Health and safety training for theatres

[Simon Lewis]

Simon, be nice to Richard. He supplied those yummy muffins on his stand at ABTT.

 

mmmm muffins :P The sign of a well run company!

[paulears]

When the original DDA act came in everyone panicked and worried about places having to close because of the lack of lifts, ramps and other devices, yet it worked fine in practice because the Act recognised that sometimes they can't happen.

Perhaps people shouldn't be hanging S4 Revos off the Circle front then, having grunted them into place between the fixed seating, carrying them awkwardly up and down stairs and hoiking them into position using a combination of ropes and leaning over the rail. There may be "nothing wrong with ladders" but there is plenty wrong with the these and other theatre practices given proper assessment and perhaps one day I will stop hearing excuses as to why we all have knackered backs.

I personally see a big difference between manual work done safely and the same end result done badly. We have physically strong people and those who can't manage even gentle physical activities, plus everyone gets older. However, finance does come into it - like it or not. My venue has a long manual push from where the truck stop to the get-in door, and then a ramp up to auditorium level. Years ago, we shuttled stuff up and down in a pickup, then it fell through the wooden deck and the insurance company banned vehicles - including any attempt to find a tug to pull trolleys or maybe a train of cases - so it's manual effort. There are places like the RSC who have the funding to provide mechanical assistance for all these manual jobs. Great! It has to be appreciated that this kind of thing is still rare. I'm not saying it shouldn't be rolled out everywhere, but if the law was changed to require every venue to stop carrying out manual activities, then how many of us would have jobs?

 

If a receiving house sent every rider back saying no to everything the only result would be the tour wouldn't come to that venue. Every venue that I've seen over the past few years is trying to remove dangerous practices, but is pulling a rope dangerous? If two people heave something heavy up to a circle bar, and somebody on a ladder does up the clamps - is that such a big deal? Would removing a load of seats be less work, or more?

 

For every cameron Macintosh there are far more small companies going to the wall. I can think of quite a few off the top of my head - I don't have to work hard at it. I have to push heavy cases up a fairly steep ramp. The venue owner actually tried to find somebody who could install a lift - but there's no structure available to take the weight of a lift and the load - so what do we do? carry on pushing or close?

 

I rather like the risk assessment process as it focusses your thoughts, but unloading a lorry is still unloading - so carried out by people who have done it many times, the risk is less. Our own access issues mean that the practices used by some touring people won't work for us. They load cases in ways we know will make the long pull more risky. Some insist it's perfectly safe, they've done it lots of times, and in general - we don't insist, especially if they're first visitors to us. However, when their expensive digital mixer hits the decking, just missing a passing holidaymaker they come around. Manual work it is, and trying to do a big in - through the middle of holidaymakers is far safer when people are in control, not machinery!

The law has not banned manual practices, it simply states that where possible, manual processes should be removed or reduced. My own experience is that employed people, with an employer and all the employee protection are the ones who take chances. I know very few people who are self-employed who take risks with their health and bank balance. I'm well aware of how people can get hurt, but manual work is a choice for most people.

 

Would it be nice to have a venue full of expensive machinery to make life easy? Of course. Is it going to happen in venues threatened with closure/staff reduction/less shows - no!

 

Nobody is fighting to carry on with their shovels - we'd all love to have a digger - but it is ridiculous to think this kind of money exists. Using the RST as an example is a very good example of how to use public money to benefit the few. As an example of the industry in general, it's like looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Are we seriously suggesting that when the RST is used as an example, the first response is about money! If I was the chief executive of a theatre faced with balancing the books, frankly I'd look at the RSC and laugh (or cry) One short bar on a winch with a light lock costs how much........? Consider it in terms of salary? If you were a struggling venue what would you rather have people or a single gadget?

 

 

I am NOT saying safety is not important - far from it, but the idea that well funded venues set a standard just doesn't work for those who cannot afford to turn on the heating. I just have real trouble relating to the notion that everything manual is bad and everything automated is good with no consideration of anything else.

 

I 'm also not remotely saying that my own safety practices could not be improved. To re-gel a few things on a bar, I could drop in a bar easily - our counterweight system is operated from stage level, but LX1 and 2 are powered, and the controls are on the fly gallery, so involve a trip up a ladder, so the trip up a shorter A-frame is for us, less effort!

[kerry davies]

What you guys are discussing is the "reasonably practicable" part of risk assessment and it will always entail some sort of financial compromise. It is an integral part of RA but often does not get the attention that you are giving to it.

