load bearing certificates?

[Brian]

...The legislation, and guidance is now so confusing...

 

Not really true. The Law is quite clear and can be summed up very easily...

 

1) Thou shalt take all reasonable steps to ensure that you don't kill, main, or injure one of your employees.

2) Thou shalt take all reasonable steps to ensure that you don't kill, main, or injure people who aren't your employees.

 

...that's it.

 

What has happened is that a whole industry based on spreading fear and lies has grown up in the form of the 'health and safety' industry. An industry staffed by people who've done a course and are now experts. An industry where every piece of paper and every 'tested' sticker means revenue.

[top-cat]

^ What he said.

 

The fact is that if you read the HSE website, they are very supportive of events being run by normal people exercising common sense to ensure that people don't die or get hurt.

 

In the UK you see Brian's point to some extent but in the Middle East you see it ten fold. You see building sites where there are westerners walking around in tailor cut suits with "HEALTH AND SAFETY" emblazoned on their hi-vis, driving range rovers and living in villas, telling all the workers to make sure that they put their hard hats on. These workers are doing 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, under a 40 degree sun, with 1 meal break for rice and water, for 170 pounds a month. But as long as there is a "health and safety advisor" there to make sure they are wearing their steel toe caps and hard hats, the construction company can be seen to be doing their bit, and the health and safety man can make his fortune selling scare tactics to the employer. This is the modern health and safety industry. You think they care about your safety? They care about being paid, and banning everything remotely risky is the best way to ensure that nothing goes wrong on their watch and they maintain their perfect track record; no matter what the cost to everyone else or the event itself.

[Roderick]

What has happened is that a whole industry based on spreading fear and lies has grown up in the form of the 'health and safety' industry. An industry staffed by people who've done a course and are now experts. An industry where every piece of paper and every 'tested' sticker means revenue.

And that statement sums up the narrow-minded misguidance that is so prevalent in our industry.

Whilst you certainly come across these H&S Nazis, they usually are from outside the industry and employed by another confused site manager or event organiser. And believe me, I dislike them as much as anyone else because they make my work that much harder. And I am the risk manager / safety consultant for the job.

 

But I came into that side of things after 25 years on the road, putting shows on stage on every continent (except Antarctica). Like any job in our industry you have people who do a good job and people who do a crap job because they are too lazy to put in the effort. And strangely enough I am often finding that crap riggers, crap electricians, crap set builders, crap sound operators, crap video engineers or whatever title they give themselves are also the people struggling with basic safety concepts. If you are on top of your game you will have integrated safety management into your job. It is not that hard IF you can get yourself to show a modicum of interest.

 

Core principle is consultation. If you think you are God's gift to your profession you are on the wrong track. Talk to your staff, talk to your clients, talk to your competition. Learn from that experience. Then spent some time, yes the 'no free lunch' concept applies to safety too, and find the relevant bits of legislation to back up your safety management concepts.

Here's a tip; when someone asks you about a certain aspect of the work you are doing, both 'huh' and 'I've been doing this for 10/20/30 years' are the wrong answers. The right answer is: 'we've looked at this and we determined this is the best and safest way of doing it'. Simples.

Safety is as much part of our industry as is lighting, staging, audio, video, sets, special effects, get used to it. Do you condemn a whole sector because you came across an obnoxious rigger? Are you disliking lighting because you came across a pedantic LD?

 

The big difference is that if you don't take your safety seriously, it could hurt me. If you just killed yourself than that would be inconvenient, it is stopping you hurting someone else that is at the top of my priority list.

 

And Top-Cat, about the Middle East. What you obviously fail to understand is that throughout the Middle East if there is an accident on a building site, it is the safety manager who gets arrested first. Part of his/her job is to take the blame for the accident and let the developer walk free. If the safety manager can't show that the accident was not preventable, they'll stay in jail for a long time. Wouldn't you put a bonus onto your fee if you faced that very serious possibility?

[top-cat]

Yes Roderick I would. I might also make a conscious effort to ensure the safety of the workers, not simply make a conscious effort to make sure I earned enough to not have to care. The justice system is indeed fairly narrow minded but equally preventing accidents is the best way to keep yourself out of trouble, but it's not something you see as much of when you see 3 Ill trained labourers huddled around a jackhammer wearing flip flops...

[paulears]

 

44mm crimps - This is the guy I trust to hang things above people's heads in my venue. A proper engineer, and ex-Army too. If he gives me a piece of paper saying something is safe, then his advice I take. Other people may well give me their opinions too. The MoD call him back to work on military projects (like this in the Falklands). It's good enough for me.

[top-cat]

That's great.

 

Most places use riggers, because their skills are in hanging things in theatres. But if playing on boats is what floats yours, it's entirely up to you.

