Rescue Plan and Tallescope Usage

[Peter Tovey]

The crucial point for me is that thus far nobody, besides Andy, from BR theatre members has given any advice to Josh. Nobody has offered to mail him a copy of theirs and that I find worrying. Does anyone have a Tallescope in their venue and a rescue plan to go with it?

If yes and yes then please contact him. If yes and no then it may be time you thought about it. It cannot be ignored now which is why I called it a newly opened can of worms.

 

 

I would say that nobody has a rescue plan Kerry. Or rather a plan which would work outside their particular venue, which could be translated to another. Or they do have a plan which is bordering on SAS style activities and not for public consumption...

 

There are certainly a few theatres around the country with rescue plans in place for tallescope use, and expect that number to increase in the near future. I have one which we put together about 6 months ago for use in our venue, and more importantly, we have the equipment and the trained crew who rehearse various rescue scenarios (not just tallescope use) regularly. It's pretty crucial that the written rescue plan is not the be-all and end-all - who is going to go and fetch it and follow step by step the instructions in the exceeedingly unlikely event it would be required? It is however an extremely good way of making the responsible people (those who supervise the activity), think about possible failure scenarios, how to reduce the likelihood of these occurring, and then to assess the inherent risks (including to those expected to effect a rescue), and ensure that adequate equipment, training and competent personnel are provided at all times the activity takes place (generalising again here to all rescue plans, not just specifically for tallescope use).

 

Of course, all rescue plans and especially those for tallescope use on stage are going to be very venue specific. You might for example have suitable perches or catwalks around the stage (see Kerry's balcony front) to which you could move (uh-oh!) the scope to effect a rescue. Or you might have a second scope or other access method to reach an incapacitated casualty in a basket, evaluate and provide 1st aid, and if REALLY necessary start the SAS games with evacuation harnesses and rope egress kits rigged from the grid overstage. There are many other (and some unfortunately more Heath Robinson-esque) ideas out there. There are also training providers (I know of at least one, I am sure there are others) who are savvy about the issue and may be able to give advice for particular circumstances.

 

As for the CoP Kerry, I have heard it suggested that its one potential use is to take advantage of the very thickness of the the thing and use it as a spacer to set the height of your scope outriggers...

[ramdram]

Good to know Peter T. But, the big "but" is as Kerry mentioned those plans have not been posted on BR. Which may be a good thing, I suppose, in that we have both remarked these plans would be venue specific. After all you would never dream of designing a plan for somewhere you had never been?

 

Using other tallies would depend on how close you might be able to place them so that first aid might be administered. Sounds as if that could be quite difficult owing to possibility of reaching some way out of the basket.

 

I had mentioned using a "builders' type tower" for rescue but even that is problematic given the need for a third person to assist with unconscious folk and the need to stabilise that item too.

 

And, seeing as how those items were not designed for the purpose of rescue...

 

"SAS" activities might be considered but I would speculate that the rescuers would have to be trained for that sort of rescue anyway. Getting an unconscious person, for an example of one possibility, into a harness and lowering them sounds to me if that sort of rescue is strictly for the pros from the realms of Fire and Rescue.

 

I would posit that if a person was too incapacitated to assist in their own rescue and was unconscious or was shocked (in both senses perhaps) then the theatre staff would have done the "right thing" and dialled 999 and had both the ambulance and fire services in attendance.

 

Nobody, surely, would be foolish enough to mount a rescue mission and then call for the ambulance after the "victim" was on the ground?

 

It may be (hah!) the fire and rescue folk would then take over and assume control and responsibility of the situation and any rescue decisions would be theirs and theirs alone. Well meaning amateur rescuers (and "we" are) would be shunted out of the way asap.

 

All this talk about "our" management of the situation would be gently pushed aside.

 

HS would then be involved and it is not difficult to see the situation escalating into a full scale investigation of how an incident occurred and whatever rescue plans, if any of course, scrutinised minutely.

 

The more the topic is discussed the more I am persuaded that such access kit is being "legislated" out of use. My speculation entirely of course.

[paulears]

My local fire brigade's rope rescue team are all retained firemen - they do not have any permanent full-time firemen trained in this work. So it seems to suggest that rope rescue is no longer a core rescue technique - so don't rely on a fore engine turning up with people who can actually perform such a rescue. The retained men I spoke to are guess what? - all keen climbers!

[the kid]

In oxfordshire, if I remember right we have one maybe 2 rope rescue teams.

[Seano]

I don't think I've changed my mind much on this topic since this thread from 4 years ago. It covers similar ground - if this thread is of interest its probably worth reading that one too.