 

At what point does the cost of introducing safety measures make the entire enterprise financially unsustainable? Yes, it would be super to be able to throw as much money at any problem as exists in banks but "reasonably practicable" applies to cash as well as engineering restrictions. The important thing is to consider this in the RA and not to ignore it or indulge in wishful thinking. Sometimes manual handling is the safest way to do things. Sometimes the mechanisms introduced also introduce new hazards. RA needs to be approached holistically with all elements open to consideration.

 

To get back to OP, I don't think it matters what the course or training involves as long as it is adopted right across theatre. It can always be modified in practice to account for specifics but there needs to be a common approach to RA and basic principles whether the venue is state-of-the-art or listed antiquity. From my non-theatrical viewpoint the lack of a common vocabulary is the greatest drawback to theatre H&S.

 

The PSA adoption of the SPA passport was not the final solution or designed to create safety experts but to give a large number of workers a common language of safety. To that end I think it worked. It is a damned sight better than existed before.

[indyld]

The law has not banned manual practices, it simply states that where possible, manual processes should be removed or reduced.

 

Indeed, and my point is I believe that not enough effort is going into removal or reduction of this in mainstream theatre practice, as compared to other industries. I don't assume that funding the RSC is a good use of public money for the benefit of the few but it's a very obvious example of where human health is considered over cost.

 

Of course managements choose people over machines. The talent and processing power, not to mention flexibility, of a human make manpower extremely cheap for what it is.

 

And people are also expendable. When someone's back isn't up to double stacking VL boxes anymore, the industry moves to the next person in the queue of fit and keen people to take over. With any luck, that knackered person is either in the business of managing or moves out of the business all together. However, they, (we, me, all of my industry friends) are quietly busted and go off for our osteopath appointments knowing that we are unlikely to still be "at it" in our later years. If we are still in the thick of it, we step aside for the young 'uns so they can hurt themselves instead.

 

It isn't really about what is reasonably practicable, as the vast majority of the practices I'm thinking of are actually completely avoidable with little more than proper RA and a change in mindset followed by action, not the installation of expensive technology. If H&S inspectors actually were awake at 0300 on a Sunday morning all over the UK, theatres would be shut down overnight.

 

Should British theatre be kept alive at the expense of people's health? I'm not convinced it should, any more than I can imagine many ordinary people in the UK think that the RSC should be funded so that the middle class can enjoy Shakespeare.

[paulears]

I just can't take this in. I see manual work taking place all over. I fail to see what inspectors would find problematic. The risk assessments for the processes are done, venues and company reps have probably read each others and each signed the other persons, so in many cases there have been two risk assessments done for the job. We're disagreeing on thee quantity of people to do the jobs not the job itself. Double stacking big black boxes is not somebodies permanent job in most cases, and with proper planning, these jobs can be rotated. How many people do you see wearing back braces - which a few people wear to give them some extra protection - for when they get tired. Nobody has to do manual labour, they could work in an office and lift a ream of paper putting it into the copier as the heaviest work they do. If you look at many venues, you'll see catering staff using two people to carry fairly light things, because they're not physically developed people. If you are self-employed, then it's a choice. You are your own boss, and if you don't like lifting, don't do it. If you work for the employer then if you are injured, then you will not normally be discarded - there are systems.

I'm not clear what you mean when you say that with RAs practices are avoidable?

 

It's not effort going into removing manual effort - it's money. If there is no money, perhaps there should be, but some people do manual work - that's how it is.

 

Use my summer venue as an example. How would you focus the front of house truss without perching on top of the big A-frame. It needs two hands to do, so sitting on the top platform, jammed between the uprights is the only way we can do it - but this means turning around at the top, which some people cannot do. To get flight cases onto the stage means up a ramp to auditorium level, then up another 1.2m to the stage - probably 2.5m in total - and the physical layout means the ramps are 3m - so quite steep, and often the outside one is also wet. Some like cable trunks and amp racks need three people to do this. As far as we've tried, this is the only way to do it. I can't think of any other way apart from a winch, which would slow things down so much that it would not be possible in the time allowed.

 

Manual handling is unavoidable and as such, I fail to see what the inspectors would find wrong with it. Riders for our types of show usually ask for 2 get-in people, we provide 6! That seems a good thing from our perspective as it allows rotation and rests.

