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

[Ryster]

I believe (and may be wrong) that if a scope is erected according to the manufacturer's instructions, in that the outriggers are fully on the ground and the brakes are all applied (and there is no intention of moving it) then you wouldn't need anyone at the foot of the thing, therefore you could in theory have two scopes with only three crew, so that you could have one person up and two moving at any one time.

 

But in that instance I would only need one person because an unoccupied scope can be moved by one man. So the electrician can move the scope, erect the outriggers, apply the brakes, raise the bucket, climb it, focus the two or three lamps he can reach, descend again and repeat the process.

 

Doing this in a modest rig of say 100 lamps is going to require doing that between 50-65 times depending on the spacing of the lamps. That's pretty tiring!

 

But even if you did have more than one person to focus, you could still have people ascending and descending a 7.5 meter vertical ladder, without a cage or rest platform on a constant basis. I would judge this as a much higher risk than remaining in the bucket IF the ABTT CoP is followed.

 

I genuinely fear that there will be a significant increase in 'scope accidents if people cannot be moved, over-reaching is a prime cause for a 'scope to topple and this restriction will only encourage that behaviour. I for one will simply refuse to to use a 'scope if I can't be moved in it. I will not expose myself to the increased risk of a fall while climbing the ladder, I always feel safer in the bucket than I do outside it!

 

I wonder what the HSEs response will be if accident rates do increase as a result? Will they admit they were wrong or simply ban the use of Tallescopes completely? I personally doubt they will admit to a bad call and opt to say Tallescopes are just inherently dangerous, which they aren't as has been proven over years of successful operation.

[TeeJay]

Various people have said various things and I'm responding to them in no particular order.

 

The announcement by the ABTT to remove the COP on tallescopes was made as part of the ABTT AGM which took place on the 20th July 2010 - and at which I was present. Only the section on tallescopes has been rescinded - the rest of the COP deals with all methods of working at height and is still in force.

 

The difficulty arose many years ago, when Upright Ireland produced the tallescope. They were previously known for manufacturing mobile scaffold platforms, of which you can't move whilst occupied and so their position on 'scopes was the same. The ABTT (and all those local theatres) came up with a method of working that allowed for movement of the 'scope whilst occupied and which AAP (the current manufacturers for that last year or so) changed the position and agreed that occupied movement could be conducted safely.

 

The HSE maintain that the record of accidents related to 'scopes means that moving whilst occupied is dangerous (as Bertie Wooster has stated) and that their response to the publishing of the code of practice is to advise local authorities to serve Prohibition Notices on the movement of occupied 'scopes.

 

The ABTT are contacting every organisation that they have links to (TMA and SOLT were advised that morning - PLASA, BECTU and any others should have received official notification by now) in an effort to make sure that all venues are aware of the current situation - anyone who has suggestions on how to guarantee this message gets to all end-users shuold feel free to speak up.

 

My personal take - I've seen two tallescopes go over during my career; one occupied and heard/read various anecdotes about other incidents. I've never heard of a occupied scope going over where the ABTT COP was followed. There always seems to be too few people involved, or no outriggers, or moved hastily too near to an edge. If someone cares to share an example of a properly deployed tallescope falling, please do.

 

I'm aware of one official survey (not the Xolve report) carried out into working methods for tallescopes in which fatigue was deemed to not be a factor - even though the surveyers did not actually even attempt to climb the ladder.

 

I know that we spent precisely one focussing session with four electricians trying the swopping of staff after each climb - it ended taking twice as long with four very tired electricians. We were lucky that we were able to find money to purchase a MEWP and the training (and maintenance) that goes with it.

And while I agree with Bertie Wooster that a life is worth more than a few grand, I think he should examine closer the available finances for the venues that utilise a tallescope. Getting a second 'scope, or that many extra people, or that much more time, is harder than he claims and is the reason that the ABTT first started looking at this however long ago.

 

That said, I've read through the HSL report he mentioned and agree that the figures suggest using a tallescope as HSE recommend - I also note that HSL also recommend an additional study into the effect of multiple short ladder climbs as one hasn't been done, and that generally further studies seem to be in order as the data available isn't huge.

