PPE rules inconsistencies.

[pete LD]

Ive been touring the UK and Europe now for a good few years and after a conversation with a colleague last night in the pub I thought I would ask your opinions.

 

Steel toe caps have become a fixed requirement over the whole industry. This is simple, you know where you stand.

 

Hard hats and Hi vis on the other hand are massively inconsistent even within venues owned by the same group. Im wandering if venues even realise there all so different?

 

The last few venues (all large UK theatres) I've been in have had the following rules;

 

Hard hat only when men in the grid.

 

Hard hat only when flying is happening.

 

Hard hat for the entire load in (until a point when the venue SM decides its not a load in anymore)

 

Hard hat and Hi Vis for unloading the truck (outside in the car park) but then nothing on stage.

 

Hi vis for truck unloading (onto street) but no hard hat. and nothing on stage.

 

I find at some venues your treated as if you should know the rules but there just so inconsistent! I'm sure it seems normal for the local crew as they work there all the time but as touring crew ive only ever been asked to put a hard hat and hi vis on in a truck once!

 

So im wandering if your a venue TM what do you base your house rules on? Do you consult other venues? surely if one ATG venue has risk assessed and decided that hard hats are a requirement for the load in then all there venues should?

 

Then there is the issue of harnesses.... Thats for another day!

[jonathanhill]

I reckon I could have a good stab at naming some of the venues that you have just visited!

 

I reckon one reason for the differing PPE rules may be that a venue has had to revise their risk assessments after an incident, maybe someone got a fly bar to the bonce and from then it was a requirement that hard hats are worn when flying is occurring. I have never worked in-house for ATG, but I have for their biggest competitor, and the risk management was down to the individual venues, led by the Health and Safety Committee. As an example, my wife works for the same group, in a venue that was previously run by Live Nation. All of their risk management is based on templates and documentation from then and is reckoned to be excellent. However, the other venues in the group have wildly differing methods of managing their risks, some generic and some specific.

 

There are no hard and fast rules regarding PPE, just as there are no hard and fast rules regarding risk management, other than that risks must be acknowledged, assessed, made safer and monitored.

[kerry davies]

And not one of them performed any sort of toolbox talk or brief induction?

 

Ooh dear! Epic fail on first principles.

[ImagineerTom]

I'd argue the fact that different sites have different policies is an indication that assessments and judgements have been made at different sites in to the different risks presented and appropriate systems put in place based on their site-specific situations. I'd be much more worried if a blanket policy had been created and enforced blindly across dozens of different sites and productions as it wouldn't actually reflect the real risks and issues involved?

[Jivemaster]

We had some tiny jobs done in the office at work, the office remained in use by the usual people in office clothes BUT the chippies and fitters had to wear hats, boots and HiVis!

[Roderick]

Kerry is spot on! The toolbox talk would have explained the how's and why's of any PPE to be used.

 

Sadly, what it all comes down to is the lack of understanding what PPE actually does within a work environment.

Simply put, PPE is admitting defeat and that you are incapable of providing a safe place of work.

PPE sits at the bottom of the Hierachy of Control when it comes to fixing unsafe conditions and I often question the sensibility of them.

Hi-viz are my special pet-hate. Yes, they serve a purpose when there is plant (fork, boom, scissor) or vehicles operating in the same area but if there isn't, what is the point?

Why would chippies and fitters wear Hi-viz in an office? Or the person in the boomlift? If you run into a forklift at height you have problems that no bit of PPE are going to fix.

 

Hard hats are another often abused piece of PPE. Yes they are great if someone is working above and drops a shackle. But they are not going to make any difference if someone drops a bit of automated lighting, let alone a piece of line array. Yet everyone with hard hat feels invincible and that is a worrying trend. A piece of hazard tape between a few roadcases to keep the area clear is a much better solution by separating people from the risk.

 

For me these things are often indicators that the H&S person doesn't really understand what is needed and just jots a few things down because they saw that somewhere else.

