Reaction to the ABTT Code of Practice for Tallescopes published in Sig

[Thom]

Dear All,

 

I am a current Third Year Student on an NCDT approved BA(Hons) course in a CDS setting studying Stage Management and Technical Theatre. Its dissertation time and I would be very interested to hear the views and reactions to the Code of Practice for the use of Tallescopes within theatre that was published in ABTT's Sightline Magazine in October 2009. Available to view here.

 

In this code of practice the ABTT state that the tallescope can be moved. However, stating that the "HSE considers the movement of an occupied Tallescope unsafe." in a disclaimer at the end of the code of practice.

 

I am primarily looking for peoples reactions to the code of practice being published whilst the HSE and ABTT are not in agreement over the matter.

 

Please could you take the time to complete my poll if you have been affected by this situation, ie use a Tallescope, and any other comments that you could contribute would be greatly appreciated, however, I may wish to quote your comments within my dissertation, anyone wishing to contribute but would like to stay anonymous may private message me.

 

The original thread on this topic may be found here.

 

Many Thanks

 

Thom

[the kid]

Remember it is not published yet it is still in draft.

[Bryson]

Do I get to vote? We have a Tallescope, but I'm not in the UK - I'm in Canada.

 

They are very rare here, so the safety concerns with them aren't well-known. I've added additional control measures that they didn't use before and we now use it in accordance with the ABTT guidelines - ie - before I arrived it wasn't uncommon to see it being moved by one person at the base, without the outriggers!

 

I'm satisfied that our new method meets the standards required by Worksafe BC (our equivalent of the HSE).

[Thom]

Do I get to vote? We have a Tallescope, but I'm not in the UK - I'm in Canada.

 

If the poll could be for members in the UK or have experience of using a tallescope in the UK, that would be better for me to analyse the results.

 

But if non UK members can reply to this thread and put their comments and answers there, I would greatly appreciate it.

[kerry davies]

Right then! First off see this: http://www.abtt.org.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2164 ..very interesting!

 

The topic you quote has a HSE inspector categorically stating that he will PN anyone found moving a tallescope with a person aloft and another promising prosecution should an accident occur.

The ABTT could well be prosecuted under S36/S37 of HASAWA should an accident occur after following their "CoP".

Anyone admitting occupied movement could find their insurers taking an interest and removing cover.

Anyone following the "CoP" and getting injured risks losing any compensation.

The HSE and ABTT do not have a disagreement, ABTT believes that everyone else is out of step, manufacturers, HSL, HSE, other trade associations, and me and Lightnix.

 

Basically this is a dead topic, it has shuffled off this mortal coil, it is deceased, no more, gone to meet its' maker.

 

The cop-out (disclaimer, sorry) isn't that the HSE do not approve, the cop-out is trying to shift responsibility onto the employers. Maybe you should do some real research amongst employers as to whether they have been consulted on or are pleased with this, and not an opinion poll here.

NOTE: S36 applies to "some other person" and has been used against persons advising on hazardous actions even when the guy carrying out the actions has not himself been prosecuted. No Comment! would be safest, readers.

 

You're not fully covered Bryson. Reg 13/24 "If a moveable work platform is designed for and intended to be moved along the floor or other supporting surface while a person is occupying the platform, the platform must be moved only in the manner and under the conditions specified by the platform's manufacturer." B.C. Reg. 320/2007, so there go Tallescopes, unless Canuck ones have different manufacturers instructions.

[Thom]

Kerry,

 

The reasons you list in your post are the exact reasons why I am doing my dissertation on this subject.

 

The ABTT state as one of their key principles on their website "To provide the best information and advice on safe working practices within the theatre industry" and yet they circulate this draft CoP to its members, leading to the 2 primary resources on safe working practice opposing each other.

 

Basically this is a dead topic, it has shuffled off this mortal coil, it is deceased, no more, gone to meet its' maker.

This is not a dead topic, at PLASA 09, Mark White from the ABTT gave an update seminar on the tallescope and said that the manufacturers, Aluminium Access, would be willing to change their instructions to include the CoP if it was published.

 

My "real research" as you put is actually talking to the HSE, ABTT and Aluminium Access about this, and this poll and thread is to gage how the current situation is effecting the end users.

 

Throwing legislation at this thread to end it is exactly what is causing the issue, discussion needs to be had between the organisations involved using legislation but as justification to what is being is said, the same with engineering reports and experience.