 

The RSC thing isn't really part of this - they're not normal from this perspective - so anything they do has little impact on ordinary self-funded venues.

[indyld]

I'm not clear what you mean when you say that with RAs practices are avoidable?

 

It's not effort going into removing manual effort - it's money. If there is no money, perhaps there should be, but some people do manual work - that's how it is.

 

The practices I am talking about would be avoidable, given a risk management process AND boots on the ground actually following the resulting method statement regardless of "easier" / "quicker" / "cheaper" option. I'm not talking about nobody ever lifting anything or even ridding the world of physical effort in the work place, it's that in my considerable experience in different parts of the industry, poor manual handling planning and practice continues to be rife and more so on the theatre side.

 

The idea of rotation of work between different people is a false comfort. When the practices are involving operatives in the "red zone" of poor manual handling in nearly all stated areas in the guidelines, then it's hardly ok to think "well, at least repetition is lower than it might be as we have a few extra people." The fact that it takes 20 people 50 odd 30m trips each out to the wagon to hoik in some unwieldy thing doesn't make it best practice just because they could be doing 100 each.

 

I am not suggesting the parachuting of plant into every corner of Theatreland or the introduction of additional risks in the name of "taking the effort out of it". The point about H&S inspectors is that they could easily argue that not enough has been done that is "reasonably practicable" or that measures are not being followed. The crux of this isn't as simple as if I, or the HSE or anybody else things lifting things or going up ladders is a "bad thing" - it's about the mitigation of the risks to health in the workplace and if enough is being done.

 

At the moment, I don't feel it is and plenty of respected colleagues of mine who often have experience of large scale safety management in the business and outside (construction, factories etc.) also hold this view.

 

E2A: I would be interested to see if each company's reps had indeed signed each others MS/RA off, what they contained and that they were happy they were being adhered to as this would mean that the poor practice was being rubber stamped at every level. Even designed into the system.

 

I can also really see me or anyone as a freelancer saying "Sorry, I'm not doing that as I believe the method you are suggesting could have been better planned and better measures taken." That would go down a storm.

 

And in the employed area, what often happens is that casual / local crew co. worker cannot work anymore and falls off the list and it's argued to be by choice.

[paulears]

While I can see your point - I do not think it's particularly worse in our area than many others where physical effort is required. As everyone is different - any attempt to implement accurate descriptors seems unable to be effective. We've already seen so many cases that in effect are restrictive practices placed on employers that simply working is becoming untenable. The only people getting rich are scaffolding companies who now have so much business they didn't have before 'safety' was introduced. Unnecessary manual handling is a sensible thing to reduce - but how would you propose a truck gets unloaded without physically moving it? Is there actually something that could empty a trailer without using muscle power?

 

Are we talking real world or ideal world? In venues with really rigid and tough H&S implementation - Plymouth Theatre Royal comes to mind where they have a H&S rep who has a remit to be nosey and investigate. They still have to deal with heavy boxes, and some positions in the building still mean muscle power is needed. Others have retired their telescopes and replaced them with powered access equipment - but still have to carry heavy items into the building. Risk assessments that demand certain activities and guarantee compliance fall apart when something as simple as a set piece arrives without the weight marking the RA states will be on each item. So somebody gives it a tug and makes a determination of it's weight and it gets dealt with. This creates a RA compliance issue and causes both parties to do their best to make sure it doesn't happen again - but the item still needs dealing with. The important things are the things outside the RA. Like when a member of the house crew removes an item from the trailer in a different order to which it was loaded, not realising it was holding the other items up, and they fall and trap him. This kind of thing is what I like to try to control - but to do it properly requires an informed observer, and we don't have budgets for non productive people, do we?

 

I would seriously appreciate anything that would allow me to get through the summer season without damage to me fingers, my shins, and other body parts that are prone to injury. I've hurt my back in the past, not through dealing with heavy items, just unwieldy ones - and getting a 5m canvas flat that has the capability to lift you off the ground in the wind is not something a RA can control properly. Most RA are simply designed to reduce risk, not remove it - that's what they do. Predict typical issues, categorise them, analyse them and produce risk reduction strategies. Carrying them out can still lead rot damage, just less serious damage. So reducing 'death' to ' serious injury' is considered positive in some areas. Sending somebody on a bend the knees course doesn't stop them lifting badly - it does give them the knowledge to determine for themselves if something is ok to lift. I know my limits, the dangers are from other people who do things 'oddly'. Stupid things cause injuries = like plonkers who drop the weight on two, rather than three, or just let go, leaving you with all the weight. I'm well aware these things should not happen - but they do.