 

However, long term, I think theatres will benefit from looking at other methods of access - even if it it does become acceptable to move with a person in the basket, if they were to become unconscious, how would you get them down? If you have a MEWP, then it's a lot easier to bring the basket down to a level that permits access.

 

It's a very volatile issue certainly - and I certainly have my opinions on it - but in the grand scheme of things, I think it may be time for us to move on. This area remains contentious and there are more important things to start looking at than what is, and lets be honest here, a niche use for a niche product.

 

Who wants the soapbox next?

[Ryster]

It's a very volatile issue certainly - and I certainly have my opinions on it - but in the grand scheme of things, I think it may be time for us to move on. This area remains contentious and there are more important things to start looking at than what is, and lets be honest here, a niche use for a niche product.

 

The problem is we can't move on because although it may be a niche use for a niche product it is exactly that niche in which we reside. We have four tallescopes spread across four venues, in only one of the venues would a MEWP be practical due to its weight, size etc.. But even then our budget would never extend to purchasing one and keeping it maintained.

 

So we need to find a practical and workable solution that allows us to do our jobs in a safe manner in a reasonable amount of time. The Tallescope fits this bill perfectly when used correctly.

 

To take things to an extreme you could argue that flying should be prohibited, after all the risk of death or serious injury is high if things aren't done correctly. Besides, there are alternatives, you can drive or get the train for internal flights and boats if you're going overseas.... Don't forget, time and cost aren't relevant factors here!

 

However we don't say that because it would be ridiculous to do so. There are time proven methods of flying safely that have been adopted. For example I wouldn't expect to climb in a plane and fly it myself without the correct training/qualifications and having followed the correct procedures.

 

What we are arguing is that we HAVE developed a proven way of operating a tallescope safely with a code of practise and relevant training methods. Nobody is denying that operating outside this code of practise is dangerous and would pose a significant risk to a persons health and safety. But then so would I if I climbed in a pilot seat, we don't ban flying though!

[TeeJay]

The HSE's point here is that the theatre industry isn't using the tallescope correctly - at least as far as they are concerned.

 

I agree that the ABTT Code of Practice allows for moving an occupied tallescope within an acceptable level of risk and I feel that the HSL report requires further investigation for a full set of data of all the factors involved - but there are hazards which are very difficult to overcome.

 

Just what is your method for rescuing someone from the basket if they are unconscious, or have damaged their arm/leg?

 

I get what you are saying about MEWP - we have a sprung floor with rooms underneath and a need for a high working platform. Finding a MEWP that could break down to a size equivalent to a scope, that wouldn't damage the floor, that didn't require adding extra weight spreaders but could get to a decent platform height took some time and some money - but still cheaper long term than the extra staff and the extra time that going up and down the tallescope requires. And certainly better than if the tallescope was to fall ...

 

I guess this particular venue had to deal with this a couple of years ago - we've had a prohibition notice in effect for a few years now. Note that we still have a tallescope as well as the MEWP and for short use patterns, it can be easier to use the scope (if it's locked down before occupation then you don't need the extra bodies at the bottom so you only need two crew - one to climb and help move and one to help move and ground spot).

 

I'll come back to this - the day job is calling and I'm still clearing my thoughts in my own head, nevermind on a public forum

[Ryster]

The HSE's point here is that the theatre industry isn't using the tallescope correctly - at least as far as they are concerned.

 

That's their opinion yes, but we are arguing they are wrong. As I've said, tallescopes have been used for many, many years without any incidents when used correctly (by correctly I mean in line with the ABTT CoP). This is the key point here, a MEWP can still fall over if not used correctly, if a heavy load is lifted over the edge, or over-reaching, used on an uneven surface etc... But the HSE don't ban those because it could happen do they!

 

I'd be interested to know the incident rates of MEWPS compared to Tallescopes actually, I have no idea what they are.

 

To answer the issue about rescue, who rescues me in my single seat Cessna aircraft when I become unconscious or lose the use of an arm/leg? To bring it back to theatre, what's the rescue plan if I become unconscious on a Zarge? I just fall off, at least in a 'scope I'm safer with the bucket! Besides, even when using a 'scope stationary you have exactly the same issues but the HSE say this is fine.