[jonic222]

As someone who came into the industry from a university student theatre society, I find some of the comments here a bit frustrating. I left university a couple of years ago, having learned the vast majority of my skills through my own research, learning from those around me, and the steadily increasing amount of work I was getting. Once I left uni I was actually a little bit shocked that I'm not a complete idiot, using the wrong methods and working in a dangerous way as the Blue Room had lead me to believe all students are. I'd been working for a number of years using correct methods, asking the right questions, risk assessing, stopping things that were unsafe, and planning productions and events that work in a safe and efficient way. I absolutely agree that there are some idiots, and I've come across some shocking practices, but I really believe this is a very small minority, and the majority are incredibly sensible, and will get a company in to do things that they are not insured for or don't have the skills to do safely. I think in general the situation with university backstage societies is improving - we should support these guys and give them guidance - make criticisms constructive - don't just assume that people are inexperienced idiots. They are all beginning to work together, sharing skills and knowledge, in particular where health and safety is concerned, and there are a few groups out there who are really helping these societies improve (NSDF being one if the main ones).

Having said this - a word of advise for students out there. Universities have a huge number of resources, especially when it comes to health and safety. In my first year the health and safety people were kind of feared - they'd come along and complain, or say we can't use this or that because it wasn't safe. And they were right (most of the time). By my final year I was in charge of the technical society at my university, and instead of continue with this approach I began to work with the health and safety service. I asked them to check risk assessments, have a walk around the theatre with me to look at things that may need improving, talk about our practices during get-ins and shows, our fire procedures - pretty much everything. And things got better. They now provide a number of students with ladder training, first aid training, manual handling training, and fire training. Don't fight the health and safety guys, work with them - they will help you improve the way you work and may provide more than you think they would.

[paulears]

Top-Cat. I'm not talking about riggers - riggers rig, and engineers are the people who can produce figures to back up what they say. A rigger might be the right person to do the dangling off the rated rigging points, but the engineers are the people who calculate what gets painted on the steelwork. My point is simply that this topic started out talking about paperwork. I'm not competent to determine if a structure is capable of X amount of load. I wonder if a rigger would be too, without the manufacturers data. This is something anyone with a bit of maths expertise could work out themselves. I'd suggest that a 'real' engineer would actually understand where the figures come from, and be better at determining how the exact usage might compromise the paper spec.

 

Not trying to be funny, but I'd have more confidence in my engineer and his colleagues than somebody who isn't one.

[top-cat]

Top-Cat. I'm not talking about riggers - riggers rig, and engineers are the people who can produce figures to back up what they say. A rigger might be the right person to do the dangling off the rated rigging points, but the engineers are the people who calculate what gets painted on the steelwork. My point is simply that this topic started out talking about paperwork. I'm not competent to determine if a structure is capable of X amount of load. I wonder if a rigger would be too, without the manufacturers data. This is something anyone with a bit of maths expertise could work out themselves. I'd suggest that a 'real' engineer would actually understand where the figures come from, and be better at determining how the exact usage might compromise the paper spec.

 

Not trying to be funny, but I'd have more confidence in my engineer and his colleagues than somebody who isn't one.

 

For building beams, what you really want is a structural engineer. I am not saying this to be pedantic, but we often talk about the essentials of details, and basically 'engineer' is a broad term that does not necessarily qualify somebody to determine what additional load can be placed on structural members which ultimately keep your building in it's intended shape and form. Chartered structural engineers are generally the way to go, they have proven their worth with an independent body. There is frequently this belief that because somebody works with offshore cranes or tower cranes that truss and motors is all Lego to them, but it's not really true and there are unique considerations for both.

 

 

You would not expect a rigger to make this call, but neither would you expect many if not most types of engineer either.

 

 

As I said, if you trust him and you feel that the best way to mitigate the risk is use him, then that is fine because it's your call! I assume you have checked your insurance documentation to ensure that they do not have a specific ruling on who is able to determine and advise on loading of the building's structural members, or that if they do, your man fits within this guidance? Some theatre and venue insurers do specify such information.

 

Certification is one of those things which hasn't just come in to make money. Certification had to come in because when it was a case of "as long as you've had a professional consult you, and say this is OK, you are fine" was that people did not get it done because it cost money, and it was easier to just not pay, and if anyone asked, say that it had been done. It was people's failings, in order to spend less money, which has meant certification is more vital, so you can prove this happened. I know of a chain of venues who's overall technical director insists on the loose rigging being inspected by a 3rd party company - not because he feels his flymen are incapable, but simply because he doesn't trust the SMs not to just sign off the paperwork and keep on using it. It is a shame that things have come to this, but besides the profiteers, we as a collective our responsible for our own need of constant certification because without it we (again a collective) would only abuse the lack of it.

[Shez]

We've just had an inspection of flying & rigging equipment at one of the venues I work at by the insurance company. The inspector's background is cranes so it's not unheard of. (Having said that, he'd never encountered a tirfor before - you can draw your own conclusions but the insurers were obviously happy with his competence.)

[Brian]

The great thing about the laws of physics is that they are the same whether you are on a building site, on an oil rig, or in a theatre.

[top-cat]

The great thing about the laws of physics is that they are the same whether you are on a building site, on an oil rig, or in a theatre.

 

The laws of physics are the same yes.

 

Put an audio analyser from MI5 in front of a Vi6 at monitor world it might not go well. They can still explain the audio going through it, but they probably won't be able to use it.

