Winch for aerial trio wheel

[Jonathan Graciano]

Hello guys, im new here and need a little help with this, I want to integrate an aerial trio wheel 2d performance to my show and I cant find winch for this especific job in my country (Dominican Republic) so I wanted to know wich model/brand you recommend on US. thanks in advance and all tips and advices are welcome! 

Example: 

 

[operalx]

I would suggest getting in touch with TAIT who provide many solutions for automated performer flying. 

https://www.taittowers.com/capabilities/performer-flying/

 

[mac.calder]

Tait are definitely the big name in complicated stage automation. Some others that are heavy in international performer flying are Foy (Website) and Unusual Rigging. All of these guys can rent you the rig and train you on the safe operation of it. And assist with the engineering.

Even if they cannot assist, they normally have local suppliers all over the world that they use for local crew etc. 

At the end of the day, if you are trying to emulate that youtube clip, that is a single axis performer flying rig. Not overly complicated - most of them are zero fleet - and are designed to operate with a computerised automation system - so moves can be pre-programmed - but the structural work is not an insignificant thing to consider. Performer flying is typically at or above an 8:1 safety factor - so you are talking a motor capable of lifting 3 people + wheel at around 1.5meters/second. This needs a fair chunk of engineering behind it.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2021 by mac.calder

[dje]

On 12/17/2021 at 9:10 PM, mac.calder said:

Tait are definitely the big name in complicated stage automation. Some others that are heavy in international performer flying are Foy (Website) and Unusual Rigging.

I am not sure whether Unusual still actually do it. I don't think they have a controls department anymore. But I'd also say in any case that in North America, your list would look more like (in alphabetical order only, no prejudice to quality): Chicago Flyhouse, Foy, PRG Scenic Technologies, TAIT, ZFX. In Canada you can also add FlyPatt, Niscon and Show Canada.

BUT (and speaking in general now, not just replying to you)... the winch supplier is just one part of the puzzle. And, to some extent, one of the less critical parts. The management of the performer flying is of the highest importance. The control system is of great importance. The safety systems and backup, all as important as how they went up high in the first place.

To use one winch in a show, you should expect to need:

1. A winch - and by a winch I mean a performer flying winch designed as such with appropriate safety features.
2. A control system - variable speed drive, safety controller, and motion controller (whether that be pre-written cues in a computer, or joystick control).
3. A power distribution system capable of dealing with electric motors and variable frequency drives.
4. Sufficient rigging infrastructure to install the winch, any necessary diverters etc, loading platforms if desired... all at 10:1 Factor of Safety.
5. Sufficient rescue equipment for the event of a performer stuck in the air. (Manual brake release is helpful but cannot be the sole method).

A. An automation technician - to commission and maintain the automated flying machinery and controls.
B. An automation programmer / operator - to program & operate the control system and run the cues. 
C. A flying director, to work between the show director, the aerialist and the automation operator to manage the flying operation, develop cues, etc.
D. A rigger (performer flying rigger, different to arena rigger) to attach the aerialist to the apparatus and inspect the flying apparatus.
E. A rescue team, to permit the safe lowering of the performer in the event of them being stuck at height - whether by their error or machinery failure etc.
F. A DSM/Show Caller with performer flying experience, to call the show in a safe manner.
G. A performer who is experienced and comfortable with performing on a moving winch.

(note - in a smaller show it's possible that some of these roles can be shared - one person doing more than one role). But I would still say you need min 4 people besides the performer, and that number will be higher during creation / rehearsal. 

As you can see, a winch really is the tip of the iceberg.

As a result, if you are not experienced in this yourself the right answer is almost always to outsource your performer flying operations to a third party company.

If you are serious about doing this in your show, and you have the substantial budget required to make it happen, I would your next point of research would be to do some reading. I think a great place to start would be Jim Shumway's book on Performer Flying which I think, to save postage drama to the Dominican Republic, you can get on Kindle (which - btw - you don't need an actual Kindle device for, just a computer or smartphone will suffice). It won't teach you to do it yourself, but it'll help you understand your responsibilities and requirements much better. (And if you do decide to take the work to TAIT, you might get Jim on your project...). Once you've read the book, and you still think you want to do this - get in touch with one of the companies above and go from there.

