Selecting appropriate access equipment

[OllieDuff]

I've had a cursory search of the forums and can't find a suitable thread, so here goes:

 

I'm working in a 200-seat college venue which currently uses a tallescope to focus the lighting positions. The FoH positions are all accessible from walk-on bridges, so it's only used onstage to access bars which are trimmed to between 6.5 and 7.5m depending on the show. There are typically between 16 and 40 lanterns rigged in these positions per show. The users are students involved in amateur dramatics, live music and guest talks.There's a couple of problems with the existing access solution:

 

- The Powers That Be (College safety managers) are unhappy with the tallescope being moved with personnel in the basket

 

- Constantly ascending and descending the tallescope basket between positions (see above) tires the crew out quickly and increases the chance of someone fumbling and falling off the vertical ladder.

 

- The only available storage position for the tallescope is with the ladder in the horizontal position, in a location where people trying to get into a store cupboard have a chance of getting a nasty whack on the head if they don't duck low enough under the basket.

 

- The large storage footprint wastes a lot of useful wing space.

 

I'm looking into replacing the tallescope with an alternative solution that solves some of these problems; obviously I'll be working with our H&S office on this but I'm wondering if there are solutions beyond what I've already considered. My criteria are:

 

- must be less than 4m tall in storage configuration; storage footprint should be roughly 8ft x 4ft or less.

 

- must be suitable for an average height guy (say 5'9") to reach a lighting bar without overreaching

 

- must either be movable with crew on top, or have a large enough work platform that one could reach lanterns which are about 2-2.5m apart on the bar.

 

I am expecting that training in its use will be delivered peer to peer, using a combination of manufacturer's instructions and our own operating procedures as a reference guide, for which reason I've ruled out pneumatically and electrically driven EWPs. A pair of A-frame steps long enough to reach would fall outside the constraints on storage. A QA tower is not appropriate due to requirements for PASMA tickets etc. I'm leaning towards either a Zarges Skymaster-or-similar 3-part extension ladder, or an unpowered scissor lift. I've used an unpowered scissor in another venue, where it could comfortably be moved with people on top provided that the four outriggers were all extended.

 

I have two questions which I'm looking to answer:

 

1) where should I be looking for a quote on an unpowered scissor lift?

 

2) Are there any other access options I've not considered?

 

All advice gratefully received!

[the kid]

One thing I would see about getting on site to play with is the zap tower and or zap ladder, its made by zarges and is 1 man use, movable. Robust and v small storage.

[OllieDuff]

You say that ascending and descending the tallescope ladder would tire out the crew, but then go on to suggest a Zarges ladder. Granted, there is a difference between climbing a vertical ladder and an inclined ladder, but the work still has to be done, and the ladder involves holding on at the top, while in the scope basket you are hands free.

 

I'd suggest that if you already had enough crew to 'safely' (by ABTT CoP) move an occupied scope, then you should have enough crew to rotate around to negate the tiredness concern.

 

Consider how you intend to maintain your 3 points of contact on the ladder while focussing, for me I don't mind doing a short fix it session, but for a full focus call I want to be in a basket with my hands free for use.

 

There are compact scopes that fold in the middle of the ladder, rather than pivoting, which also means half of your ascent is on an inclined ladder rather than vertical.

 

The Zarges doesn't solve all of the problems, but it has certain advantages over the tallescope, principally ease of storage. Also, if someone slips while they're on an inclined ladder then they fall into the ladder, whereas if they're on a vertical tally ladder and slip then they'll fall backwards.

 

The issue with moving an occupied 'scope is that the bods who have to sign off on my method statement aren't happy with it, hence I'm looking for alternatives.

[Bryson]

I don't quite understand the restriction on training practices: why must the training be delivered peer-to-peer if the correct solution is a powered manlift?

[OllieDuff]

I don't quite understand the restriction on training practices: why must the training be delivered peer-to-peer if the correct solution is a powered manlift?

 

As it's a university venue, there is a high turnover of technicians, and the money isn't there to send a couple of people on a training course every year. Furthermore, the architect who designed the place specified a stage topped with sprung wood which dents if you look at it askance, so there are limitations on how heavy the access equipment can be; batteries and motors are heavy, as it turns out.

[kerry davies]

PEDANT ALERT.

