Latest ABTT Sightline's Editorial

[Brian]

In the new issue of the ABTT magazine there is an article, and some amazing photos, about a prosecution relating to unsafe working practices in the rigging industry.

 

The story can be found here.

[Shaun Foster]

Does anybody know if the photo's are on the web, as I'm guessing I'd need to be a member of ABTT to get the magazine.

[Chris Higgs]

It is slightly old news, the case being heard last year.

I think it is more important to think more about the views the inspector had of the rigging trade in general and the intentions expressed than the particular incident in question.

Pointing the finger is easy, finding solutions is not so easy.

[Guest lightnix]

I'm not an ABTT member, so haven't read the article. Were there any "editorial opinions" tacked on, or was it just a straight copy of the Manchester City Council article?

 

I think it is more important to think more about the views the inspector had of the rigging trade in general and the intentions expressed than the particular incident in question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quite so, here they are again...

The existing culture in the rigging industry of accepting risks of this type has to change and pro-active enforcement is necessary to bring about that change.

...and there but for the Grace of God go many of us, I'm sure. Not that such practices are to be in any way condoned, of course.

 

CCTV footage shows a number of dangerous activities. These included... walking through beams in the roof without wearing a harness... etc.

Does that mean that there were other people indulging in dangerous practices and that the named parties just happened to be the ones singled out for prosecution? We may never know.

 

Personally I think there should be more proactive enforcement of existing regs. Although things are gradually heading the right way, it would certainly help them move along a little faster and would improve safety far more that the creation of even more rules IMHO. I know it's very hard, if not almost impossible sometimes, to observe every dotted "I" and crossed "t" of every little rule, every moment of the day, but there are still some flagrant breaches going on out there

 

Another more recent and (until now) unpublished story occurred at a London venue earlier this year. A well known AV company was seen to have brought in a scaff tower which was too short to reach the bars. Their solution was to put the platforms at the very top, so that there were no handrails or kicker boards in use at all. There were also a number of crew without hard hats working around the tower.

 

The venue's Technical Manager, General Manager and Safety Officer collared the Production Manager and informed him that they were officially unhappy with the rigging arrangements. The PM gave a rather casual "don't worry, it's OK, my crew are all experienced guys, they know what they're doing, nobody's going to get hurt" type of reply.

 

The TM told him that it was certainly not OK, that a letter of complaint would be written to the AV company's management, naming the PM as the person responsible and that any similar incidents in future would lead to the company being banned from the venue, permanently.

 

The PM went rather pale and shaky on being told this and I believe that very shortly afterwards, some extra tower sections magically appeared. The company have been back to the venue for other productions since then and have behaved themselves very well, although whether they're as conscientious at other venues is anybody's guess.

 

So, a happy ending on that occasion (except maybe for the PM), without any fines or prosecutions being doled out; just a bit of straight talking and a well aimed letter. Maybe the threat of a ban was a greater financial incentive to get things sorted than a rather paltry fine of a few grand.

 

And no, I'm not going to name any times :blink:

[Chris Higgs]

Here, here.

The pressure has to be applied to the people planning time spent.

In every training job I've done in the past 10 years, the main problem has been the amount of time allowed for the 'technical department' (what/whoever that may entail) to properly do their thing.

Of course though, the 'technicians' DO get the result on time, for many reasons, notably future employment; no-one wants to be the one who ruined it for everyone else, professional pride, reputation, machismo, etc. etc..

To accept that 'that's how the world is' is wrong. There could be enough time, it may mean a slightly less spectacular event but there will still be work. To accept the poor conditions is to perpetuate the situation.

Easily said, I know, and a lot harder to crack, but I really do feel that is the root of it.

[Guest lightnix]

I just got sent a couple of the CCTV pics, here are links to them. I see no harm in doing this now as the story has been in the public domain for some time and the pics have already been published elsewhere.

 

Stepping onto the top guard rail of a cherry picker basket

Stepping off a speaker with a mobile phone between shoulder and ear while carrying a large tool

[Tomo]

Looking at that, I'd say he was lucky to get prosecuted.

 

If he continued to be that blase about heights, he was definately going to fall in the near future... Probably a very long way...

[sam.henderson]

A question! If you were working with him as another rigger (pre prosecution this is so you don't know him as being a 'dangerous rigger') would you say something to him?? I wouldn't want to be near him at a height or underneath while he was rigging!

 

Have any of you ever said anything to other riggers/ freelancers when they have been behaving in an obviously very dangerous way!!

 

Sam

[Lee Brennan]

YES YES YES YES!

 

Could you live with yourself if you thought it, but didn't say anything - then something happened!!!!!