I urge everyone to question the need to PPE so that they understand what the actual risk is.

[pete LD]

Im glad this has started some informed dissuasion!

 

kerry davies

And not one of them performed any sort of toolbox talk or brief induction?

 

The only venue I've ever been to in the UK that does any kind of introduction to procedures is the venue I cassy at when im not touring, The Birmingham Hippodrome.

And then you get the other side of the coin, The regular staff for the Hipp signing a document at the start of a load in saying they have understood the procedures which they have signed a fair few times in there lives!

 

elsewhere the closest I've come is having to sign something to say all my crew had had an 11 hour break!

 

ImagineerTom

I'd argue the fact that different sites have different policies is an indication that assessments and judgements have been made at different sites in to the different risks presented and appropriate systems put in place based on their site-specific situations.

 

My point is that surely counterweight flying is fairly smiler in every venue? I understand there are differences, Bristol Hipp balance the load whilst loading and some places load the bar on the deck then fill the cradle. but differences in the way they use there system surely does not affect the need for a hard hat?

I agree that Hi vis if your load out is on to a road may be the answer to the problem of crew being ran over and on a covered loading dock this would not apply!

 

Roderick

Hi-viz are my special pet-hate. Yes, they serve a purpose when there is plant (fork, boom, scissor) or vehicles operating in the same area but if there isn't, what is the point?

Why would chippies and fitters wear Hi-viz in an office? Or the person in the boomlift? If you run into a forklift at height you have problems that no bit of PPE are going to fix.

 

And this is my point! What is going to fall on your head in a truck?. A flightcase that your tipping? A hard hat will not save you if its dropped on you! But someone has risk assessed the unloading of a truck and decided a hard hat is needed, but when flying is happening on stage with bars moving around you there not?

 

Jivemaster

We had some tiny jobs done in the office at work, the office remained in use by the usual people in office clothes BUT the chippies and fitters had to wear hats, boots and HiVis!

 

I had a job where I had to go in to a new build and program the ETC ION in a new schools drama space.

that was 3 hours waiting for induction on to the (finished) site because I don't have what ever the building industry have created to get round the induction process. I than sat there all day in a control room in Hi vis, Hard hat Toe caps, and those shoe covers you get at swimming pools whilst programming!

[indyld]

What about the RA and safety planning of the tour itself? PPE and other measures are not the sole preserve of the venue. As a PM I would be involved in the RA for the tour or one off and see where RAs differed. Surely this is the responsibility of the tour employer as much as the venue despite RAs for the space itself being best guided by assessments already made.

 

When working overseas we don't assume the (to us) poor practice in safety, we export good practice and insist on it.

 

E2A: What I am getting is that, yes, the reality is that there a a variety of 'policies' encountered regarding PPE and working practices (don't get me started on theatre H&S culture again) but we should remember that H&S isn't something that the incoming tourer "puts up with". The culture within the circles of many operatives seems to be "What is the minimum safety crap I can get away with today?". This is as unwise as the idea that someone must be forced to wear a hardhat while programming in a control room.

[Ynot]

I urge everyone to question the need to PPE so that they understand what the actual risk is.

Now then.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that this is an extremely sensible statement AND definitely the correct thing to do, I have to observe that there is a HUGE caveat to be attached.

 

As a touring proddie, or a local cassie what would happen if you started questioning the need for PPE or indeed any other method of H & S 'policy' that's in place at a venue...?

 

Labels are very quick to be slapped on people - especially those who aren't known to the 'management' so the cassie who keeps questioning his 'betters' isn't going to get much more work as he's rocking the boat =- after all, "isn't SOME form of protection against a possible risk better than none?" And "providing that protection ticks a box or two, so 'we're only doing our job' "creeps in...

 

And the proddie who, like Pete at the school, who complains that sitting in a comfy new control booth nowhere near ANY physical hazards doesn't require any of the PPE he listed is likely to get short shrift and told that if he doesn't conform then he doesn't get to do the job, thus throwing EVERYONE off kilter...