[Stan Hope-Streeter]

The trouble is, now that the word is going out to venues that the HSE have won this argument, management will be issuing directives to staff.

Since it has so far proved impossible to prevent technicians from following their (until now) standard practice of "moving whilst occupied, under strictly controlled conditions", these directives will probably be blanket bans on their use.

 

No doubt the H&S Evangelists will be delighted. But consider the following:

 

In these budget-slashing times, staff will still be expected to get the job done for the same cost as previously, indeed current pressures are to find ways to cut costs.

 

Nobody will be willing to pay for alternative, safer, expensive means of access. Consequently many people be required to rig and focus from Zarges and other ladders in situations where the talle was used in the past. The job will take much longer and people will become more tired, and take more risks - like leaning further to reach that set of barn doors instead of climbing down and getting the ladder moved.

 

Most important of all, neither will the venues be willing to pay for extra crew or an extra fitup day to accomodate the new, safer, but slower methods of working. And telling a Director or Client that they will have to accept a reduced level of service is, of course, unthinkable.

 

So the job will become less, not more, safe.

 

People can deny as much as they wish, but IN PRACTICE, on the shop floor, this it what WILL happen.

 

Fighting for improved safety at work is a laudable aim. But it is too often done from an assumption that we live in an ideal world where people aren't afraid of losing their jobs for being "uncooperative" or "not team players" or "not sufficiently productive" and are able to stand up and say "NO" when faced with unacceptable demands at work. In Britain today, more than ever before (or at least, since the Victorian age) this far from the the case.

 

What all this comes down to is that safety at work costs money. And there isn't any money.

[Ryster]

Nobody will be willing to pay for alternative, safer, expensive means of access. Consequently many people be required to rig and focus from Zarges and other ladders in situations where the talle was used in the past. The job will take much longer and people will become more tired, and take more risks - like leaning further to reach that set of barn doors instead of climbing down and getting the ladder moved.

 

Not to mention that to use a Zarges safely there should be 3 points of contact with the ladder at all times. Have you tried focusing a lamp with one hand? How do you lock of a lantern when the bolt is spinning, or remove a gel frame by holding back the spring clip at the same time as pulling the frame out the runners? How do you lock off the tilt without letting go of the fixtures body to do so, which in turn means the focus moves? I've never found focussing on a Zarges a practical method to do in a "safe" manner.

[kerry davies]

Good posting, Teejay, informed debate.

I have one minor query with your timeline in that back in 2005 ABTT wrote that to issue a CoP without a change in manufacturers instructions would "almost certainly be illegal" and AAP subsequently stated that they would not change MI's until a satisfactory CoP had been published. (Hen and egg scenario.) Whatever the sequence the withdrawal of the manufacturers instructions by AAP effectively sank the issue as soon as HSE became involved during the launch event. What's occurring?

 

You make good points about the development of the equipment in that tallescopes were considered by HSE and the manufacturers to be a form of tower scaffolding and, designed as such, had to abide by the same general "rules". To exempt tallescopes now opens multiple cans of worms in a plethora of situations. Any suggestion that tallescopes in a niche market may be used in a specific manner begs the question of how one can write instructions for an item of equipment, not a work process, denying that method to the tallescope users who are in the construction and facilities trades. Tricky bit of semantics, "only plumbers should use a screwdriver to open paint tins on a Wednesday indoors", sort of thing. Too specific. Too much chance of the beady-eyed legals spotting an ambulance chasing opportunity.

 

Ryster states that it is a HSE "opinion" whereas it is the HSE interpretation of the law, backed up by all the legal advice that an enforcing authority can call upon. Bertie has told us that it is a HSE policy decision at a high level, his opinion is that a case would succeed, wanna risk it?

Rysters' question on Zarges begs a question of it's own. Is a Zarges a "leaning" ladder or a form of self-supporting "stepladder"? I would use Fig 2.B in INDG402 and interpret a Zarges that way. Only my interpretation, but there is the supporting evidence.

