Tallescopes

[Rob]

I was told yesterday that the ABTT and HSE have got together and decided that Tallies can be moved with someone up them, providing it it manouvered by at least 4 people at the base.

 

Any thoughts??

[James C]

Well...It sounds like a convenient fudge, given the very limited number of organisations that can provide that level of staffing. If this is their position, then ABTT have provided an answer that satisfies HSE while being virtually impossible to implement. They can't be accused of sitting on the fence any longer, but haven't done much to reach a realistic solution for their members/industry.

 

Without wishing to hark back to the dizzying applied mathematics of the earlier post on momentum and levers, is there really a great benefit to having 4 people at the bottom, unless 3 of them are holding a blanket very taut, ready to catch the falling technician? :)

[robloxley]

Not to dismiss the ABTT's new draft guidance note (which we could discuss ad infinitum but has not doubt already been done so by many suitably qualified people); the ABTT's advice is just that: guidance, not rules. Your individual use (e.g. you're particular venue, staffing, size of tallescope - which I don't believe the ABTT guidance makes mention of, availability of fall arrest capability etc. etc. all come into this) of a tallescope is up to you to risk-assess and work out your own safe operation procedure.

 

The caveat however is, if it all goes wrong(... ) then you need to have a documented risk analysis that supports you contravening 'industry guidance' if that's what you do. Maybe a decent bit of mechanics calculation comes into this...

 

Obviously no one bit of guidance can possibly cover all situations, and luckily we have a health and safety system that allows flexibility in determining procedures according to circumstance.

[Guest lightnix]

On the other hand, the manufacturers instructions still clearly state that a 'scope should not be moved with someone in the basket - surely something that any prosecution lawyer worth his salt would jump on straight away. It would seem that the manufacturers have never been consulted regarding the preparation of these guidelines.

 

Once again, it comes down to what you think trade associations should be there for: to genuinely improve standards, or satisfy vested interests by finding ways to legitimise bad practice.

[Thirdtap]

Morning

The last guidence notes I heard about scopes was:

Set the scope and have two people (persons 2 & 3) at the bottom at all times. Person 1 goes up the top and does rigging / focussing. Then person 1 climbs down the scope before it is moved to new position.

To stop person1 getting tired from all the climbing persons 2 and 3 will take turns climbing and working at height.

How many venues would you have 3 electricians available to move and operate the scope?

Not a lot, I would think the only place this could happen is in colleges.

 

Now it looks like I require a 5 a side team to work at height from a scope.

:)

[Rachel]

It would seem to me that manufacturers' guidelines are impractical for general theatre use, where no one wants to waste valuable time climbing up and down a tallescope. However, manufacturers' guidelines have to be there to stop them getting sued IF something goes wrong. I'm just starting out in theatre, but if I suggested climbing up and down a tallescope all the time I'd probably be laughed at. I don't think there is any 'concrete answer' to this, it's all about the rules vs. the practicalities, and like so many things in theatre, the practicalities usually win, but MUST be accompanied by (as my tutor would say) 'value judgements'. In other words, if it doesn't feel safe, don't do it.

 

But obviously, when it all goes wrong, the manufacturers point to their guidelines to save themselves, the associations point to their guidelines, and then the responsibilty is on the people working.

 

Sorry if this doesn't make sense, but I'm just a newbie! :)

[robloxley]

But obviously, when it all goes wrong, the manufacturers point to their guidelines to save themselves, the associations point to their guidelines, and then the responsibilty is on the people working.

i.e. a risk-assessed, safe working practice for the specific situation in which it is being used - a theatre.

Lightnix has made it clear he won't be going up the mobile tallie again, but I for one am happy with the procedures in place at the venues I work in to continue using one.

 

As for the comment about needing 3 electricians, surely this isn't too much to ask: at the end of the day you're going to have one in the basket, two pusing it, and probably another driving the rigger.

 

Also you're a bit harsh to refer to the ABTT (who published the latest draft guidance) as a trade association; as for the comment on 'legitimising bad practice', that's merely one person's opinion on tallescopes...

[richard]

I don't know of any theatres where the official practice is not to have two at the base of the scope at all times. They all insist on it, thats not to say that these things don't happen, but if anywhere does not provide the staff to make this possible then they are opening themselves up to a lot of trouble!!

[Guest lightnix]

Rachel: It would seem to me that manufacturers' guidelines are impractical for general theatre use...

I'm not trying to run you down here, Rachel, but manufacturers don't produce "guidelines", they create instructions to explain the correct and safe use of their equipment, not just to cover their backsides in emergencies. If you ignore these instructions, then you are by definition using the equipment in an "unsafe manner". The Tallescope was never designed for theatre use anyway, it just got adopted somewhere along the way.

 

You are quite right about "value judgements", but there will always be situations where you feel something is unsafe and someone else will go ahead and do it anyway, often laughing at you in the process.

 

...and then the responsibilty is on the people working.

Exactly, you've hit the nail right on the head there. It's too often been the tendency for productions to put crews in dangerous situations and then blame them when it all goes pear shaped.