[Just Some Bloke]

Right then! First off see this: http://www.abtt.org.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2164 ..very interesting!

 

This topic is 3 posts long: "can I move a scope with someone in the basket?" "HSE says no" "thanks". I'm not so sure what's so interesting? Did you mean to link to a different topic?

[karl]

I believe the ABTT are taking a pragmatic approach. The manufacturers can say 'don't move it whilst occupied' till they are blue in the face BUT temptation will always get the better of some (most?) people.

 

It's a bit like the 'plant food' that the manufacturers labelled "not for human consumption" knowing full well that people were taking it to get high. Presumably the idea was that if people damaged themselves as a result of using it the suppliers could say "Not our fault, you ignored the warnings".

 

In the case of the 'plant food' the chosen answer has been to ban the sale and possession of the offending commodity. If you aren't going to outlaw tallescopes then it at least makes sense to try to make sure that when they are 'misused' it's in the least risky way.

 

 

Edited to remove random quotation mark.

[Bryson]

Basically this is a dead topic, it has shuffled off this mortal coil, it is deceased, no more, gone to meet its' maker.

 

Because all government agencies are always right, and you should never argue with them, even if you think they have made a mistake?

 

You're not fully covered Bryson. Reg 13/24 "If a moveable work platform is designed for and intended to be moved along the floor or other supporting surface while a person is occupying the platform, the platform must be moved only in the manner and under the conditions specified by the platform's manufacturer." B.C. Reg. 320/2007, so there go Tallescopes, unless Canuck ones have different manufacturers instructions.

While I'm flattered that you can be bothered to look up obscure BC Regs, until such time as you live and work in BC, and have a relationship with the appropriate Worksafe BC enforcement staff, then you might want to reserve final judgement. They have much, much more exciting fish to fry.

[kerry davies]

This is too long, but...

No, Bryson certainly not because agencies are right, they often aren't, but because the HSE has definitively stated that they will take action on discovery/report.

You are right, I don't know what enforcement is like in BC. Merely pointing out that should any accident occur you are not "covered" as the powers that be where you work have a specific legal view on the design and use of mobile work platforms. It is still law in BC, enforced or not, your insurer may know this convenient get-out clause and Worksafe could still take retrospective action.

 

JSB, the point is that the OP in the BR topic posted the same question on the ABTT forum at the same time, got an answer of "No" and that is where it stopped. No ABTT comments, no members arguing, nothing. If that doesn't raise any questions as to why it died on there and is trundling on at BR then it should.

 

Thom, if the manufacturers do change the instructions to allow movement following publication, not a draft, of an ABTT CoP it will be on the basis that all three individuals involved at all times in the process are; trained by them, certificated on a renewable basis, that all work is logged and the equipment holds a current manufacturers annual inspection certificate. Until such time, the manufacturers categorically state that movement with persons aloft is not part of their instruction. (direct quote) "Do not do it!" These instructions will only apply to later models which they have design-improved to cater for these conditions, older model Tallies will still be immovable whilst occupied. (You probably already know all this from your research)

How many theatres/schools/colleges are going to be able to afford that sort of expenditure? How many put Tallies through annual manufacturers inspection at present? The new instructions will also negate the arguments about fatigue, because if you have three staff permanently manning a single operation it would be just as easy for all three to climb in turn, they will all need to be trained regardless. And that is all AFTER any ABTT publication which is still awaited.

 

And still that is not the final answer. The actual HSE inspector can, and almost certainly will, PN it regardless if, in his opinion, it is unsafe. The only difference the CoP and new instructions will make is that there will be a slim chance of defending any court case which HSE may bring. They can, and probably will, bring a case when possible....simply because of this controversy. They will probably want a hard and fast case law decision to have a yes/no stipulation AND they still have a HSL report saying it is unsafe. (Please remember that the ABTT report was commissioned and paid for by ABTT, possibly not 100% independent in a judges eyes).

 

Tallescopes are good pieces of kit and nobody wants to ban them. Used as designed and instructed they are fine (just like plant food for plants), people get hurt through incorrect use of all sorts of tools and we have been told of a recent death from incorrect Tallescope usage (not in theatre). When the manufacturers issue the new instructions, when you have three certificated Tallescope users and when you have a current annual manufacturers inspection certificate then go ahead at your own risk of PN/prosecution. Until then, "Do not do it!".