 

Stan is getting closer to the crux of things, I think, in saying it is a matter of costs. I haven't studied this; http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarp1.htm but in late 2003 the cost/benefit figure for prevention of fatality was £1,336,800 and that for permanent incapacitating injury was £207,200. The HSE is governed by similar figures and no amount of theatre pleading poverty can change that, they have no choice.

And isn't economics an SEP (somebody else's problem) in that there is an employers responsibility under PUWER to provide the appropriate equipment and ensure correct use allowing adequate time, money and staffing levels for safe operation?

 

As Bryson wrote, debate is almost a duty, but debates begin and are conducted on the basis that one accepts certain immutable concepts, day/night, black/white etc, and tallescopes are, by design, the same things as tower scaffolding with the same safety guidelines applicable. Gareth suggested a long time back that we needed a theatre-specific redesign and that there are plenty of intelligent people on BR to do this. Go for it!

Another immutable is that whatever arguments are expounded the HSE is just as hogtied as everyone else. They cannot just go, OK you win, they are bound by the very same laws as others. They cannot change laws and we cannot change the original design brief. Start the debate from the reality and not the aspiration.

 

I think it would be wise for ABTT to recall/refund any copies in circulation just in case one eager, skip-reading caretaker uses it to attend to the street lighting around some school/college theatre and he comes to grief. You can't ask car owners not to use one small part until a life-threatening fault is fixed, you recall the whole car.

[Brian]

Lets assume for the minute that somehow the CoP survives and people are allowed to work to it.

 

How many people will follow the CoP?

 

You need...

 

4 people - one aloft, two pushing/pulling and a supervisor which has to include...

1 person who has been formally trained

A 'scope which is annually serviced and certified

A flat and level stage

A log book and procedures to record the use

 

...how many venues can actually operate to the CoP?

[Ryster]

Lets assume for the minute that somehow the CoP survives and people are allowed to work to it.

 

How many people will follow the CoP?

 

You need...

 

4 people - one aloft, two pushing/pulling and a supervisor which has to include...

1 person who has been formally trained

A 'scope which is annually serviced and certified

A flat and level stage

A log book and procedures to record the use

 

...how many venues can actually operate to the CoP?

 

We do exactly that already! We have the chief lx normally in the basket doing the focussing, deputy lx on riggers at the bottom in the supervisor role along with two crew moving the 'scope. All 'scope operators are trained in the correct operation of the 'scope and we have our equipment annually inspected, our 'scopes even have stickers on them to say they've been inspected and when the next one is due.

 

It really is a very simple practise to follow and I can't think of any reason or justification for NOT following this.

 

A concurrent post has been automatically merged from this point on.

 

Ryster states that it is a HSE "opinion" whereas it is the HSE interpretation of the law, backed up by all the legal advice that an enforcing authority can call upon. Bertie has told us that it is a HSE policy decision at a high level, his opinion is that a case would succeed, wanna risk it?

 

Until there has been a test case in the courts it can only be opinion, their interpretation of the law is just that, an interpretation. They say so themselves! Do I want to risk it, no! Do I want to debate the validity of their opinion so that I don't have to risk it? Hell yes!

 

Rysters' question on Zarges begs a question of it's own. Is a Zarges a "leaning" ladder or a form of self-supporting "stepladder"? I would use Fig 2.B in INDG402 and interpret a Zarges that way. Only my interpretation, but there is the supporting evidence.

 

An interesting point, I had always assumed a Zarges was a ladder, not a stepladder, since a Zarges has rungs and not steps and no platform at the top. Of course it depends what type of Zarges we are talking about since they make many different styles! The Zarges website has a section for stepladders and the combination Zarges that I was referring to is not listed in that section.

 

Another immutable is that whatever arguments are expounded the HSE is just as hogtied as everyone else. They cannot just go, OK you win, they are bound by the very same laws as others. They cannot change laws and we cannot change the original design brief. Start the debate from the reality and not the aspiration.

 

It is not a question of changing the law, it is case of accepting that there is a safe method of practise which we know AAP and ABTT can agree on. It is only the HSE who will no alter their opinion.