Using the phrase "the money isn't there for safety training" is like a red rag to a bull and is an automatic guilty plea should any falls from height occur with any access equipment. Don't say it, don't write it and best of all, don't even think it.

 

If the architect designed the stage surface such that it demands certain access restrictions then the architect needs to design suitable and appropriate access equipment. As Jon Pearce writes, if you have sufficient staff available to move the tallie with a person aloft according to the ABTT CoP then you have sufficient staff for rotation to eliminate fatigue.

 

You write that the authorities are not content with your method statement which implies that it isn't the ABTT CoP. If true then you haven't got a leg to stand on. ABTT spent a decade and tens of thousands getting that one which HSE still do not approve. What chance have you got of improving on one that teams of chartered engineering consultants created?

 

I have a feeling you may not be telling us the whole story.

[Bryson]

Fair enough - the weight limit is indeed a problem.

 

I'm not sure you'd get "I can't afford to train people" past close scrutiny of the risk assessment, that's all.

 

Accessing 7.5m with an unpowered unit is going to be tricky. Even the biggest ZAP is only going to get you to 5.15m. I'm struggling to find any model of unpowered scissor that even comes close to the height you need. Do you mean an unpowered mast lift? http://www.genielift.com/en/products/new-equipment/aerial-work-platforms/awp-super-series/index.htm because if so, I have bad news for you: You can't move them with people in the basket without disobeying the manufacturers instructions (which is why you can't do the same in a tallescope), and they will also require outside training.

 

I actually can't think of a single product that will get to the heights you need, and move around with someone up top without requiring some outside training to operate. That was why the tallescope was so successful previously to the recent issues. A 14-rung Zarges will *just* get you up there, but the climb up and down issue is identical to the tallescope (and to be honest, I'd rather climb the tallie.) I think you need to argue hard for a safety training budget.

 

 

 

[Seano]

Also, if someone slips while they're on an inclined ladder then they fall into the ladder, whereas if they're on a vertical tally ladder and slip then they'll fall backwards.

 

Sorry, but this is nonsense really.

 

The issue with moving an occupied 'scope is that the bods who have to sign off on my method statement aren't happy with it, hence I'm looking for alternatives.

 

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. There was no suggestion you should move an occupied scope - merely that if you had sufficient personnel to do so, then you would also have sufficient personnel for people to take it in turns to focus so that each individual makes only one out of three or four ascents.

[Jivemaster]

As ever you are looking at this from the back.

 

There was a thread at the start of the whole tallescope issue, and one site (IIRC Glyndebourne) offered their lighting hang plot. With a reasonable set of lanterns they had put front back and side light on most likely parts of the stage and rarely needed to refocus anything, just pick the required lanterns. Obviously this is not a one rig suits all solution BUT it did reduce work at height to about 10% of it's previous count, which is obviously safety positive.

 

Maybe add some manually positioned nodding buckets for colour and special beams and you may reduce your WAH need dramatically.

 

However if you haven't the training budget ans controls then you can't afford to start the job. Will not afford is a deliberate statement of chose to fail.

[gyro_gearloose]

Approaching the problem from a different direction, is a tensioned wire grid out of the question? Do you have/need the ability to fly cloths and scenery? If not then a wire grid would solve a lot of problems.

[TomHoward]

We have both the Talle and 2x 14-rung Zarges for reaching difficult areas over set etc and the Zarges is absolutely no comparison to the Talle in terms of stability at the heights you are talking about.

 

HSE recommend ladder work for intervals of 15 minutes or less after which you need a platform. The tallescope is the most accepted and common piece of equipment in this bracket, as it is unpowered, light, and allows hands-free working. The Zarges doesn't move easily, needs 3 points of contact and is not suitable for sustained working.

 

In my opinion the Talle is your safest unpowered option, if you want to sort out your storage problems and please H&S office the only way I see is to move to an EWP that allows powered and proper manufacturer approved movement, then the H&S office should worry about the cost of provision & training, as an end user you can't put a price on safety.

 

Your only other alternative is a full blown scaffold tower, which will be a pain to build every time and will still need external training, still can't move it if you follow the manufacturers instructions, but it will give you a circu 2m bed at the top so you would need to climb & move it less often.