 

What I find weird is that if I decide against the Tallescope due to lack of a viable rescue plan and go with, say, Zarges - I will have exchanged one stable and safe route to WaH with no rescue plan for a less stable and less safe route where the rescue plan is... err... bounce off the floor?

 

My opinion, as a non-expert in matters relating to elf'n'safety:

Regarding UK H&S legislation, the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) is the daddy.

 

It says simply:

2 General duties of employers to their employees.

(1)It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.

 

(2)Without prejudice to the generality of an employer’s duty under the preceding subsection, the matters to which that duty extends include in particular—

(a)the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health;

 

As far as I'm concerned, the HSaW act trumps all other regulations, CoPs etc.. To substitute 'system of work B' for 'system of work A' merely because you regard B as more compliant with some CoP or other, even though you quite reasonably believe system A to be significantly safer would be to go against both the spirit and the letter of the HSaW act in my (again - non expert) opinion.

 

Regarding tallescopes -vs- zarges: If you draw a Venn diagram, clearly there would be an area where "jobs a zarges is suitable for" and "jobs a tallescope is suitable for" intersect. They're not the same thing though and I don't think its helpful to suggest that a Talle could be replaced with a set of Zarges in every case because it simply is not so.

 

... those plans have not been posted on BR.

No surprise to me. I cannot imagine why anyone with such a plan would want to stick their head above the parapet and post it here for public dissection.

 

So it seems to suggest that rope rescue is no longer a core rescue technique

I don't think it ever was a 'core rescue technique' as far as most brigades' routine training goes. If anything I think its actually going the other way and becoming somewhat more common than it has been historically. (Albeit against a background of cuts, to training and generally, over recent years.)

[JGOT]

I don't think I've changed my mind much on this topic since this thread from 4 years ago. It covers similar ground - if this thread is of interest its probably worth reading that one too.

 

Thank you, I had somehow missed that thread - will give a read.

 

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, the HSaW act trumps all other regulations, CoPs etc.. To substitute 'system of work B' for 'system of work A' merely because you regard B as more compliant with some CoP or other, even though you quite reasonably believe system A to be significantly safer would be to go against both the spirit and the letter of the HSaW act in my (again - non expert) opinion.

 

I think I follow what you are saying here, however there is still the elephant in the room about how to address the necessity of a rescue plan in whatever form that may take.

 

 

 

Regarding tallescopes -vs- zarges: If you draw a Venn diagram, clearly there would be an area where "jobs a zarges is suitable for" and "jobs a tallescope is suitable for" intersect. They're not the same thing though and I don't think its helpful to suggest that a Talle could be replaced with a set of Zarges in every case because it simply is not so.

 

Agreed, but I don't think I have been doing that. I consider them both suitable for the specifc application which I am assessing, which is the focusing of lanterns above the stage in my theatre.

 

 

 

Whilst, as a non-tallescope user I won't contribute to the rescue plan, I will say - is there no way you can remove the need for the tallescope if you feel that height rescue is either impossible, difficult, dangerous, or prohibitively expensive?

 

Before you go buying, selling or otherwise, I would strongly consider hiring a professional consultant to visit the venue and go through your options with you, so between you, you can implement the option which is the safest within your building specification and budget.

 

Certainly things I am considering.

 

Sorry if my posts have been interpreted as me asking BR to do my homework for me, or that I am going to take someone's venue specific plan and slap it on to my own. I haven't had to deal with this issue from this perspective before so I am looking at getting your ideas and information to help make my own mind up and formulate something useful for my space.

 

Had an interesting conversation on the phone this afternoon with a very nice man at AAP. The gist of it went like this:

 

JGOT: "I work in a theatre and want to use a Tallie for spot focusing lanterns, are you in a position to offer me any advice about rescue plans?"

 

AAP: "No. We are currently three months into that process."

 

JGOT: "Ah, so you are studying this at the moment?"

 

AAP: "Yep. HSE has given us two years starting from Nov 2011 to come up with something. We are going to take our time over looking at it and getting it right."

 

JGOT: "Cool, do you know when/where you will publicise the outcome of this?"

 

AAP: "Couldn't tell you precisely, but hopefully at an ABTT show."

 

Make of that what you will.

[kerry davies]

First of all let's hear it for a really good post from Seano, who does know about ropework and height, thanks for the reminder of the two older threads. For others besides Josh newer to the subject of WaH I recommend what Seano and Roderick said then in both of those threads.

 

Secondly, Ram may have thought I suggested posting rescue plans on here (shouty bit) I DO NOT RECOMMEND that at all. I have written many times about not offering up hostages to fortune and what I meant here was that if people had a plan they shared it off-forum with Josh, as he and I have been doing by PM. If they don't then they need to think about it.

