Light Console Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 We had some council people in today, measuring the venue for the school's funding or some-such.They were also the same people who provided the ladder training course I went on last year.They were impressed with our trussing and that we were planning to sort out a few power and rig issues (as AndrewC will know about!). One of them mentioned that we would soon have to have moving lights installed. I started to say how they need more maintenance than normal lights and that they cost a lot more. Their reply knocked me for six...something along the lines of..."Soon the cost of moving lights will be covered by the fact that the health and safety laws will mean you can't use anything else." Pardon? This is going too far, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadhippy Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Ah good ole elf and stacey,we had an inspection earlier this week and was asked for the loler inspection tickets for our talliscope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnlinford Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Well, you should have your access equipment inspected on a regular basis, our talle and ladders are done yearly. Quite a few schools are getting 2 or 4 moving heads put in to do colour changing or easilly refocused specials to avoid ladder use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadhippy Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Well, you should have your access equipment inspected on a regular basis, our talle and ladders are done yearlyIndeed we do,and I was able to produce said inspection records,however since when was a talliscope classed as lifting equipment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Light Console Posted March 28, 2009 Author Share Posted March 28, 2009 When it is used as a trebuchet?!Our Talle is inspected yearly too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robhall3192 Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Our school doesnt have decent avaliable access...so often resort back to the tall A frame ladders. Scaffolding is avaliable but as only caretakers can use it...pretty pointless.In terms of getting moving heads installed....please can someone tell my school to. No budget, and no confidence in them. Would make my life alot easier when they suddenly need loads colours and spots for a show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnlinford Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Indeed we do,and I was able to produce said inspection records,however since when was a talliscope classed as lifting equipment? Well, arguably the basket is lifted by the rope and supported by the ratched in its raised position... However, I agree - as far as I understand it it's not covered by LOLER... Our school doesnt have decent avaliable access...so often resort back to the tall A frame ladders. Scaffolding is avaliable but as only caretakers can use it...pretty pointless. Ladders can be perfectly suitable access to focus or adjust things from. You'll probably want to sling a rope over the bar to haul the lights up though. If the school has a scaff tower and wants to spend some money, ask them to spend the £100-odd to send you on a PASMA course so you can use the tower... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew C Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Their reply knocked me for six...something along the lines of..."Soon the cost of moving lights will be covered by the fact that the health and safety laws will mean you can't use anything else."Was this person someone you would expect to have "clue">0 ? Sounds like someone has got hold of the sh**** end of a stick and is taking it for a run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_s Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Their reply knocked me for six...something along the lines of..."Soon the cost of moving lights will be covered by the fact that the health and safety laws will mean you can't use anything else."Was this person someone you would expect to have "clue">0 ? Sounds like someone has got hold of the sh**** end of a stick and is taking it for a run.maybe they'd read the article about the Albert Hall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ynot Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Their reply knocked me for six...something along the lines of..."Soon the cost of moving lights will be covered by the fact that the health and safety laws will mean you can't use anything else." As has been discussed MANY times here on the BR, this is most likely to be an uneducated ignorant council penny pincher who THINKS that these will save them money.But I seriously doubt it will do so even in the long term - and quite possibly will turn out to bite them on the proverbial ass...!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete McCrea Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Or the H&S types that forbid you ever leaving the ground, except when flying in a plane.... "I'd like to use a ladder Please Sir." "Oh how very dare you suggest that a Ladder is a safe means of access to a fixture!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herb Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Was this person someone you would expect to have "clue">0 ? Sounds like someone has got hold of the sh**** end of a stick and is taking it for a run.maybe they'd read the article about the Albert Hall It may interest you to know that the installation of moving lights at the albert hall, while costing a huge amount of money initially has paid back pretty well in terms of saved staff costs, time, effort, improvement in facilities offered to hirers of the venue, enhanced reputation amongst visiting companies, better working conditions and hours for the staff (including 'non-technical' trades), increased skills for the staff, as well as reduced need to work at height and an income stream. Yes they do take some time in maintenance but the organisation also invested in staff training to make sure this could be done in-house to an extent. This will make those employees infinitely more employable in the long run. And yes, the venue is extremely fortunate in being in a position to undertake this kind of investment. Its not easy to quantify the payback time on such benefits, but lets say two years for arguments sake. Having management that can see further than the bottom line really helps. In this respect I know many of you suffer. If you want such toys then the business case is pretty good on a number of levels if you think ouside the normal parameters so the guy originally quoted is not necessarily the kn*b others may think. His delivery leaves abit to be disired. But then who am I to judge. As for a tallescope being a bit of lifting gear...b*^^ocks. Blimey these threads wander!! Take careup there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianknight Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 