 

However if you were to start moving it occupied or cut corners in the build & deconstruct methods then you're in no better place with the manufacturers & your H&S office than moving the Talle.

[jonathanhill]

TBH I do not think that there is an access solution which is a 'one size fits all' solution. Working at height, especially in a performance space, will require a number of solutions; which one is chosen to undertake a specific task will be the one that is most suitable for that task.

 

Focussing, for example, requires the use of both hands, and often for prolonged periods of time. Therefore an access solution with a platform is the most suitable, whether it be a tallescope, access tower or MEWP.

 

There are many ways of tackling the problem, including a different access solution to the one being used currently, training, discussing the issues that the person signing off the method statements has with the current (accepted) method of moving an occupied tallescope and trying to find common ground, etcetera.

[OllieDuff]

Thanks to everyone for your replies. Much has been said about the training budget or lack thereof; I wish to clarify that this is the explanation that I have been given by the college authorities, and that I never said that it wasn't bullshit. I'm afraid that the Powers That Be in my venue are capable of breathtaking stupidity despite being very intelligent people.

 

I hadn't considered a TWG as an option, but we do fly cloths to varying heights both above and below the LX positions, so I'm guessing that it's not appropriate due to a two-objects-same-volume-element error. I have been looking into LED and moving head solutions, but the man with the money (I have no budget at all which I can disburse for technical purchases or training, because there "wouldn't be sufficient oversight from the Governing Body") was in my position back in the Sixties, and refuses to buy intelligent fixtures because "actually having to focus your lanterns is good experience". He will be retiring next year, and there will be much rejoicing and purchasing of new equipment.

 

If the architect designed the stage surface such that it demands certain access restrictions then the architect needs to design suitable and appropriate access equipment. As Jon Pearce writes, if you have sufficient staff available to move the tallie with a person aloft according to the ABTT CoP then you have sufficient staff for rotation to eliminate fatigue.

 

You write that the authorities are not content with your method statement which implies that it isn't the ABTT CoP. If true then you haven't got a leg to stand on. ABTT spent a decade and tens of thousands getting that one which HSE still do not approve. What chance have you got of improving on one that teams of chartered engineering consultants created?

 

I have a feeling you may not be telling us the whole story.

 

Your statement is predicated on the notion that the H&S chap (who is responsible for the entire college site and is by no means an expert in theatre-specific safety issues) is aware of the existence of COP011, which he is not. I have been reminding him to (for example) attach the extra two outriggers/non-lift castors/push-pulls for the last 18-24months and have repeatedly been told "sorry, one of the student societies has to pay for it, it's not the college's problem". This is a) unfeasible due to the fact that student theatre societies operate on a shoestring and b) an invalid statement because I am an employee and should reasonably expect the access equipment supplied by my employer to be up to code. Basically, it falls upon me (no pun intended) to solve the problem but I have been explicitly denied the resources and authority to do anything about it.

 

So no, I'm not sufficiently arrogant to believe I can improve on what the ABTT have done, I'm trying to get my employer to comply with the rules that ABTT have published, and if the easiest way to do that is to replace the 'scope with something else then that's what I'll do. If I could set my own budget for training and find a sufficiently light MEWP, I'd get a MEWP. My job security is not sufficient for me to be able to just refuse to work. I am bored of bounce focusing lanterns using painfully slow winched bars, but do not trust my soap-handling skills should something go wrong with the existing access solution and I find myself unexpectedly in a prison shower block. Therefore, I'm trying to come up with creative ways to solve the problem.

 

I've given as much context and information as I can remember. If you think I've left something out, then please ask specific questions so that I don't spend all day wondering which part of the "whole story" I've left out.

[gibbothegreat]

Well, one very specific place to start would be: what is the floor loading for all areas where the access equipment would be used or travel?

[madorangepanda]

just a note to add with regards to aluminium scaffold towers, the current PASMA recommendation is that they are not moved whilst people are aloft. Giving the same problems as a Tallescope.

 

Plus, the overall tower height should be no more than 4m whilst moving. Meaning a 3m platform height.

 

This tends to be explicitly stated in manufacturers instructions for towers, so trying to justify going against this is probably out of the question.

 

 

The only option that springs to mind is a trailer mounted boom lift, it should be possible to find one that fits your storage and stage loading requirements. But training is another question.