Told you it were too long, sorry.

[Bryson]

JSB, the point is that the OP in the BR topic posted the same question on the ABTT forum at the same time, got an answer of "No" and that is where it stopped. No ABTT comments, no members arguing, nothing. If that doesn't raise any questions as to why it died on there and is trundling on at BR then it should

 

ABTT Forum: Total posts 4919

Blue-room.org.uk: Total Posts: 339,638

Because we're 100 times busier than them?

[gareth]

The reason that the same topic initiated a lot of debate on the BR and got one response on the ABTT forum is simple. The BR is a busy, lively community with a large membership drawn from a large cross-section of the technical entertainment community who between them contribute many, many posts each day ; the ABTT forum is pretty much a dead website, with one or two posts every few weeks.

[kerry davies]

Could well be that simple, Bryson. Your answer is as good as any. I mean, they haven't even got their CoP on there, have they? I am just old and cynical.

Months not weeks, Gareth, and it's funny that the last bit was "..It's not a safe option" whereas on here???

 

Hang on a minute, it isn't a CoP at all, it's just some "Notes" on safe use of a tallescope while focusing. They have even avoided calling it a SSoW. Does that carry any weight? Would a court accept it? Does it negate BSEN 1004?

 

Or have they passed the responsibility buck back to their individual members? "Do this if you want but only if the employer allows and the HSE do not approve anyway." That is the result of years of representation? Some result!

 

Hang on another minute.........if ABTT won't publish a CoP until the maker changes his instructions and the maker will not change instructions until they publish a CoP.....? Doh? Whatever! Too many questions.

[Just Some Bloke]

JSB, the point is that the OP in the BR topic posted the same question on the ABTT forum at the same time, got an answer of "No" and that is where it stopped.

 

When I open the ABTT Green Forum it shows me the latest 50 threads. 4 have over 6 posts, 9 have 4 - 6 posts and 37 (i.e. three quaters) have 3 or fewer posts.

Only 2 (TWO) of the threads have ANY posts at all in 2010.

 

Perhaps that explains it.

[paulears]

Anybody read the small piece in LSI this month (July 2010 page 10/11)

 

A simply dreadfully put together piece. You read it (as perhaps a new reader to the subject) and the first bit is good news - (we know most of this already, of course and have discussed it) you can, subject to a few caveats, move a Tallescope with somebody in the basket. However, the last paragraph contains the information that "(the HSE) would not tolerate the practice if it encountered it..." It then offers the ABTT publication, via the website as £15.

 

What exactly is the point of this article - it doesn't add to the clarification at all, indeed, it messes it up even more. 75% of the piece says IT CAN BE DONE - then the final 25% says the opposite.

 

To make it worse, an unnamed member of the HSE was at the meeting, to throw the bucket in person - yet remains anonymous. Surely, if the meeting was the point of the story, then a Government official stating they'd got it wrong was hugely important, and if, as it appears, this really is the end of the buck-passing, then the positive story is completely wiped out by the ending - yet PLASA, as a representative body make no editorial comment at all, leaving us even more confused.

 

If the HSE are going to continually threaten to do something, rather than actually sorting it out - what exactly is the point. I can see it becoming very messy. If a serious accident actually happens, then HSE themselves will look very foolish by them having evidence that in their opinion makes it a dangerous activity, and didn't actually do anything apart from go around to other people's events attempting to dull it down.

 

 

As the people who would initiate prosecution, and have the option to instigate the banning of the process - why, if they are so certain their evidence is better than the ABTT's didn't they do it? I'd suggest the way legal blame gets thrown around nowadays, that the officials who 'knew' it was dangerous would themselves be negligent by allowing what they consider dangerous practice to continue. Saying they wouldn't tolerate it, if they encounter it suggests that they know it happens, but are turning a blind eye, rather than being proactive.

 

The ABTT made a really good case I think, reading the available material, the HSE don't agree - but seem to like sitting on the fence.

 

If the article is correct, and the HSE were present at the ABTT launch, this seems a pretty odd way for a regulatory body to behave, sneaking about, shouting doom and gloom to anyone who will listen - and saying like a bad tempered Headmaster "If we catch you, you're for it ... so get back behind the bikesheds where we can pretend we don't know what you're doing!"