Outside hirers of a school not able to access lighting grid

[tvi675]

Hi everyone,

 

I'm not sure where the best place to put this one is, lighting, rigging, safety or even possibly next gen so thought I would put it here for the time being! I've done some searching and have found plenty of topics relating to this problem in a school environment, but couldn't find anything about schools and outside users.

 

My problem is this - I work with a few dance schools to provide lighting for their shows and am about to start working on a show with a new dance school. The venue they have hired is a community school to which they are not attached, just an outside hirer for the facilities. The school are insistent that nobody can access the lighting grid to rig or even focus any of their lights unless they hold a scaffold ticket in order to erect the schools scaffold tower. I nor anyone involved with the dance school hold one, but I do have 8 years practical experience of using and assembling scaffold towers going back to when I was still in education.

 

As I understand it none of the school staff will do this for us, however I have been informed that someone from the staff will be present during the setup to make sure that everything in order (and that we're not sneakily bringing in ladders or anything!).

 

Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this. I can understand their policy for within the school to prevent pupils and the like putting up the tower, but when the facilities are being hired to outside people who hold all their own insurance (both the school and I personally) and RAs, is it a normal practice to prevent access to the lighting grid? I haven't seen what they have yet, first look is on Saturday, but from what I understand there isn't a great hope of lights pointing in the right places!

 

T-bars to the rescue time!

 

Thanks,

 

Matt

[Guest lightnix]

It's their lighting grid; they can allow as much or as little access to it as they like, on whatever conditions they decide to lay down (which may well be insurance driven, anyway).

 

Just do a PASMA course. They don't cost that much, will be useful elsewhere, look good on your CV and should be tax-deductable (as you are simply consolidating existing knowledge, rather than acquiring new skills :wacko: )

[spinmaster1]

I would say it's down to insurance and that the school or their council are responsible for all accidents at their venue. It's understandable for any venue to request proof of appropriate training regardless of how much experience you have. I would find out if they are responsible for all accidents at their venue and if they aren't then it may be worth explaining this and providing your own risk assessment for the work being carried out. Better still, do a PASMA course if you're regurally using scaffold towers as this problem is likely to creep up again.

[tvi675]

Thanks a lot! I realise that they can set whatever conditions they want on access, but having done similar shows in similar venues hadn't come across anything quite this restrictive so was wondering how much of a normal practice it is! A couple of places the site staff have to go up for you but I guess this comes down to if they have factored the extra staffing costs into the hall hire charges.

 

It's also interesting going back to the same school type venues over the last few years to see how their policies on access have changed. One school has gone from leave the caretaker a few nice bottles and he will leave the ladders out to the other extreme of having a MWEP that requires three site staff to operate! As you say, no doubt insurance and health and safety representatives have their part to play but at risk of joining the grumpy old men's brigade things were a lot simpler in my day at school! Mind you, there were only about 5 working lights to worry about...

 

I'll look into the PASMA course, would be useful if we end up there again next year as well, now if only I hadn't got to remove my arm and leg to cover road tax this month...

 

Cheers,

 

Matt

[LXbydesign]

If you are hiring the space anyway, you could just add on the cost of someone from the school doing a bit of rigging and/or focusing for you.

 

Im sure they woudnt turn down the offer of some cash-in-pocket.!

 

Or you can do what I did and just say ok, fine - I'll bring in a ground support truss system then! ( it was a solid concrete floor of the sports-hall) ... A 'technical person' from the school to come in for a couple of hours very quicklyappeared! hehe.

 

PS - I wouldnt advocate this kind of advice now.! At that time I was younger and more arrogant!!

 

I would nicely approach the first option. On several occasions, this has always worked out. :wacko:

[Bobbsy]

You're going to find this sort of thing more and more, especially at schools and local authority venues. Getting the right paperwork behind your name is going to be increasingly useful.

 

Maybe you can persuade some of the groups you work with to chip in on your behalf--it's for their benefit.

