Rescue Plan and Tallescope Usage

[andy_s]

while I realise there's an element of poetic license involved, that's not what I'd call four fat chaps, that's four "super obese" types, as per the wikipedia example of a male with a BMI of 47 kg/m2: weight 146 kg (322 lb), height 177 cm (5 ft 10 in)....

 

now in my travels I have seen at least one theatre technician with those kind of specs up a tallescope on a raked false floor .... not a recommendation, of course.

[Ynot]

I was going to say something on that one too...

150kg is the equivalent 23 and a half stone!!!

And even a 23 stone tech will have a larger footprint (literally) than the whel of a MEWP.

 

So sorry - that argument fails to impress ...

 

 

 

[J Pearce]

All these stages that can't take a point load, are risers banned on them too? The average choir riser might have 4 to 6 people per 8x4 deck, that easily exceeds the point load of a static vertical lift surely?

 

I'm just starting to think that we're all a bit stuck in our ways and finding excuses not to change when we all know that the change would make our lives safer?

[Ynot]

All these stages that can't take a point load, are risers banned on them too?

I'm thinking more of the dance companies bringing a temporary floor in - many comprise a simple frame with plywood tops to give that 'sprung' feel.

[J Pearce]

I'm aware of those floors, we have a 100m^2 of harlequin liberty floor in storage at work, we had most of it out last week for two dance showcases.

Harlequin specify 650kg per board static or 300kg per board dynamic. This is still plenty for a static vertical lift.

[ramdram]

Well, now we are learning about loads a stage, proper, can support and the loads a sprung floor can support it may be the H&S folk might do a test(s) on using an a heavier, alternative means of access kit. After al it is they who are "introducing" change you might say.

 

Nothing has been mentioned specifically by them as I understand these things.

 

Perhaps the manufacturers of the alternative access kit might experiment themselves on the actual point loads and transform that into relative terms...perhaps not as blunt as "four really fat blokes".

 

It might be that stage plans are researched and in fact "your" stage could support far more then "you" thought. Ditto the sprung floors. A show along the lines of Michael F's River Dance and similar must have withstood some astonishing loads, albeit percussive.

 

The only drawback I can see is cost of the kit, hiring or buying; some venues may not simply be able to write a cheque at a moment's notice sort of thing.

[Giles Favell]

The trouble is, there is the world of difference between the loading a 'floor' or 'plywood' can take in its optimum circumstance, and in some of the worst (and hidden) circumstances than exist.

 

An 18mm sheet of Birch Ply, properly supported, and screwed down at the edges (note) on a (real) Steeldeck will take a point load (5omm x 50mm square) of 4.5kN before shear. It will howerever deflect.... This property contributes towards creating a deck that attains a 7.5kN/m2 overall rating - and is why you can't go round re-topping decks with any old rubbish, and expect them to perform to the same standard, or 'be lighter...'

 

A plywood stage, with battens properly spaced is very strong, and will probably exceed its design strength - assuming it is well constructed - however - that is a big, fat, assumption to make. Contractors like to use tongue and groove ply - which is not the strongest - and then - because it is tongue and groove - fall into the trap of having board joints mid span between battens. i.e. unsupported. That is a big no-no. What is worse, when cutting dip-traps, they have been known to cut through whatever support was there, and leave whole sections unsupported, to the extent that you can bounce up and down on the edge and watch it flex. So what should be a full 7.5kN/m2 floor, safe for powered access equipment, might have local weaknesses built into it as traps for the unwary.

This is something to watch out for anywhere.

In the early '80's, when I was Production Manager at LAMDA, a student of mine was at a local theatre of his during holidays, and he was being wheeled about on a tower during focussing, when one wheel went through a dip-trap, and the tower went over, threw him against the back wall, and killed him. Prior to that event we had already enforced the use of outriggers on tallis and towers, and safe use of ladders etc.., otherwise we would have felt even more awful.

Point loads and wheel loadings can be surpringly high - and cherry-pickers can be a nightmare.

 

Nice hardwood planked floors can be trouble too.... (Junckers often spring to mind) it is much cheaper to lay them with random length planks (obviously, as there is less wastage) but that means that the plank ends are not likely to be supported. Sadly, they only make a strong floor (in our terms) when all joints are fully supported by noggins underneath (much more expensive), as otherwise they are only relying on the tongue and groove for strength. A grand piano (which actually isn't that heavy) will break the tongue, and go through, if the end isn't supported - so a MEWP or other access equipment is also at risk. Planks should always end on a noggin.

[GRisdale]

150kg is the equivalent 23 and a half stone!!!