The council have probably also picked up on the RSC's 'magic box' mount/stabiliser that was launched at PLASA, if memory serves part of the RSC's reasoning was Health & Safety issues with access in the 'Courtyard' space and that moving heads countered the risks. I know that we get asked more often by schools wanting raise & lower gear for LX bars until we point out the pitfalls of bounce focussing, annual inspections and so on. From conversations with friends who teach and friends who work in schools - they would love to be able to climb ladders and towers to move and focus lights - they do it as a hobby and would be more than capable of showing students how to do it safely. What haunts most LEA's though and many colleges is the TV advert featuring the man who was sent to install an alarm and was given the wrong kind of ladder and claims XXX thousand pounds compensation after his accident hence the fallback 'get out' of "Health and Safety mate - can't do that" (when very often H&S wouldn't object if the activity was done properly and safely). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrummerJonny Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 One of them mentioned that we would soon have to have moving lights installed. I started to say how they need more maintenance than normal lights and that they cost a lot more. Their reply knocked me for six...something along the lines of..."Soon the cost of moving lights will be covered by the fact that the health and safety laws will mean you can't use anything else." obviously mr health and safety man didnt think of the fact that getting a 35-odd kilo moving head onto and off a bar when it needs cleaning, servicing, gobos changed ect is far more dangerous than popping up a ladder and grabbing a 5 kilo par can down, changing the gel ect... even if you do it properly, which I assume you would, with talles, pulleys and all that jazz, they are still bloody awkward! theyre even more awkward when you try and get em down with a single zarges, because the venue you work for cant afford scaff towers and the ceiling is too low for a tallescope :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_s Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 Was this person someone you would expect to have "clue">0 ? Sounds like someone has got hold of the sh**** end of a stick and is taking it for a run.maybe they'd read the article about the Albert Hall It may interest you to know that the installation of moving lights at the albert hall, while costing a huge amount of money initially has paid back pretty well in terms of saved staff costs, time, effort, improvement in facilities offered to hirers of the venue, enhanced reputation amongst visiting companies, better working conditions and hours for the staff (including 'non-technical' trades), increased skills for the staff, as well as reduced need to work at height and an income stream. very interesting but I'd already assumed (given that I have some experience of budgets and purchasing) when reading the article that an organisation as busy and professional as the Albert Hall wouldn't have taken this steps unless the benefits were real, both in financial terms and in a practical sense Yes they do take some time in maintenance but the organisation also invested in staff training to make sure this could be done in-house to an extent. This will make those employees infinitely more employable in the long run. And yes, the venue is extremely fortunate in being in a position to undertake this kind of investment. Its not easy to quantify the payback time on such benefits, but lets say two years for arguments sake. Having management that can see further than the bottom line really helps. In this respect I know many of you suffer. yes the venue is very lucky.My experience of speaking to people working professionally at the other end of the economic scale at conferences and trade shows is that it's all very well for large organisations like the National Theatre, the ROH, the Albert Hall to identify something as best practice, but the costs and staffing implications often make it very difficult for organisations operating on small scale budgets and these implications not necessarily understood very clearly by everyone. This can apply to things like training schemes, apprenticeships, IT systems and so on just as much as to the acquisition of new "toys" on or over the stage (although if they are the right thing for the job and you can afford them, I'd generally call them "tools" rather than toys). In a venue with a rapid turnroud intelligent lights will make good practical and economic sense. In a rep theatre with a new lighting design once a month or so, the choice to invest in this kit (whether hiring or buying) becomes largely an artistic one, not a practical one, so the cost effectiveness becomes much less apparent, indeed has to be measured in a very different way. And the bottom line is still the bottom line, whether it's this month's, this year's, or this decade's. Schools I guess are another kettle of fish altogether."most people can pull most of the wool over most of the drama teachers eyes most of the time. Discuss" (this last bit is a joke by the way) If you want such toys then the business case is pretty good on a number of levels if you think ouside the normal parameters so the guy originally quoted is not necessarily the kn*b others may think. His delivery leaves abit to be disired. But then who am I to judge. I don't believe I am the knob originally quoted, but who am I to judge. My point in my brief comment was that an article like the one I read and referred to for most people in the theatre world represents an aspirational goal rather than an operational reality, and can easily be genuinely misunderstood by a lay person on a board or a H&S committee. A feeling of "Them and Us" definitely exists betwen organisations where money is appparently (I know this isn't really the case, but although I'd hesitate to guess the annual turnover of RAH I can't imagine the cost of a few dozen moving lights being more than a percent or two of it it) no object when it comes to health and safety solutions, and those where more realistic financial considerations are taken into account. This is not to say that intelligent lights are out of the reach of most companies because of penny pinching administrators - most people in the subsidised sector at least (where I have been "lucky enough" to spend my 25-year sentence career) are here to serve the art, regardless of where they sit in the organisation. But this moves into a whole new discussion of funding levels and art for art's sake, and so on....maybe a whole new forum, let alone different thread. As for a tallescope being a bit of lifting gear...b*^^ocks.well I agree with you thereBlimey these threads wander!!and with that remark too!Take careup there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.