 

Bob

[Ynot]

It will most likely be a knee jerk reaction to the archetypal H & S edicts coming down from the school's senior management, probably following an ill-advised report from those people we keep coming across - the H & S Nazis who've had a couple of day-trianing-courses.

 

As has been said before, just as with pupils using access equipment, their insurance policy is unlikely to be that specific.

 

I myself am working in a large secondary school this week on their dance show (as a freebie). the school has 3 LX bars on stage which can be lowered to the deck, and 4 out FoH. These are all marked "Must be used by trained operators"... Yet the yr 9/10/11 students are regularly allowed to lower them - I don't have a problem with that, as they're on safe hand-winches, though I do keep an eye on when they do so.

 

When I first spoke to the teachers prior to starting the week, they said they had to defer to the caretaker over erection and use of the scaff tower and ladders in school - their initial statement was that they weren't allowed to allow me to use them due to that H & S stance. However, after a short discussion I demonstrated that I'd been ladder trained by my day job 30 years ago (climbing telephone poles and various ladders) and had been using scaffold towers for years in the theatre they relented and accepted my assurances that I was safe to work on school's kit. The fact that I declared my £5M freelancer's PLI etc probably didn't hurt, but they were swayed before that I feel.

 

These two cases at the same school sort of demonstrate the lack of clarity between edicts from on high when people often really don't understand the real reasons for H & S policies.

 

Oh - and as an afterthought, and slightly off topic - it ALWAYS pays to get friendly in the best possible manner with caretakers and their staff, either at schools or other venues.

:wacko:

[Tom]

It will most likely be a knee jerk reaction to the archetypal H & S edicts coming down from the school's senior management, probably following an ill-advised report from those people we keep coming across - the H & S Nazis who've had a couple of day-trianing-courses.

I don't know about knee jerk, but it's certainly an out dated and rather stupid reaction.

 

This has nothing to do with it being a school, or the result of any perceived edict.

It has everything to do with the law and the venue protecting their interested and taking their responsibilities seriously.

 

The PUWER requires the venue to ensure that all work is undertaken in a safe manner. This applies to all work taking place on their premises, regardless of who is undertaking that work. They are required to ensure that people are competent to use the equipment.

When it come to an outside hire, the easiest way to do this for them is to ask for proof that you are suitably trained to use the kit.

 

Are you seriously expecting them to allow you, who they know nothing about and have little control over, to erect and use their scaffold tower without making sure you were competent to do so?

 

T

[Ynot]

I'm the last person to suggest that anyone undertake work that they are unsafe to attempt, BUT there is a difference between establishing someone's credentials/experience and issuing a carte-blanche ban on the use of a venue's kit just because they're from 'outside'.

I can just imagine how a lot of pro venues would manage if they applied the same strictures!

 

To quote from the HSE PUWER pages:

In general terms, the Regulations require that equipment provided for use at work is:suitable for the intended use;

safe for use, maintained in a safe condition and, in certain circumstances, inspected to ensure this remains the case;

used only by people who have received adequate information, instruction and training; and

accompanied by suitable safety measures, eg protective devices, markings, warnings.

(my bold)

 

From my own point of view, I believe myself to be an experienced person, having used (for over 30 years) ladders, A-frames, Zarges, and scaffolds in a wide variety of situations. I've been taught good practices over my years, but never, to date, taken any formal qualifications in such - indeed, there haven't been many available until recent years, as far as I'm aware. (Nor has it been necessary in my situation to seek out any).

 

However, I interpret the line "adequate information, instruction and training", as being able to demonstrate the ability to erect a scaff tower (for example) does not say that the individual needs to have a qualification (PASMA or otherwise), merely for them to be competent, capable of do the job in the correct way. That could be a 30 minute on-site demonstration to establish the level of the individual.

If a venue insists on incoming staff having a PASMA course certificate, then that is, of course, their prerogative, but the difference between that and the OP is that in his case the school seems to be denying ALL use of school kit on a false interpretation of policy.

 

In my example, I demonstrated last week that I had the experience and basic training necessary, and as a result was given full access to what I needed.