I am still of the opinion that an outrigger needs to be firmly on the deck, Peter, but that is another subject and we have been there enough. (the CoP)

 

Thirdly, I trust that everyone is reminded that the amount of paperwork is no indicator of the level of safety and brief and simple is best, I nowadays take that and so much more as a given that I forget to repeat it. K.I.S.S.

 

Lastly (lost count) Josh's telephone conversation gives everyone a breathing space but does not mean AAP working on a plan gives anyone a get-out clause. The duties are still those of the employer/worker/user and these things need to be addressed. Somewhere in your RA it could possibly say something like "... whilst awaiting full rescue plans from manufacturer ..." but you should still make an effort to put something in place. The victim isn't going to lie there until November 2013 waiting for AAP to tell you what to do.

Many thanks to Josh for raising a topic on Tallescope safety that actually goes somewhere, amazing!

[ramdram]

Plus the victim is not going to be left hanging around because the Fire and Rescue don't have rope teams, assuming a rope team was relevant anyway. They find some folk who are tricked up to help, not least in being properly trained.

 

(When we needed a bomb disposal team at our station the team came all the way from some barracks in London to sort it. The local plod did not bemoan the fact bomb disposal teams were a bit thin on the ground in Reading so we might as well let it go off, or get the cleaners to take it out in the morning.)

 

Plus it is a bit moot to bang on about the employer being responsible for this, that and the other and whether one protocol takes precedence over another. There has been an accident, full stop. The rules and regs are now meaningless.

 

The bloke(ess) is stuck up in a basket "n" metres above the stage or whatever and they cannot help in the rescue because they are unconscious or incapable or both, or they are dead.

 

Once you have called in the relevant authorities it is their responsibility. And anyway if someone had died in the basket from whatever reason, then asking a co-worker to risk their life for no good reason is not really the thing is it?

 

That's why we have the Fire and Rescue teams, all volunteers and trained up to the eyeballs, they've got the kit...and they can and do travel if needed.

[Andrew Edwards]

I have always been confused about the statements in various publications about not relying on the emergency services. My immediate Fire and Rescue Service has an ISAR team, so clearly has a qualified personnel; getting someone down from a Talle should be simple for a team specialised in massive disasters. A short hop over the county border into Notts and they have an SRT that currently has 44 members.

 

I would say that should the need arise, I could rely on a team to come to the rescue.

[Scot628]

I have always been confused about the statements in various publications about not relying on the emergency services. My immediate Fire and Rescue Service has an ISAR team, so clearly has a qualified personnel; getting someone down from a Talle should be simple for a team specialised in massive disasters. A short hop over the county border into Notts and they have an SRT that currently has 44 members.

 

I would say that should the need arise, I could rely on a team to come to the rescue.

 

The issue is not about the competence of the emergency services, it is that if the core of that rescue plan requires a response from another organisation, which does not in fact respond in the event (for whatever reason) it would totally invalidate your plan. Take the worst case scenario: Your rescue plan requires a response from the emergency services to effect a rescue from the top of a tallescope. You have an incident, you contact the emergency services and they cannot come because they are totally committed somewhere else. You could argue it's not very likely, but the question is whether you have control over the emergency procedure. If you can guaranteee that a third party will always respond within the approrpiate time frame that you need, then I think you can legitimately claim that as part of your plan. Over emphasising a bit for effect and by no means having a go at Andrew, put the statement "I would say should the need arise, I could rely on a team to come to the rescue" in your emergency plan as the control measure and see if you feel comfortable that you would be covered in the event of an incident if you ask the follow up question..."why do you think that?"

[ramdram]

All this speculation about having a viable(?) rescue plan as such is really only to comply with the "requirement" you actually have to have one.

 

If there was an incident where someone is injured, as in cannot help themselves, or killed, and they are still up the tallescope basket, the very first part of your rescue plan would have to be call in the emergency services anyway.

 

You would be an utter mug if you asked only for the medics because the very first thing they would do is to assess the situation...and ascending into a basket designed for one, carrying their green bag is not going to happen. They are not "licensed" to put themselves in danger anyway no matter what the circumstances. (Google for actual instances.)

 

And for all we know the dispatcher person, on recording the details, might include the F&R as a matter of routine, ie, "we" have no say in the situation anyway.

 

Ergo the F&R will be called and as said earlier they would then assume responsibility, kick everyone off the site except the medics. "We" would simply be in the way, would we not?

 

For all we know they might assume, on general principles, the incident occurred because of a c@ck up by the bods manning the tallescope...was it being moved with a passenger? So the last thing they would want is help from persons who might have caused the problem in the first place.