 

I'd cheerfully adopt a system that made my work safer - but I've done what I can. This ideal world doesn't exist. If the RSC were running my venue, the solution to my problems would be easy, they'd jack up the theatre and move it closer to the land, get an Arts Council Grant and improve safety in one simple move. The front of house truss would have a nice bridge able to drop down behind it for focussing, with a lift fitted to get us into the roof. The counterweights would all have motor drives and the scene dock doors, fitted by the designer in 1958 3m metres above the deck would be at ground level. This would reduce the chances of a passing ship crashing into the theatre (or would have, had coastal erosion not replaced sea with sand!). None of this is going to happen. Best we can do is work carefully and manually. I see no laws being broken and we carry out the processes in the safest way we can. This means heavy handling and step ladders, hemp and lots of other difficult areas.

 

Interestingly to some - our disabled policy gave up on the disabled lift up a fight of stairs into the auditorium. Wheelchairs are now manually pushed up yet another ramp! The stage crew do this because they've become quite skilled at it, and the front of house people rarely last very long, so are not able to do it safely.

 

I'd love money to spend on enhancements - but it just isn't going to happen.

[kerry davies]

Couple of points. It isn't "safety" with scaffolding any more than it is "safety" with driving large artics, it is the way things are because the electorate wanted it.

 

The hierarchy of risk does actually start with ELIMINATE. Don't do it. Do something less risky. Whatever, but an RA should and does begin with Eliminate. I agree that we cannot eliminate manual handling and nor should we try, we should however take every incident of a flying flat or a barked shin and do something about that. Keep records and analyse them to see how to eliminate or reduce them.

 

RA's are not bits of paper to be countersigned, they are organic, fluid and adaptable procedures that encourage forethought and record that forethought. We do not fill out a form when we think; "Can I cross before this bus runs me down?" but that is an RA and is organic, fluid and adaptable because what we answer in bright sunlight on an open road changes as conditions change.

 

What I think Rob is on about isn't merely spending money to reduce incidents but having a cultural shift to a position where RA's and safety become intrinsic to everything we do. More than H&S or "elf'n'safety' it is about the welfare of human beings first and foremost. This welfare of others angle is not wholly altruistic. I get more productivity out of a staff member who is not in A&E or limping around site. I also have less paperwork and claim forms to fill in and less replacements to pay for.

 

Individual cases and specific venues are not what I want to consider. However the fact that Paulears accepts occasional barked shins or crushed fingers is unacceptable to me. They are preventable.

[indyld]

Unnecessary manual handling is a sensible thing to reduce - but how would you propose a truck gets unloaded without physically moving it? Is there actually something that could empty a trailer without using muscle power?

 

If you walk into a theatre on a Saturday night, it wouldn't be hard to find plenty of manual handling that could be classed as unnecessary. An example of struggling an EOS down a small stairwell, only to drag an identical EOS back up said stairwell for the next show. Or removing and trucking a whole system of under balcony fills, only to re-rig a similar system the the next day with all the balancing on seat that that involves. Or, as LDs are't terribly innovative these days in their theatre designs, not heft out any entire rig that goes Spot, Wash, Spot, Wash... and replace with a different one that goes Wash, Spot, Wash, Spot.... But those are some examples that involves a change in mindset in order to see them. Simpler ones are "Why isn't this on wheels?" or "Why doesn't this come apart?" or "Does this box actually have to be this heavy?"

 

There are things that can empty a trailer while reducing the need for muscle power. And before anyone says that they introduce additional risks, those risks can in the main be reduced or eliminated with proper planning and methods. Using them requires a change in mindset of how things are loaded, toured and placed into each venue. But they exist and are used extensively in freight forwarding and large R n R touring because the venues are conducive (or even designed) to make it possible. If the venue makes it impossible, I'm not sure that causing long term health issues to workers is the next stopping off point. Just because you could triple stack a truckfull of ML cases by hand given enough heaving, doesn't mean it should be the 'go to' position.

 

I have developed a new scientific test for manual handling operations: If you can hear swearing and grunting, there is a good chance that the operation needs looking at.

 

.. but still have to carry heavy items into the building. Risk assessments that demand certain activities and guarantee compliance fall apart when something as simple as a set piece arrives without the weight marking the RA states will be on each item. So somebody gives it a tug and makes a determination of it's weight and it gets dealt with. This creates a RA compliance issue and causes both parties to do their best to make sure it doesn't happen again - but the item still needs dealing with. The important things are the things outside the RA.