[themadhippy]

we needed a theatre-specific redesign

Think we maybe onto something here lads

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs054.snc4/35065_138730289482482_100000365362582_273577_5594542_n.jpg

[Guest lightnix]

Well... Seeing as how my wishes regarding the cancellation of my BR account are being ignored, I may as well use the opportunity to attack (yes - ATTACK!) some of the pathetic, anti-Safety drivel, that's being spouted in this thread.

 

First of all though, I’d like to thank Scot628 and Bertie Wooster, for their considered an measured responses to this thread. Unfortunately, Gentlemen, you might as well go bang your heads against a brick wall, because hardly any of the naysaying numbskulls are going to listen to you; unless, perhaps, you start to whack a few of them with those PNs you keep promising (that’s the problem with making threats: you have to carry them out if they’re ignored, otherwise people will just think you’re (Expletive deleted) and laugh at you behind your backs - as I suspect many already do).

 

What you have to understand is, that the Entertainments business - by its very nature - does not tend to attract conformists, when it comes to choosing a career. For the most part, it attracts a somewhat ragamuffin crowd of bohemians, mavericks and other, variously assorted butterflies; who do not wish to be bound by the conventions of regular Society, with its petty, nit-picking little rules and who genuinely believe that they should be free to fly how, when and wherever they please, without any interference from the likes of you.

 

FWIW, the reason that the Entertainments business has such a “good” H&S record, is that most minor accidents and practically every near miss, simply don’t get reported. The commercial pressures on the largely freelance / part-time / casual workforce, to “put up and shut up, 'coz crew are ten-a-penny and there's plenty more where you came from”, mean that many of them do just that; for genuine fear that the work will dry up, if they try to make any kind of stand, by even so much as asking for sight of an accident book.

 

Yes - some improvements have been made, it’s true; but most of these have come as a result of external pressures applied by licensing authorities, venue managements, insurance companies and the like - for the most part, they have not come about voluntarily. The negative comments your stance has received here, IMO represents just the tip of an attitudinal iceberg (evidenced by the 76% of respondents to the second question, who were just carrying on as usual, regardless of what the now ex-CoP said) and it is simply through luck, rather than judgement, that there have not been more serious accidents or fatalities.

 

At least most people seem to have stopped referring to harnesses as “nappies” these days, but I digress...

 

This particular problem began, when the (insulting attack on theatre technicians deleted) decided it was OK to ignore the manufacturers’ instructions, regarding the correct usage of Tallescopes. Now that they’ve been tumbled, the whining and crying has begun; with shameful attempts to blame the HSE for the outcome and the making of dark (not to mention downright false) allegations of “anonymous inspectors, sneaking around”.

 

IIRC there had been several meetings between the HSE and the ABTT on this issue, prior to the latter taking its unilateral decision to publish and (ha-ha) be damned. Bearing that in mind, I believe that Bertie Wooster’s actions at the ABTT launch were not in the least bit unreasonable.

 

If the HSE is guilty of anything, it is of failing to take a more proactive stance at an earlier stage; thereby allowing this bad practice to become so deeply rooted in the backstage work culture, that it is now a part of everyday life for most techs.

 

This is yet another example of how workers in the backstage industry, seem to think that their career choice has imbued them with some kind of mystical knowledge, about how equipment really works - regardless of what the manufacturers, the authorities, or anyone else with genuine knowledge of the subject, says (see also...).

 

It was the ABTT who started this debate, made it very public and then went on to waste years of time, precious resources and members’ subs, on producing a CoP which is apparently not fit for purpose.

 

(Offensive phrase deleted)

 

Even with a total ban on doing certain things with the devices, the practice will continue with users blissfully unaware anything has changed.

Since when has ignorance of the law ever been a defence?

 

Hmmm...

 

The HSE assumes duty holders will comply with the law

Can you point us please at the actual legislation which dictates that it's against the law to move a manned talle?

Ynot, do you have electrical appliances in your venue regularly PAT tested and, if so, why? After all - there’s no legislation that actually says you have to.

 

Do you carry out checks on incoming productions and self-employed subcontractors, to ensure that they have adequate insurance and, if so, why? After all - there’s no legislation that actually says you have to.

 

(Offensive ad hominem attack deleted)

 

Why has a historic practice that doesn't seem to have produced any injuries under such a detailed spotlight?