 

Furthermore H&S would be involved. They see you have a rescue plan, they see your first action on said plan is to inform the emergency services. At least you got that right.

[Andrew Edwards]

Of course you are absolutely right and I never for a second was questioning competence of the service.

 

Perhaps if I had put '...not relying on emergency services as they may not have the facilities available' which is roughly what I have read in some guidance document which I can't lay my hands on at the moment.

This is silly because plenty of companies send staff out in vehicles everyday and there is also an equal if not greater chance of delay in the emergency services being able to extricate someone from the mangled wreckage. We do not insist that hauliers hire their own team to go out to lorry crashes.

 

My local service appears to have the right equipment/trained personnel and I suppose they may not be available. But if we are talking about probability of availability then perhaps the likelihood of needing their specialist services AND their not being available are very small indeed.

 

Is this an acceptable residual risk though?...

[kerry davies]

Bear in mind that in a H&S court case they have to prove nothing and the burden of proof falls on the accused. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply and you need to prove that you have done what a reasonable man finds reasonably practicable.

 

Leics Fire and Rescue has 20 odd stations only half of which are 'on call', over a third of firefighters are part time, they cover 4 motorways, a major city and their share of an International airport. The emergency nature of a single unconscious person posing no risk to others and who may already be beyond their help suggests that they may not prioritise that during high volume calls on their services.

 

If you can confidently answer Scot's last question to a court after a legal has made that clear and suggested that you may have tried to hand off your duty of care to a third party (LFAR) that had not accepted it or even knew of it, all is well.

Simply put an RA that says "Call the Fire Brigade" would require justification that it wasn't a 'hand-off' and that you had done all that was reasonably practicable before that.

[matt_beal]

Would it be worth contacting the local fire officers to come and have a look to advise you to what steps you could take, as well as which of their services would be available?

 

Whether or not it is possible for a reasonable man to carry out a rescue in a safe manner completely depends on the venue and equipment available. Professional advice should be sought, and recuse plans risk-assessed, against the risk of not rescuing.

 

Clearly a "reasonable man" couldn't be required to start messing about with SAS style rope work a that would require specialist knowledge and equipment. A reasonable man could also not be required by law to put himself in significant danger to recuse another, in the same way that a judge couldn't require you to run into a burning building.

 

What would be required is that a proper risk assessment has been carried out and relevant advice sought. If this all shows that you, or the local fire service can't safely rescue the victim from a talle; that the risk of needing to rescue someone is unacceptable and can't be reduced, it may well be that you need to look at different forms of access, or "SAS-style" training. But your risk assessment should indicate this.

 

Matt

 

Edit: SpAG

[Seano]

... you need to prove that you have done what a reasonable man finds reasonably practicable.

This.

I'm quite reasonable (well, sometimes) and I don't think its at all reasonably practical for a theatre technican to devise an all-purpose rescue plan for a bit of kit when even the manufacturer is (for the time being at least) stumped. Nor do I think its reasonable (as I already said above) to substitute some other bit of access equipment solely on the grounds that a rescue plan is not required unless that bit of kit is at least equally well suited to the task. (Obviously if some other piece of equipment is better, you should be probably be using that anyway.)

 

It also strikes me as a tad unreasonable to regard a talle as a kind of MEWP (for which the generic rescue plan is trivially simple: "have someone on the floor who can lower the basket") in the first place, but I digress.

 

Simply put an RA that says "Call the Fire Brigade" would require justification that it wasn't a 'hand-off' and that you had done all that was reasonably practicable before that.

 

What very much is reasonably practical imo, is doing all you can to prevent a 'rescue' from being required in the first place. The same precautions you would take to use a ladder or anything else really - making sure the person up there is fit and healthy, not fatigued, overheated, dehydrated or otherwise likely to faint etc. While they're up there you need to make reasonably sure they're not going to get a bump on the head or an electric shock. Etc.. yadda yadda. I'm sure you're all over this kind of fairly routine RA type stuff.

 

 

Oh, ok then. I've been holding out on you. Here's a (possibly not entirely serious suggestion for an all-purpose Tallescope rescue plan with no ropework:

Have lots of cardboard boxes and/or big airbag on standby. In event 'emergency lowering' is required pace out distance, Buster Keaton style, inflate airbag and/or build large pile of cardboard boxes. Remove outrigger from that side of scope. Clear area. Push over.

 

Note: the 'casualty' is still significantly better off than they would have been had they lost consciousness at the top of an A-frame.

Note also: most people who faint recover almost as quickly as they passed out with no ill effects. Perhaps don't be *too* hasty to put the 'rescue' into effect, eh? ;)