 

This is the biggest problem with H &S as I see it. EVERY situation in EVERY venue or workplace is different by definition. Therefore EVERY risk assessment carried out during a load-in/out or performance MUST be done in a dynamic fashion - ie on the spot, and that RA re-assessed constantly as the work progresses. And by that I don't mean it has to be written out, then amended each time something changes. I mean the people ON THE FLOOR make the judgements as they work and make informed decisions about their own safety and that of the people in their environment.

 

Risk Assessment is al about common sense. But modern H & S personnel often remove the option for the individual to USE that common sense simply by waving 'rules and regs' in the air, many of which have little basis in fact or actual risk, but as they have their H & S title on their badge, THEY feel they're the law on that site and MUST be obeyed or else.

 

I would love to say that H & S policies are likely to improve any time soon but sadly I doubt that they are. We've said this before, but the ambulance-chasing generation is here to stay at least for a while, and as such we are at the mercy of jobsworths who seldom know their jobs inflicting draconian measures for no other reason than they read about it online, or they misinterpreted something on their half day H & S course before they got their badge.

 

Bit of a rant, but hey - what's new...!

 

http://www.blue-room.org.uk/public/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif

[indyld]

Hi-viz are my special pet-hate. Yes, they serve a purpose when there is plant (fork, boom, scissor) or vehicles operating in the same area but if there isn't, what is the point?

 

I actually like hi-viz on site and often wish it was more prevalent in dingy theatres. People seem to assume that hi-viz is about traffic management or vehicles or plant in general. Actually, it's about visibility of the extremely vulnerable human in an area of works where making them more visible makes them more safe.

 

When working in a grid or picker or even a fly floor, I would rather I could easily spot that person suddenly moving into my drop zone or under that frenchman I am flying in. I would also like to make it easier to spot someone in a danger area during an automation test or just simple truck push. It might even mean someone shouts louder when a flat falls AND they see a person in danger. They may not have seen this person so readily if they were skulking about all in black. The working environment on stage can be ideal for camoflage, with painted scenic items, complex visuals of steelwork lattices and a very changeable 'picture' for the eyes to work in; usually in low light. People working in this environment often wear a range of clothes that blend in to this regularly unfamiliar visual environment but, along with their hard hats, hi-vz makes for a uniform visual cue where every person is at any one time.

 

For me, wearing hi-viz is extremely low rent on the inconvenience factor and in a dark environment during major works, such as a fit up, reduces risk.

 

(PS I agree that PPE is basically giving in to hazards that could often be dealt with in other ways but that is a whole other conversation....)

 

Edit to qualify the above PS: In my experience, PPE is regularly too far forward in too people's minds when it comes to safety planning. I find it telling that many of the pictures on the OHSA website is of people in PPE, rather than perhaps the less visually appealing "piece of paper that could signify robust safety planning including scheduling".

 

I recently pulled up a RA that stated a measure against a series of hazards as being "First Aider on site at all times." While that may be an extreme example of giving in to hazards, many H&S policies do not stray terribly far from that resignation. PPE is often the cornerstone of such policies.

[richard]

I agree with Rob, I see no additional risk to wearing Hi-vis or steel toe caps, and both offer significant protection against risks. Hi-viz is useful to show people where you are, and for outdoor events it is a quick way to check that the people who are on site are working (not fool proof but it helps), while toe caps are obvious.

 

Hard hats are an interesting one, there is an argument that they increase risks - since they reduce visability and can fall off and hit people, however they also protect the user from banging their head on bits of scenery and other stuff.

 

While I agree that people should question PPE requirements if that PPE is increasing the risk (wearing a non-strap hat while climbing a ladder, or a harness to climb a tallescope) I think it's perfectly acceptable for venues to set policy as to basic PPE levels.