 

Why "have" to carry? Perhaps they don't need to be manually moved/as heavy. Or toured at all (see above)

 

Like when a member of the house crew removes an item from the trailer in a different order to which it was loaded, not realising it was holding the other items up, and they fall and trap him. This kind of thing is what I like to try to control - but to do it properly requires an informed observer, and we don't have budgets for non productive people, do we?

 

No, it shows up the reasons for loading and unloading processes that obviate people being in harms way. And the need for adequate training and not simply relying on the possibility that someone with a bit more nouse is around to save the day.

 

 

I would seriously appreciate anything that would allow me to get through the summer season without damage to me fingers, my shins, and other body parts that are prone to injury. I've hurt my back in the past, not through dealing with heavy items, just unwieldy ones - and getting a 5m canvas flat that has the capability to lift you off the ground in the wind is not something a RA can control properly. Most RA are simply designed to reduce risk, not remove it - that's what they do.

 

I'm with Kerry on this one - it's not ok to simply accept these injuries and is exactly why am banging my head against this particular wall. It also displays what I see as the wrong attitude to what risk management is about. The idea that you think up a few risks, add them to a list then proudly show how you have reduced their severity factor. That is 'elf n safety' along with anyone trying to insist that marking the weights on every item somehow makes everything safer.

 

Stupid things cause injuries = like plonkers who drop the weight on two, rather than three, or just let go, leaving you with all the weight. I'm well aware these things should not happen - but they do.

 

Perhaps they would happen less with better trained personnel and not just doing a "lift with your knees" course (which, isn't what MH training should be about but anyway.) Or, heaven forbid, actually seek to eliminate or reduce the practice in the first place.

 

 

My head is so full of examples I can't even begin to start but my point is that 'elf n safety' is often approached from the wrong end, if it's addressed at all. By way of example, let's take a particularly theatre thing.

 

15 years ago: Riggers in the grid moving loose metalwork around, shackles being used, motor chains etc. Entire fit-up going on below, with crew milling around groundman who occasionally moves someone on from the drop zone if he remembers.

 

10 years ago: "Right lads, hard hats on. We have to wear these on stage now." Much complaining. Practices remain the same, hats occasionally put on if people are in the roof but it's all a bit too much effort.

 

Now: "Right lads, hats on, remember. Riggers in the roof." The scene is similar to 15 years ago, only there are 5x the number of points. Hat-wearing Crew work goes on at a furious pace all over the stage, groundman has given up trying to keep people away from the 1m square that may be the drop zone and anyway, there are now 4 riggers in the grid all night.

 

What could be happening: 4 riggers in the roof, two groundmen in suitable PPE and a cordoned off 'no entry' drop zone that is adhered to. Ground men trained and ensure they are safely positioned during operations. No one else is put at risk.

 

Does this example involve a change in the scheduling? You bet it does? Does this change have a cost implication? I'm sure it would. Does this happen in the "real world"? Yes, in arenas and, in my experience, very little in theatre. There are a whole bunch of manual handling examples too. Obviously, each person can say "Well, what happens in my venue is.... We have to that because.... We'd never do that anyway....." which is the reason I am talking generically because it's more about culture than if so-and-so did this at the Wotsit Theatre or if they have a "rule" about wearing fluorescent steelies.

 

I'm not sure I can change the minds of the many, but I believe these are things that should be talked about. I'm sure that Paul does everything he can to ensure a safe working environment but it's worrying to see the acceptance of incidents and injury. Perhaps the issue is with the perceived scale of the problem. If these incidents are occurring with say, one truck per day or even one a week. Is this acceptable? When a show is 20+ 45ft step frames or if you work for a crewing company and do 4 load ins per day, would you expect find yourself with 20 times the number of injuries?

 

The question isn't how one deals with the truck that turns up and current industry attitudes, it's what we could do if we put out minds to it. We should all seek to ELIMINATE, Reduce, Isolate.... Not just mark up overly heavy items, don PPE and order 10 more guys from the "not busted" pile.

 

Edit: Ooops, sommat up with the formatting. :(

 

Bear in mind that project management for civil construction projects include the number of people who WILL die during the build. You can quickly see why wrenches, bumps and wrecking people's backs are managed out as much as possible, given that they are in majority at the bottom of the pyramid. And are often avoidable with elimination.