(Offensive ad hominem attack deleted) There have been a number of incidents (not accidents, because they could have been avoided) involving tallescopes being moved with someone in the basket, which have all resulted in injury. Why the denial?

 

Maybe we should just give this one up as a bad job, accept the HSE opinion isn't going to change, and just comply.

Probably the best idea anyone’s had in this thread so far. I’d embrace it if I were you - it will save you all a lot of pain and embarrassment (not to mention legal fees) in the long run.

 

I wonder how much the incidence of overeaching (one of the things that could knock the scope over) will increase now you're not allowed to move it occupied?

If the crew have been properly trained and follow the remaining guidelines in the ABTT CoP, then that should not happen. If it does, then you can hardly blame the HSE and should concentrate on how and why your supposedly “safe” system of work managed to break down.

 

Basically, had AAP revised their instruction way back when, then this would never had happened, but now their sales to theatres will be zero. Nice business plan, guys!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you (of all people) seriously advocating, that a manufacturer should water-down their safety advice, in order to increase sales?

 

So... Tomorrow, the Government decide that all outdoor and open air events are banned. Reason being that they are conducive to the passing of airborne disease, un-necessarily loud, and an environmental hazard. It's passed through parliament and approved. Your response would be (and I quote)

 

they may be wrong but they are the authority, accept their decision

 

What sort of short sighted madness allows you to hold such sway?

A Straw Man argument, if ever there was one.

 

I Live in a country where there are NO health and safety regulations whatsoever....

(Offensive ad hominem attack deleted) Either way, click here and here for some clues as to how wrong you are. Google for 30 secs to find some more.

 

I would like to thank the HSE, along with the present government, for slowly killing off small scale theatre and venues.

(Offensive ad hominem attack deleted) Maybe if these venues had put on more productions that people actually wanted to see, then perhaps more of them would still be open.

 

...Finally if the wording is "no moving with someone in the basket"then what's to stop me climbing out of the basket and staying at the top of the ladder whilst im wheeled around ,after all no ones in the basket.

How about the threat of a prosecution, with up to 2 years’ imprisonment and / or an unlimited fine. Is that enough incentive for you?

 

I genuinely fear that there will be a significant increase in 'scope accidents if people cannot be moved, over-reaching is a prime cause for a 'scope to topple and this restriction will only encourage that behaviour. I for one will simply refuse to to use a 'scope if I can't be moved in it. I will not expose myself to the increased risk of a fall while climbing the ladder...

(Ad hominem attack deleted.)

 

I wonder what the HSEs response will be if accident rates do increase as a result? Will they admit they were wrong or simply ban the use of Tallescopes completely? I personally doubt they will admit to a bad call and opt to say Tallescopes are just inherently dangerous, which they aren't as has been proven over years of successful operation.

And now the emotional blackmail begins: If techs decide to ignore the CoP and work dangerously in other ways, then it will be all the fault of the HSE, will it? (Ad hominem attack and implied profanity deleted.)

 

To answer the issue about rescue, who rescues me in my single seat Cessna aircraft when I become unconscious or lose the use of an arm/leg? To bring it back to theatre, what's the rescue plan if I become unconscious on a Zarge?...

Another Straw Man (or two, actually). (Ad hominem attack deleted.)

 

The trouble is, now that the word is going out to venues that the HSE have won this argument, management will be issuing directives to staff.

Since it has so far proved impossible to prevent technicians from following their (until now) standard practice of "moving whilst occupied, under strictly controlled conditions", these directives will probably be blanket bans on their use.

Sorry, but you’ve lost me there. Just how do you turn a restriction on one aspect of an item’s use, into a blanket ban, in a single sentence? (Ad hominem attack deleted.)

 

Nobody will be willing to pay for alternative, safer, expensive means of access...

What - nobody at all? How do you know this?? Have you asked them???

 

Not to mention that to use a Zarges safely there should be 3 points of contact with the ladder at all times. Have you tried focusing a lamp with one hand?...

Unbelievable, especially if you look back at all the threads and posts in here, defending the practice of rigging and focusing, using both hands, from ladders as being safe.