 

I would disagree that PPE is 'giving in to hazards' - the only way to avoid the risk of someone droppping something heavy onto their feet would be to avoid having any heavy items (including items on wheels) on stage, a similar argument can be made for hi viz.

[jonathanhill]

My particular pet hate on-site is the insistence on using hazard lights on vehicles. It just means that other road users cannot tell in which direction a vehicle is turning. My own preference would be for only vehicles with an orange flashing light or cluster allowed on-site, i.e. no private vehicles and vans etc having to carry a magnetic orange fuzz light for use when they arrive at a site.

 

Sorry for veering off-topic.

[Jivemaster]

PPE lunacy is probably more to give the organisers a get out clause -"wasn't wearing a hard hat-that's why the falling truss killed him so it's his fault not mine! OR to give signs of rank on site so that the pretties don't have to takl to the labour.

 

I in my work ambulance uniform inc STC shoes was refused access to a building site because "I wasn't properly dressed and hadn't been inducted" -never found out what happened to the casualty on site -probably buried under the paperwork.

[bruce]

. Hi-viz is useful to show people where you are, and for outdoor events it is a quick way to check that the people who are on site are working (not fool proof but it helps),

 

Not only that, there's a mindset thing - the hi-viz can be a reminder that you are in a potentially hazardous environment. On virtually every construction site, hi viz, hat and boots are mandatory (no hat, no vest, no boots, no entry) and when you do see someone on site without any of this, you immediately ask yourself why...

 

Hard hats also have another purpose - they (or rather the stickers on the side) are usually an indication that the wearer has attended a "toolbox talk".

 

I in my work ambulance uniform inc STC shoes was refused access to a building site because "I wasn't properly dressed and hadn't been inducted"

I could tell a similar story about the fire brigade turning up at a mosque, with the fire alarm sounding, and someone suggesting they should remove their boots...

[pete LD]

I actually like hi-viz on site and often wish it was more prevalent in dingy theatres. People seem to assume that hi-viz is about traffic management or vehicles or plant in general. Actually, it's about visibility of the extremely vulnerable human in an area of works where making them more visible makes them more safe.

 

When working in a grid or picker or even a fly floor, I would rather I could easily spot that person suddenly moving into my drop zone or under that frenchman I am flying in. I would also like to make it easier to spot someone in a danger area during an automation test or just simple truck push. It might even mean someone shouts louder when a flat falls AND they see a person in danger. They may not have seen this person so readily if they were skulking about all in black. The working environment on stage can be ideal for camoflage, with painted scenic items, complex visuals of steelwork lattices and a very changeable 'picture' for the eyes to work in; usually in low light. People working in this environment often wear a range of clothes that blend in to this regularly unfamiliar visual environment but, along with their hard hats, hi-vz makes for a uniform visual cue where every person is at any one time.

 

This is a very valid point! Something that I hadent ever thought about. Im not an up rigger or a flyman so I never see it from that point of view. If I went in to a venue and that was there policy and it was explained (in the pre load in talk) then I would be fine with it.

 

If however there was 1 flyman, 3 LX bars to load and nothing else then its over the top! But multiple fly man, riggers in the roof and lampies dropping in cables etc on a big fit up then very good idea.

 

 

What about the RA and safety planning of the tour itself? PPE and other measures are not the sole preserve of the venue. As a PM I would be involved in the RA for the tour or one off and see where RAs differed. Surely this is the responsibility of the tour employer as much as the venue despite RAs for the space itself being best guided by assessments already made.

 

I havent seen our touring RA but im fairly sure It will be a "observe venues HS requirements" and to be fair the tour can only risk assess the activities and not the venue. And if a venue want you to put a hard hat on in the truck then there is little point in arguing with them that there is a roof and just a load of GP trunks. Im sure at some point in the past there has been an incident where a small box or prop has fallen off the top of something prompting the hard hat rule?

 

Anyway its beginners so I best go and do my job...