 

The relevance of all this to the OP is that there is still some work to be done when it comes to the understanding of risk management and as is apparent, it has to be approached sensitively with industry relevance.

[paulears]

I wrote a big reply - but deleted it.

 

I'm going to give up - because it seems that reality is being ignored, and completely impractical and unrealistic advice promoted. Frankly,I'm amazed at this total risk elimination policy being promoted as something actually possible. I appreciate indyld, as an educationalist now has to promote excellent practice - but he works with students - who have the most un-safe attitude to their work, far less safe for a few than anyone actually working! Kerry can't even accept shins being scraped as acceptable.

 

I can't accept these statements as anything like the reality I actually see and suffer myself. B&Q sell hammers. Is there anyone who has not missed the nail and hit their thumb out there? I'm being encouraged to believe that hitting my thumb with a hammer should never happen.

 

I'm going to give up because the advice is very worthy, but just foreign to me. It's unrealistic, and is politician talk - where there is a magical land where everything works, problems don't happen and everything is fluffy and perpetually safe. Accidents don't happen,and the Nirvana sign above the door remains there held up by magic - nails and hammers of course don't exist in this world.

 

I love the way my honest descriptions of very common (from my experience) practices have 'ideal' solutions attached. Oddly, I could of course have produced those myself - and often did when I was teaching best practice as the only way to work.

 

Why don't we simply agree that we'll all work totally safely, without any risks and forget about this topic, happy that we've all solved the problems and can live long and peaceful lives. I'm going to do all my work from now on using the advice I've been given on how I do it all wrong. Thanks so much everyone. Thank goodness I'm now safe. I'll text everyone and cancel the shows, refund the money, arrange interviews with the job centre, and pull the shutter down and stay at home. Phew - thank goodness we've made it safe and risk free.

 

 

The trouble is life isn't safe and risk free. I'm going to give up on this subject now because none of this actually helps people do their jobs - and keep them!

[indyld]

In the interests of this thread not becoming two peoples ideas to the exclusion of others, I'm also finished for now. It would be great to see a few more voices on this important subject, even though it has been debated in the past.

 

I am genuinely sorry for Paul's exasperation and feelings that reality is being ignored. I would agree that students are some of the inherently unsafe workers out there, simply because they have not yet developed the nous, awareness or even the motor skills to be "naturally" safe. I feel that my role as educationalist and industry specialist is to challenge thinking, rather than push particular 'ideal' practice.

 

I would point out that I continue to work regularly in different areas of the industry and participate in reality at the sharp end first (dirty) hand, as I did when in my career including when I was PM and planning safe working practices in temporary show builds. All of the above is based on current practice as experienced and includes the voices of lowly crew members, along with bigger shots in safety management, both of whom sometimes can't believe "this" [insert practice here] is still happening in 2012.

 

Perhaps if the OP hasn't been completely scared off, they could voice some opinions on where 'we' are in terms of training and what is proposed for the future. Or maybe some younger BR members (who are, after all, the future) would care to join in. I've heard enough of my own ideas to last a lifetime. :)

[kerry davies]

Fair enough, just a round-up and off to pastures new.

The pyramid Rob mentions has a large base of near misses or "near hits" as I call them. Next level is minor injuries which are about 10% of the near hits numbers then at the peak serious or fatal injuries which, again, are about 1% of the minor injuries. If the near hits are recorded in the incident book, steps can be taken then to reduce them which reduces minor and eventually major injury.

 

That is what I mean by minor scrapes being "unacceptable" we should be managing them out at near hit level wherever possible. This is not new, I learned it as an apprentice in 1965.

 

Those who do not know of the hierarchy of risk management should Google ERICPD and note it starts at E. Also that E does not stand for eliminate ALL risk, that is impossible. It stands for eliminate hazardous procedures where safer ones exist. Don't climb when motorized truss is available. Use a sack truck when you have one etc.

 

Rob mentions students lesser nous, awareness and motor skills, neurological development in young males is often incomplete up to 28 years of age (true!), which explains why RA's for young people must bear that in mind and make allowances. One task does not have one single RA solution. Horses for courses.

 

Notwithstanding this interesting discussion our combined industry has a fairly decent record already and when we are in the business of searching for the unattainable perfect show I see no reason to employ that attitude to our own and our colleagues well-being. It is about MY duty of care to MYSELF first and only then my duty to others.