recently appointed Chairman of the PSA I met with the VPLT (the German version of PLASA who have been central to much of the code writing) in Frankfurt recently.

 

The situation is that I am in possession of basic (non official) translations of SR1.0 (a truss standard), SR2.0 (which relates to BGV-D8+) & SR3.0 (which is the new standard for rigging training in Germany).

 

I have been told that I should have official English translations, which the PSA will publish in collaboration with the VPLT, in the next two months.

 

We will also receive an official English translation of BGV-C1 from the Berufsgenossenschaft who wrote & publish it. This may take a longer time to get (I have been told to expect at least a couple of months) as this is a bigger ship to turn.

 

Again the PSA will be able to provide copies.

 

I am not saying that PLASA haven't helped with this matter but I have taken it upon myself to get this pushed through as soon as possible in order to stop the confusion. I am sure that you will be able to get the English translations from PLASA as well.....

 

If anybody needs any further information then please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

 

I hope this clarifies.

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

Ade

 

 

 

Adrian Forbes-Black

(CM - European Regional Manager)

[Guest lightnix]

Very nice post.

 

Certainly cut through pretty well all of the fog with that one IMHO.

 

Please put a link up to the fully translated (PDF ?) document as soon as you can.

[Chris Higgs]

I know the original post was about what applies in Germany and I think Ade has cleared that up very well from a hoist point of view and helped us understand what we might all be thinking about for the future, particularly with regard to the recent threads about factors of safety, how things should be rigged and so on.

 

The British Standards (mentioned in my post a couple of days ago) that exist already may be of similar use; you could certainly mention it to your insurance company when it comes to renewal.

Be aware that they are quite stringent standards; I can think of many installations that would not comply, and you may need to 'upgrade' a little in every way if you are claiming compliance.