 

My whole point here, though, is that as per usual, the self-appointed H & S types at these schools and businesses etc are the ones making the knee-jerk decisions on the basis of "ooh - that sounds dangerous and uncontrollable, so we must ban it...!". Many of them don't appear to have either the correct training/experience or the minutest ounce of common sense when applying their edicts.

And I'll repeat here what I always say on this type of discussion - I do NOT refer to the HSE themselves

[GRisdale]

Are you seriously expecting them to allow you, who they know nothing about and have little control over, to erect and use their scaffold tower without making sure you were competent to do so?

I think this is a fair comment.

 

However, once you've got your PASMA and go into the school, take a good look at the tower and ask to see its record of inspections... I personally have found that the schools who are obsessed with these kind or things (quite rightly at times) often are completely ignorant of their other duties in terms of making sure the equipment is safe to use!

 

I have, just yesterday, had to complete a "Competency Questionnaire" to prove myself up to the task of doing some work at an educational venue. Questions included "what is the difference between a 13A plug and a 15A plug?" and "what is a cyclorama?" Nothing about electrical safety. Nothing about safe rigging. Northing about the safe use of their ladder...

 

Apparently I passed, so am now free to do whatever I like in their theatre :wacko:

 

Gareth.

[tvi675]

Are you seriously expecting them to allow you, who they know nothing about and have little control over, to erect and use their scaffold tower without making sure you were competent to do so?

 

No, my question was more along the lines of how common this situation is as it's not something I've come across while doing similar shows in similar type venues. In the past I've had one place offer me use of a MWEP which I declined owing to having no training on it! Other times that I've encountered situations like this I've got around it by using their staff to go up and do the rigging and focusing (a very interesting experience trying to describe to non technical people how to shutter two pacifics into a diamond shape....) and thanked the site staff for their extra time and effort with a good bottle of red, but this is the first time I've hit this brick wall of certification or whats already there will have to do. From my point of view I want it to look as good as possible, especially as it's being recorded so this will show up flaws in the coverage much better than can be seen by the audience. Don't think the kid's parents would be too pleased when they shell out for the DVD to discover their child in a dark spot!

 

I've got my all else fails plan of a couple of t-bars front of house to at least give decent coverage from the front, but given that it's dance a little bit of side back and top would be nice too!

 

Matt

[Tom]

The school are insistent that nobody can access the lighting grid to rig or even focus any of their lights unless they hold a scaffold ticket in order to erect the schools scaffold tower. I nor anyone involved with the dance school hold one,

If a venue insists on incoming staff having a PASMA course certificate, then that is, of course, their prerogative, but the difference between that and the OP is that in his case the school seems to be denying ALL use of school kit on a false interpretation of policy.

But in this case they are not denying all access, they are just asking for some proof of competence.

True, the regs do not ask for a specific qualification, but then there is no legal requirement to carry out a PAT, only to ensure that electrical kit is safe, yet that is what we now do as standard.

 

I can just imagine how a lot of pro venues would manage if they applied the same strictures!

I think you'll find that a lot do. Come to my venue and you can't go using any access equipment without suitable supervision by one of my staff, and in the case of our Genie without a ticket. (We don't have a scaf tower)

 

To quote from the HSE PUWER pages:

In general terms, the Regulations require that equipment provided for use at work is:suitable for the intended use;

safe for use, maintained in a safe condition and, in certain circumstances, inspected to ensure this remains the case;

used only by people who have received adequate information, instruction and training; and

accompanied by suitable safety measures, eg protective devices, markings, warnings.

(my bold)

 

However, I interpret the line "adequate information, instruction and training", as being able to demonstrate the ability to erect a scaff tower (for example) does not say that the individual needs to have a qualification (PASMA or otherwise), merely for them to be competent, capable of do the job in the correct way. That could be a 30 minute on-site demonstration to establish the level of the individual.

How have you come to that interpretation? The regs clearly state training. A short on site induction would cover the "instruction and information" bit and would also help you to satisfy your self that the person is competent, but it's not training.