But you've failed to account for the fact that these tenors are hopping, and therefore only need to weigh perhaps 100kg (depending on the floor) to generate the load. Perhaps the riser example is simpler for people to grasp, but the underlying point remains that a lot of people seem to think the weight of a machine would make a cartoon hole in their stage, which is not necessarily the case. It's not that hard to check - why don't you?

 

So sorry - that argument fails to impress ...

I guess I'll get over it some day.

 

The only drawback I can see is cost of the kit, hiring or buying; some venues may not simply be able to write a cheque at a moment's notice sort of thing.

This is obviously an issue, but in the end I suspect the business case for going to powered over a talle will be an easy win long term. I don't know what AAP are proposing to charge for their amazing "make-it-all-safe kit", but the cost of training staff in carrying out the rescue, buying and maintaining rescue equipment needed, and then employing those people to be on hand for any time you need to focus is going to rack up. If someone calls in sick and you don't have enough people to carry out the rescue what then? You "can't rely" on the Fire Brigade (and as we've been hearing they're often on strike…). And when a technician moves on you've got to pay to train the new one. There is no standard course, so you'll probably have to pay for your whole team to be retrained with the new person. Powered access courses are all over the place, standardised and cheap. Who will run these talle rescue training sessions?

 

Powered access does cost to buy, and maintain, but doesn't need NI, sick pay or pension contributions and can be bought on finance - ie. people are expensive. Sorry if that's blunt (I'm possibly talking about your job, or the job you once had), but our industry is a business.

 

In the early '80's, when I was Production Manager at LAMDA, a student of mine was at a local theatre of his during holidays, and he was being wheeled about on a tower during focussing, when one wheel went through a dip-trap, and the tower went over, threw him against the back wall, and killed him.

Horrible (but important) to hear. This is exactly the situation I used to have nightmares about in my old venue. We had a hi viz cone to put on top of the down stage dip-trap so no one would forget it was there. People got really fed up with me insisting that it went on even if we were only working up stage, but reading this I'm glad I put up with the flak.

 

Some really good points about floor construction - as I've said it's easy and free to get someone in the know to check your floor out, so why mess around?

 

Gareth.

[JGOT]

Reporting back in.

 

I've not made a firm decision yet but am about 90% sure I'm going to junk the 'scope and get me one of these:

 

http://www.monkeytower.co.uk/

 

Reasons:

1) Mobile enough

2) Large enough and rated platform for two people - ideal for teaching

3) Appropriate working height for my stage

4) Light enough for the floor

5) Tools and kit can be brought to height when the basket is raised as opposed to pulled up in a bag/on a rope

6) The venue can afford it

7) No IPAF training required

 

and the reason for this whole thread in the first place...

 

8) In an emergency, it can be lowered from ground level with a casualty in the basket.

 

All in all, I think it is the way to go. Does anyone have any experience with these or something similar?

[brainwave-generator]

 

7) No IPAF training required

 

 

Just thought I'd point out, if it at all affects your decision, that nothing requires IPAF training.

 

Whether or not you need IPAF training and certification is down to your employer and, potentially, your insurer.

 

As a result, you should check whether this would still need you to be trained by IPAF - they may consider it as being 1a applicable. I reckon it's probably not as you lift it then climb up rather than stand inside and lift it up, but it's worth checking with your insurer. IPAF is entirely optional and something taken on by employers and insurers, so before assuming that you don't need any formal ticket to use it, I would definitely check.

 

 

It looks good though.

[matt_beal]

8) In an emergency, it can be lowered from ground level with a casualty in the basket.

 

Thanks for the update.

 

Looks like an interesting bit of kit, worth noting that the lifting capacity is only 75Kg though. That would probably stop it being dropped with the "average" 84 kg bloke in the basket, might be worth asking the manufacturers anyway.

 

Matt

[timd]

8) In an emergency, it can be lowered from ground level with a casualty in the basket.

 

Thanks for the update.

 

Looks like an interesting bit of kit, worth noting that the lifting capacity is only 75Kg though. That would probably stop it being dropped with the "average" 84 kg bloke in the basket, might be worth asking the manufacturers anyway.

 

Matt

 

Maximum lifting capacity, not support. You can load up 75kg, then lift and then climb in. Safe working load is 250kg.

[the kid]

I would assume they would want to see some form of training on it. It does look nice though. Shame it wont do the height we need.

[david.elsbury]

That looks really cool. Wonder if they're available over here?

[GRisdale]

Presumably you can't move this when occupied, but can you move it whilst elevated (unoccupied)? If not, the time it takes to lower it, shove along a bit, and winch back up again will become tedious very quickly.

 

Like the 0.25m adjustability (as will, no doubt, your shorter students!)

 

Gareth.