 

Lee

[Chris Higgs]

I think it only fair to say that such activities were common practice, I certainly put my hand up (blush) to climbing up and sliding down chains, walking trusses, climbing in and out of machines and worse BUT those days are long gone, like 10 years ago at least.

Same as helmet and fall arrest equipment use, we now know better.

Bear in mind several generations of riggers had no powered access which only became really commonplace in the early 90's.

We can only promote 'climbing access' and the use of PPE when the work cannot be done in another way.

The risk has to relate to the importance of the task, and now the Work at Height Regs are out, we have to be able to demonstrate that we have considered the options and selected the right way with regard to frequency, duration, type of work and so on. Doesn't say you can't climb, but only when that it is a reasonably practicable method and it can be carried out safely. (All defined in the Regs)

 

Self policing and 'advising' colleagues might work, but often if someone decides that is the way he wants to do it, it may take an 'enforcement' person or someone from the house to do it. Unless the work has been planned and the plan communicated to the people doing it this is what happens - riggers have a healthy regard for their own safety and that of others, but often their definition is very different from those in charge. Now there's another discussion...

[Nick Evans]

And the moral of the story is.......

 

Don't piss off the jobsworth security guards at a gig as they might well dob you in it.

 

Personally I would slide down a chain (if the access is halfway decent) or climb out of a machine rather than climb a caving ladder to get to a truss anytime. Why? Because I consider it to be safer.

 

Which is safest, climbing a 50' caving ladder onto a truss or getting a ride in a machine? If you do it properly you will never be unclipped and therefore at (I would contend) less risk. Sliding down a chain is a no brainer, as long as you have clipped around the chain all you have to do is hold on, it is remarkably easy to manage your rate of descent using feet and hands so long as you use the right technique. Even if someone has thrown a bottle of GTX all over the chain you are only ever going to end up sitting on the motor secured by a karibiner. (Personally, climbing a 50' ladder fills me with dread, I will be exhausted by the time I reach the top, and that is the part where most effort is required, to get on to the truss. And for those who say another method of access should be used for a truss so high, I say Royal Albert Hall.)

 

However, both of these practices have been deemed completely illegal by those who have no understanding of the techniques involved. Most of my dealings with the HSE have been with people who refuse to come to my place of work (i.e. up there) because they are afraid of heights, yet they see themselves as fit people to apply the law as it relates to my work. All they have is their understanding of the law (coloured by their lack of experience / fear of heights) coupled with a deep seated fear of being responsible for approving anything. (It is much much easier to say no then yes. If you say no, it becomes someone elses problem. If you say yes and it goes wrong, there is all hell to pay)

 

It is about time that this industry engaged H&S matters properly with HSE rather than applying generic legislation designed for building sites to what is a highly specialized industry. The workforce of the entertainment industry is a highly practical, generally well motivated, group of people with (I contend but have no supporting data) above average IQ and a great deal of common sense yet we are treated like children. Rather than empowering people to take charge of their personal safety most legislation seeks to be prescriptive, whilst at the same time being so vague it has to be interpreted. Such interpreted "wisdom" is then handed on as gospel to the rest of us, who have not time / cannot be arsed to indulge ourselves in the minutae of the latest HSE publication.

 

Riddle me this. As a self employed person, I am now expected to produce risk assessments for each and every job I do. Does this make the job safer? Does it reduce the risk of an incident occurring? Does it entitle me to charge a client more as I am doing more work per job? Does it benefit anyone at all? (apart from the court, because it makes their job easier, the insurance company, because I provide them with a long list of get-out clauses and the HSE because they can say I told you so). Why do I need to provide a risk assessment as a local rigger, apart from because someone somewhere has decreed it so? It serves no function apart from wasting my time and costing me money. (I am not against risk assessment per se, I was recently privileged enough to be involved in the largest show I have ever seen, where risk assessment was part of the gig but that was very different, with a crew of about 600 and a cast of about 8000 and a load-in measured in months not hours)

 

GENERIC LOCAL RIGGERS RISK ASSESSMENT

Don't drop anything

Don't fall

If the fire alarm rings, leave the building via the nearest exit.

 

Is there anything in the above that anyone did not know before they wrote it down? For local riggers, half the time they have no idea of the production coming in and therefore cannot make a valid assessment anyway. It is a nonsense requirement yet no-one has stood up to the HSE and other regulators and told them this. All we ever here about is someones interpretation of what they think the latest epistle brought down from the mountain means in relation to their bit of the industry.

 

When will we have a trade body we can be proud of?

 

 

 

Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday dear Pilsbury,

Happy birthday to you!