It also assumes that they have somebody available on site to undertake that induction, which in this case they clearly do not.

 

 

In my example, I demonstrated last week that I had the experience and basic training necessary, and as a result was given full access to what I needed.

 

My whole point here, though, is that as per usual, the self-appointed H & S types at these schools and businesses etc are the ones making the knee-jerk decisions on the basis of "ooh - that sounds dangerous and uncontrollable, so we must ban it...!". Many of them don't appear to have either the correct training/experience or the minutest ounce of common sense when applying their edicts.

And I'll repeat here what I always say on this type of discussion - I do NOT refer to the HSE themselves

 

Who are these "self appointed H&S types" you keep going on about.

If you knew anything about H&S law, you'd understand that they are not self appointed but are appointed by the board, or trust, or other owners of the organisation. They are charged by these people with ensuring that the organisation follows various statutory regulations, H&S being only a part of that. How can you expect a Head Master, or general manager or even a H+S Consultant to know the ins and outs of every bit of kit you use and every practice you undertake. They can't so they pass to you the duty to ensure you work safely and to show that you are doing so. That is the basis of Risk Assessment and Method Statements

 

They are not banning it, they are just asking you to show how you will do it in a safe manner.

It sounds like, in your example, that's exactly what you did and they accepted that. Did you want them to allow you to do something which clearly does carry risks and which they would not allow an inexperienced or untrained person to do, with out first checking you were competent?

 

Now, if you want to talk about people banning stuff just because it's a bit dangerous there's already a thread here to discus that

If they just let the OP free on the scaf tower he'd be moving it with somebody aloft before you know it and then where would we be?

[These last two comments are a joke by the way].

 

T

[Guest lightnix]

I can just imagine how a lot of pro venues would manage if they applied the same strictures!

I think you'll find that a lot do...

Indeed, an increasing number of pro venues insist on seeing hard (i.e. certificated) evidence of training - even for mundane, low-risk tasks (e.g. IOSH Safety Passport). If you don't have it, then it's not their problem and why should it be?

 

No, it's still not universal, but it's on the increase and far from new. I've come across a good few venues over the years - even back in the 80s and 90s - who have denied all access to their ladders and towers, on the say-so of the insurance company; often as a result of an accident, caused by an incoming crew member, who misused the equipment http://smileyjungle.com/smilies/doh13.gif

 

In my example, I demonstrated last week that I had the experience and basic training necessary, and as a result was given full access to what I needed.

But wouldn't it have been oh so much quicker and easier (not to mention slicker), to flash a PASMA card at them - rather than having to resort to all that huffing and blowing.

 

Personally, I'm not sure how happy I'd be about accepting verbal assurances of 30 year old training, given in another industry - regardless of claimed experience in the meantime. It all sounds far too much like, "Look mate I've been doing this for xyz years and I've never had a single accident not never just ask anyone I've ever worked for look I'll give you all their numbers and you can 'phone as many of 'em up as you like and they'll all tell you the same thing and that's that I'm perf..."Sorry but I don't have time for all that and no, I'm not interested in your caving / mountaineering experience, either. Just show me a goddam ticket that me, my boss and our insurance company all understand; one which says you've received the same training and are singing from the same hymn sheet as everyone else. If it isn't on paper, then it isn't evidence IMO, it's just hearsay

 

[These last two comments are a joke by the way].

Pity - you were doing really well until then :unsure:

[rtclighting]

well a good suggestion would be to speak to the technical or drama manager and see if he can focus the lantens

[J Pearce]

I'll reply in my capacity as a performing arts technician at a school.

 

Any incoming hirer in our theatre has to either pay for my time for re-rigging or focusing, or put up with whatever I've got in the roof.

 

In some rare cases an exception might be made, but they would have to bring their own access equipment with certificates of inspection and training, or an IPAF 1a card and undertake a brief machine familiarisation and competence check. They would also have to re-rig the grid back to my original rig.

 

I wonder if you've been caught up in H&S being used as an excuse for the rig not being moved.