 

Equally, if the aim of the game is inspecting equipment, somebody who is most familiar with cranes is not the ideal person to be inspecting a counterweight system. It makes no logical sense that somebody do a visual inspection of something they've never seen before!!

 

If there were not theatre-specific inspection engineers available, it might be a fair point. But there are! So why spend your money on somebody who deals with ships on a day to day basis, when you could spend the same money on a guy who deals with theatres on a day to day basis? I don't get what benefit you perceive.

[paulears]

Actually, I firmly disagree with this. Inspecting an unfamiliar piece of equipment is likely to be more investigative than somebody very familiar, who might not want to inspect a certain component because they know it is never a problem.

 

I've put up with a lot of innuendo about my preferred engineers. They have two departments, one is linked to testing heavy duty lifting equipment, and the other has 'TV and Theatre' in their trading name and they service many venues across the country. The entire point is that they are extremely theatre experienced, but they are not restricted to 10mm steel wire rope!

 

They also fabricate the steelwork that your rigging equipment can be attached to. Does this satisfy your need for one-upmanship?

 

In my venue, when they found a weak section of steel, they were able to fabricate a new one in their workshops, and then install it and test it in the venue.

[AHYoung]

Its interesting to read through what appears to be an argument where someone appears to be claiming that experience is a bad thing. In my mind, training and experience are a good thing and personaly, the best riggers in the industry ive come across arent the guys who come from a events background, but they guys that served their time in the docks as once you have got yourself comfortable lifting big loads, you dont tend to be phased about sticking points in an arena roof. A Specialist is someone with broad experience that chooses to work in a specific area, thats not the same as having a limited experience.

[top-cat]

Its interesting to read through what appears to be an argument where someone appears to be claiming that experience is a bad thing. In my mind, training and experience are a good thing and personaly, the best riggers in the industry ive come across arent the guys who come from a events background, but they guys that served their time in the docks as once you have got yourself comfortable lifting big loads, you dont tend to be phased about sticking points in an arena roof. A Specialist is someone with broad experience that chooses to work in a specific area, thats not the same as having a limited experience.

 

Who is claiming that experience is a bad thing?

 

Personally I've not yet met any riggers who used to work in the docks. Because put simply, hoisting containers onto ships using gantry cranes, and hauling points over arena beams, draw no similarities. They are different jobs both formed around the basic principle of lifting.

 

 

Paul, it's not a case of one upmanship. At all. I think that the points you put forward are interesting to think about and I am not saying you are doing the wrong thing. However, I don't agree with all that you say.

 

Actually, I firmly disagree with this. Inspecting an unfamiliar piece of equipment is likely to be more investigative than somebody very familiar, who might not want to inspect a certain component because they know it is never a problem.

 

Is an interesting concept but I just don't agree with it. I'm perfectly happy inspecting counterweight systems, I am fully aware of all the parts which need to be looked at, what the typical signs of wear are, what the specific things to look for are etc. But if you said "there's a tower crane, go and inspect it, because you don't know you will just check everything" I would respectfully decline. I don't feel that I could do a decent job of inspecting a piece of equipment which I know nothing about. And I would expect many crane engineers to look at some of the lifting systems we use in theatre, and say the same thing. Just because something is bigger, it doesn't mean it's more complex and that somebody who can inspect a big thing can automatically inspect a little thing but not visa versa.

 

There are people who will habitually bypass looking at something because they've seen it before a thousand times and never had a problem. But this is a reflection on the engineer, not on a whole group of them. But equipment knowledge can also be beneficial, I did a job where the insurance inspector spotted a fairly well hidden fault in a steel wire rope, but failed to notice the wear in the hemps, because he didn't work with hemp on the industrial gigs and wasn't very familiar with it. I did another one recently where the whole rig was passed as free from faults despite the fact that the winch limits did not prevent the bars hitting the sprinkler system - and guess what happened mid load-in. The theatre boys might not be so familiar with big chains, but they would have spotted that!

 

As for fabrication, what's your point? All the big theatrical inspectors I can think of have sizeable fabrication facilities in house. And 10mm rope? Well I can't talk for everyone, but I put 27mm in a theatre once...

 

Don't worry Paul, I'm not calling your man less worthy as such. At all. And I'm sure if he's an engineer doing big projects, he will spot safety issues in your fly system that are well worth knowing about. But perhaps one day if you call in one of the big theatrical firms just to do a complete inspection service (PSI, Unusual, ISS, Centre Stage, J&C Joel, SPS, whatever) you may find one or two issues being flagged up just due to their extensive experience with such a wide range of equipment. Bigger is not better, every size of system has it's own characteristics and the best people to work on them will always be the people who know those characteristics, not the people who know the characteristics of other systems just because they weigh more.

 

I hope this makes my stance clear. I am not criticising your choice of engineer and never have. I am simply criticising the belief that an off shore crane engineer is already over qualified to work in a theatre because a theatre is clearly just a toy in their books. That's not how it works really. I'm sure if you take your car into a garage for tractors they will advise you take it to a car garage.