[Brixton]

Most of my dealings with the HSE have been with people who refuse to come to my place of work (i.e. up there) because they are afraid of heights, yet they see themselves as fit people to apply the law as it relates to my work.

Many years ago, before even Nick had hung a hoist, a certain local authority gent came to Hammersmith Odeon.

Upon seeing the moving truss hung on double reeved fast demags he insisted that the rig was removed as it was "unsafe".

When pressed upon why exactly it was unsafe he insisted (now almost tearfull with fear) that "things fall down, Haven't you heard of Gravity?"

A swift phone call later and his superiour came down and took the very afraid inspector away for some tea and a lie down.

As they departed his superior said "don't worry chaps he transferred from pest control yesterday!"

 

I do believe that sensible safety checks should be inplace and policed as I am sure Nick is however the issue seems to be do the safety inspectors know what they are inspecting and implying germane sensible rules. Just because you know all about safety on scaffold does not neccesarily mean you know about fly-floors. The example of inspector who insisted on 6" toe boards on loading gallery much to the pain of the fly-crew springs to mind.

 

The problem to me seems to be that rigging is a fairly niche industry.

Therefore there are no ex-rigger Health and safety inspectors plus the cost of the man-hours spent sorting out official guidelines for "the industry" is deemed to be better spent sorting out the guidelines for mainstream industry as there are more workers / accidents etc. in that field so more pressing need for improvement in standards

[Piers Shepperd]

HSE (health and safety executive) will in general only send an inspector where there has been a major accident resulting in injury. They are just too many activities happening in the UK for them to come to each site.

We should however expect visits and inspections from various other authorities (e.g fire officers, council safety offices, venue safety officers.

 

The emphasis has been (and in my opinion should be) on creating practical legislation that puts the responsibilities on those companies and individuals doing the work.

 

I regularly hear views expressed by freelancers complaining about HSE and yet on the ground show little regard for the safety of their colleagues when doing the job they so strongly say they can do professionally. We all held ourselves to be very professional in the early nineties and yet at that time it was rare to wear a harness when focusing lamps on a truss. The wearing of harnesses (and clipping off) whilst at height, is now an accepted part of our safety culture.

 

I would argue very strongly that many of the most perceived "dangerous" shows I have been involved with have been allowed to take part because of the level of safety culture which has been put in place. The Dome Central show pushed many boundaries, but we could easily satisfy any visiting authorities that safety was foremost in our designs, training and performances. Greenwich were very good to us and used our safety team to help advise their officers on events.

 

A rigger believes that there is a method of doing work that is different and safer then an alternative method. I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to have the reasoning on paper which shows that they have considered the risks (and yes this will probably mean RA's and method statements).

Many authorities and councils actively train their officers to understand how the events business works and how they should look at the rigging of events. I would not expect a safety officer to understand the minute detail of every element of show rigging (why would they need to - they aren't the professional riggers).

 

The biggest problem I see day to day, is how individuals actually react on the ground;

If you were a safety officer and visited a venue and saw something that looked potentially dangerous (maybe a rigger bumping out a mother grid?), how would you respond if;

 

a) The rigger when questioned was defensive, rude, aggressive, dismissive and suggested that you were stupid and should get back to pushing paper behind a desk.

 

b) The rigger was friendly, open and talked through the relevant risk assessment that had obviously been prepared before hand. This process proved to the safety officer that actually he was dealing with a professional, and somebody who had evaluated the risks and made an informed decision.

 

If a) then I think our industry should expect more bad decisions from safety officers and the authorities at large.

If b) then I think you would be surprised at just how much can be achieved.

 

Nick mentions a large show (crew of 600 and cast of 8000) where he could see the sense of doing risk assessments (Athens Olympics). I find it interesting to note that the safety officers employed and the safety guidelines put in place were generally accepted by all involved as being necessary. It made the site safer. This is how safety should be. Some decisions were wrong and some were absolutely right - there was however active and positive communication between the relevant people.

 

Our industry and the regulatory bodies are mostly actively involved in ensuring that our work places are safer. There will always be examples where safety officers are rude, unknowledgable and difficult. I wonder what safety officers say about some of us?

 

Ho hum,

 

Piers

[Ben...]

Which is safest, climbing a 50' caving ladder onto a truss or getting a ride in a machine? If you do it properly you will never be unclipped and therefore at (I would contend) less risk.

 

From the article, wasn't the issue in Manchester that he wasn't wearing a harness, and that he wasn't clipping in? (rather than the access method.)

[MikeR]

Look at the picture and the issue becomes self evident and any discussion of the rights and wrongs of his behaviour ridiculous.