 

Also unbelievable (to the point where it’s a completely dishonest argument IMO), is the way that an industry which wears its long / late / anti-social hours culture on its sleeve like a badge of honour (another thing that the HSE need to take a damn good look at IMO), now suddenly starts bleating about the “fatigue” caused by a few trips up and down a 6m ladder. What a bunch of pussies. Backstage work has always been physically demanding and if you don’t have the requisite level of fitness and stamina to meet those demands, then maybe you should try spending a little more time in the gym, exercising and a little bit less in the pub, drinking beer (another, regular feature of backstage life).

 

It just beggars belief, that a so-called “creative” industry, which boasts so loudly and proudly of its supposedly “can-do” attitude; somehow “can’t possibly” imagine any alternatives, when it comes to scrapping dangerous work practices.

 

The “Can’t Afford It” argument is highly suspect. Ironically, the recession has resulted in an unexpected boom for many arts & culture establishments; as people look for cheaper alternatives to expensive holidays and trips abroad. The low pound has encouraged foreign visitors to visit our shores and lap up our cultural scene. If your venue has somehow been unable to catch this wave, then maybe you should be asking your managements why they are failing to put bums on seats, at a time when there have rarely been more bums.

 

Lack of finance has never been an excuse for skimping on H&S. This whole Tallescope argument has been going on for so long now (at least 15 years) that venue managements have had more than ample opportunity, to prepare for this scenario eventually coming to be. But they didn’t and now they’re trying to blame the HSE for their own lack of foresight, bad planning, poor decision making and general incompetence in preparing for the future. If you don’t have the money to run your business safely and legally, then maybe it’s time to shut the doors - that applies to any business, not just show business.

 

For now, at least, the ABTT recommends that no Tallescope be moved with someone in the basket and the manufacturers have withdrawn their support for the idea.

 

So... who will you whine to now, if / when you are caught breaking the law?

 

we needed a theatre-specific redesign

Think we maybe onto something here lads

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs054.snc4/35065_138730289482482_100000365362582_273577_5594542_n.jpg

(Ad hominem attack deleted.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited for SpAG.

[Bryson]

You'd seem a lot more credible, Nick, if you could tone down the multiple ad hominem attacks in your post. We're happy you've chosen to post on this subject (despite demanding your account deleted, you couldn't simply not sign in...) but we will require that you behave in a civil manner.

 

 

Basically, had AAP revised their instruction way back when, then this would never had happened, but now their sales to theatres will be zero. Nice business plan, guys!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you (of all people) seriously advocating, that a manufacturer should water-down their safety advice, in order to increase sales?

 

I'm saying that they should be consistent: if they genuinely believed that it presented a real hazard, why change their minds back and forth?

[Smiffy]

Fair play to you for taking the time to write the response to the thread and offering your thoughts on the matter. I found it all a little bit sanctimonius but then you no doubt felt the same about mine and others postings.

 

Its 02:20 local here so I'm not inclined to respond further at the moment, however I will take issue with your comment regarding HSE legislation.

 

You are either lying through your teeth or completely and utterly clueless. Either way, click here and here for some clues as to how wrong you are. Google for 30 secs to find some more.

 

The first link you posted was to the EHSS site of the ports customs and free zone authority. Utterly irrelevant if not working in the Port for the most part. It's a bit like a government agency posting their own internal H&S documentation on their site.

 

The second link didn't work, but looks from the URL that it was probably Al Tamimi's approximate english translation of the UAE Labour Laws. All well and good, but again not a specific H&S Document. While I fully agree that it holds recommended fines for injury and death in the workplace, the maximum fine for death of an employee is AED 200,000.00 (approx GBP 35,319.00 at the current exchange rate). Invariably, a UAE Court of Law would find the supervisor responsible, and the supervisor would be the one to pay the blood money personally. If unable to pay the 200,000, then it's a day in prison for every 100 AED of that 200K. The chances of the company having to pay that money out would be slim indeed.

 

I could perhaps have worded my comments better, in that I meant that there was no EFFECTIVE health and safety legislation whatsoever, however its a point of semantics, as the outcome is ultimately the same. By all means call me a liar or clueless, but at least have the common courtesy to check your facts first.