 

robloxley: i.e. a risk-assessed, safe working practice for the specific situation in which it is being used - a theatre...

I would agree that where you have the same crew working in the same venue all the time, then accidents are less likely to happen in a properly risk assessed situation, but wouldn't say that being in a theatre automatically means that such a situation exisits.

 

The simple fact remains that there have been a number of serious accidents involving Tallescopes over the years, all of them in situations where the manufacturers instructions have been disregarded and usually involving an operator in the basket. Apart from that, I have always been led to believe that the use of Tallescopes has always been a "high risk" operation for the purposes of risk assessment and that the HSE say that manufacturers instructions must be followed in such situations.

 

I wasn't trying to run down the ABTT by referring to them as a trade asssociation, that's honestly what I thought the correct description for such an organisation was. I fully recognise and respect the valuable contributions they have made to safe working practices in Theatre over the years, but I do feel that they are way off the mark on this one That is not just my opinion, there are others who feel the same way.

[Rachel]

"manufacturers don't produce "guidelines", they create instructions to explain the correct and safe use of their equipment, not just to cover their backsides in emergencies.  If you ignore these instructions, then you are by definition using the equipment in an "unsafe manner". "

In which case do you always insist that tallescopes are used in conjunction with the manufacturer's instructions? In specific situations that you're working in I mean? I'm just trying to ascertain whether for you, this is the only 'solution' to the tallescope problem?

 

Interesting thread... :** laughs out loud **:

[Stu]

I don't know of any theatres where the official practice is not to have two at the base of the scope at all times. They all insist on it, thats not to say that these things don't happen, but if anywhere does not provide the staff to make this possible then they are opening themselves up to a lot of trouble!!

 

Mmmm, I know off one that uses one person quite regularly...

 

Stu

[robloxley]

The simple fact remains that there have been a number of serious accidents involving Tallescopes over the years, all of them in situations where the manufacturers instructions have been disregarded and usually involving an operator in the basket.

Apart from the couple of very old and brief reports on the ABTT website and in their old guidance booklet, can you actually point me in the direction of any written, proper, report/ investigation into any tallescope accidents and how they occurred.

 

I'm not denying they happen, but nobody ever seems to quote the exact circumstances, and ones I've heard of by way of mouth have all boiled down to gross operator incompetance (e.g. pulling along a bar from the basket or stading up on the guard rail) which wouldn't be allowed by any theatre's safe working practice that I've seen.

 

As for having only one person at the base - how can you control the movement and stop the basket hitting the lanterns you've just focussed? This alone, putting safety aside (which obviously I don't), is reason enough to have 2 people!

[Guest lightnix]

In which case do you always insist that tallescopes are used in conjunction with the manufacturer's instructions?

Maybe I should explain at this point that I am looking at the situation very much from a self-employed freelancers point of view.

 

Freelancers often find themselves on productions where risk assessments and H&S policies are virtually non-existent, even in these enlightened times. Self-employed freelancers (as one person "businesses") are responsible to a much greater extent for their own H&S than people working as employees of a venue (although everybody has some degree of responsibility, regardless of their employment status). In fact it recently emerged that freelancers should actually be providing their own individual risk assessments (and maybe even their own tallescopes !), rather than relying on their clients / employers to come up with them. If a freelancer commits an H&S faux pas it is they, not the production manager who told them to "just get on with it" who are most likely to be first in the dock.

 

So while I must admit that I didn't always pay much heed to these things (and have probably been wheeled for several miles at the top of a 'scope over the years), the growing awareness of the terrifying legal consequences that possibly awaited me, personally, for ignoring these issues (unlimited fines, prison sentences, being sued by insurance companies, career termination, etc.) gradually forced me to change my mind. In my case there was no employer to carry the can.

 

"You're only as good as your last gig" is a saying that still echoes in my mind and if your last gig ended in an accident for which you wound up being prosecuted, then where will the next gig come from ?

 

...can you actually point me in the direction of any written, proper, report/ investigation...

No I can't. The results of such investigations are rarely made public and are frequently hushed up.

 

...ones I've heard of by way of mouth have all boiled down to gross operator incompetance...

I would agree with that wholeheartedly. But wouldn't you say that ignoring the contents of the manual could be described as "incompetence" ?

 

As for having only one person at the base... is reason enough to have 2 people!

Or four, if the ABTT guidelines are taken into account. What will your venue do if they are finally accepted by the HSE ? Will you say that your venue's H&S policy takes precedence over the published guidelines ?

 

But as I said, as a one person "business" there is a far greater responsibility on a freelancer to comply with the regs, which are now so great in number and complexity that I would question whether it is possible for any one individual to function completely legally as a self-employed technician these days. That, with the pressure to "make it happen" in less time, with fewer crew, for less money and rising insurance costs...

 

I don't know... it's enough to drive you out of the business in the end :** laughs out loud **:

 

Final note (for now): I just heard that the ABTT guidelines have not been finally accepted by the HSE. Also, the manufacturers have re-written their instructions to emphasise even more strongly that a 'scope should not be moved with an operator in the basket.