 

Cheers

 

Smiffy

[Ynot]

Hmmm...

The HSE assumes duty holders will comply with the law

Can you point us please at the actual legislation which dictates that it's against the law to move a manned talle?

Ynot, do you have electrical appliances in your venue regularly PAT tested and, if so, why? After all - there’s no legislation that actually says you have to.

 

Do you carry out checks on incoming productions and self-employed subcontractors, to ensure that they have adequate insurance and, if so, why? After all - there’s no legislation that actually says you have to.

 

What a ridiculous and desperate piece of straw-clutching. Having a little panic attack up there in Futtbucknowhere Nuneaton, are we?

 

Well, I for one feel a little shell-shocked at Nick's outburst and - if I'm blunt - arrogant attacks on various BR members who I do actually believe have made some valid points in this and many other topics. I'm also disappointed that you felt the need to vent your spleen with such personal venom - it really doesn't do you any favours.

 

I could probably answer quite a few of your comments, but there were SO many and they were so filled with derision that I won't attempt to do so - not now anyway. But I will pass comment on what amounts to a nasty little slur on my own situation.

 

My, as you so eloquently put it, little venue in Futtbucknowhere doesn't actually feature in my arguments because quite simply the space just isn't big enough to need, let alone accomodate a tallescope. Ridicule that as much as you want, because my shoulders are broad enough to ignore it.

 

HOWEVER that doesn't mean I'm without experience with the tallie in other spaces which DO have one or more, and have been using them for many years with a variety of restrictions/allowances.

 

I find the accusation that you feel none of us have a clue of what we speak is downright insulting, which I guess is precisely what you were aiming for.

 

Debating the issues that concern us personally - especially when that seems to be arguing against the odds - is something that I believe is still a democratic right and one that so far is still available to me and everyone else.

 

And when I ask for a specific piece of legislation I mean it. When someone in authority says "You can't do that - it's against the LAW" I really do believe that said person should be able to quote me chapter and verse on the violation I'm contemplating.

As for your direct questions, we have an in-house PAT guy who keeps a weathered eye on ALL the kit we use, and does a FULL PAT audit at LEAST every two years on kit that's permanently in the grid and at least annually on those in the stores. I have no real problem with our electrical testing regime.

In fact, I have no real concerns about our itty-bitty am-dram's safety policies at all - that's not to say we'd never suffer an 'accident' but I'm known as one who WILL jump on anyone using unsafe practices regardless of who they are and where they're from. I find it insulting again that you - who have absolutely NO idea of how I manage my venue - can even suggest otherwise.

 

But as has been said MANY MANY times in this and other Tallie discussions, the crux of the pro-movement movement is in fact based on the personal experiences of MANY people who actually DO the job day in day out. This is just one issue that hits the core of many of us and we genuinely believe that the method of work as stipulated by HSE just IS inherently more unsafe by a large factor than the way that this industry has worked to date. At this juncture, I could care less about other issues that affect safety - they may very well be important but here and now THIS is the topic of conversation.

 

Shoul crew be fitter and more able to clamber up & down the vertical ladder several times in a row? Probably. I know I could, but that's academic. Regardless of how fit you are, it only takes ONE mis-step or slip of a hand on a rung or a mis-judgment when - at the most vulnerable point - climbing into or out of the basket and THAT is where you'll likely find a dep LX splattered on the stage floor.

 

So what's the reaction going to be if asked to keep climbing up the tallie? Well, I guess once or twice may well be fine, but the MINUTE that the crewman starts to feel the strain in their arms/legs my answer is going to be a firm but polite 'No'. And they'll do just what the HSE want them to and cite the good old Elf 'n' Safety fairy's advice. Is that right? No it's not. But I live in the real world, Nick, not the one where the sky's pink and marigolds are blue.

 

Anyway, my post - as per usual - has ranted on longer than intended.

But in closing I would like to thank Nick for his considered input, whilst at the same time wishing him luck with his future endeavours after leaving us to whine and moan here on the BR.

As Bryson said - if you wanted to leave us so badly, why the feck are you still here and bothering to even read, let alone respond, to such a pointless (in your opinion) topic?