Edited December 22, 2021 by dje

[ImagineerTom]

Performer winches in circus is VERY different to performer winches in the theatrical and concert world so whilst the previous answer isn't "wrong" it is not the right answer as it doesn't represent how 99.9% of all circus flying / winches are operated.

If you're performing in theaters / arena's in America then Foy are the name everyone trusts and they have specific circus people & knowledge. www.FlyByFoy.com

If you're performing in circus tent's then whoever owns the tent will have a preferred (circus brand) performer winch system and way to install it in their tent. An example of one supplier of CIRCUS winches in America is https://www.circusbyus.com/item_description.php?item_id=1&category_1=56&category=category_1

It is very common now to use performer counterweight systems for flying things in circus 

 

 

[dje]

4 hours ago, ImagineerTom said:

Performer winches in circus is VERY different to performer winches in the theatrical and concert world so whilst the previous answer isn't "wrong" it is not the right answer as it doesn't represent how 99.9% of all circus flying / winches are operated.

For clarity, prior to the pandemic I worked in performer flying for the biggest circus name in the world... but OK. No need for an argument - I'll happily take your word for it that this may be the case in more traditional / independent circus.

My answer may not reflect all circus environments and that's absolutely fine. However, I do believe that my answer best reflects the process that would be the most practical and the most safety conscious, for an outside person without performer flying experience, wanting to incorporate a performer flying act into their show; so I stand by it.

4 hours ago, ImagineerTom said:

An example of one supplier of CIRCUS winches in America is https://www.circusbyus.com/item_description.php?item_id=1&category_1=56&category=category_1 

That winch looks fairly unsuited in my honest opinion, and although the picture is small and incomprehensive, I would consider that winch to be both fairly poorly performing and lacking in basic features that I would expect an aerial performance winch to incorporate. I would certainly not consider it to be a good example of what the OP should be looking for.

Great video though 🙂

Edited December 22, 2021 by dje

[ImagineerTom]

As I said, your suggestion isn't wrong, but it doesn't represent what's out in the real world actually being used day in and day out. 

That winch is very indicative of what the majority of motorised circus flying systems comprise of, a design that has evolved over 70+ years of "automating" lifts in circus and the design incorporates the majority of the features you described (especially around safety and evacuation) in a way that is practical and viable for the majority of circus's to actually implement on a daily basis. For example the unit is traditionally installed at the edge of a tent, at ground level, with the rope going diagonally up to a pully point in the centre of the tent then downwards to the lift subject. The unit is held in place by a couple of stakes (lots of good data about how solid and resistive proper circus stakes are) so that it doesn't go anywhere. Because the unit is at ground level it can be inspected by the performer (and whoever the tentmaster is for the structure) before every single performance, repairs/adjustments can be easily made. If a fault occurs and the unit stops operating there's 3 ways to get the flying subject down, each one much faster than could be done by a traditional aerial rescue team - there will be an electric over-ride to page out the wire, if that doesn't work there will be a physical release to allow a controlled descent, if both of those don't work and the unit is jammed solid then plan C (which I've only ever seen use as a training exercise but it was a relief to see that it works) is for a couple of heavy guys to sit on the "cage" or the winch is mounted on and the shackles (connecting the unit to the stakes) disconnected. It is then possible for those two people to (in a surprisingly slow and controlled way) lower the stranded performer by allowing the unit to slide along the ground (thus shortening the hypotenuse) lowering the performer without anyone or anything ever leaving the ground. These types of winch and these rescue / emergency procedures will be very familiar to the people working in a circus.

In the event that the lifting fault is with the pully point stuck in the air.... well EVERY tentmaster in has his own rope / ladder / access route to get up to the cupola in a matter of seconds so he could either climb up and release the blockage, or use one of the several different winches / ropes / pulleys that other acts in the show have installed to affect a rescue.

Counterweight performer flying is popular both because it's a bit fashionable but also because it takes even more paperwork out of the process and bypasses lots of local rules about winch equipment that were crafted to protect people using cranes, not performers.

(and if we are willy waving - I consult for the same circus company problem solving technical issues in unusual locations precisely because I straddle the engineering sector and 100+ years of family history in trad circus. Cirque is not Trad Circus, Trad circus is not cirque; they are their own things with surprisingly little crossover)

Edited December 22, 2021 by ImagineerTom

[dje]

11 hours ago, ImagineerTom said:

As I said, your suggestion isn't wrong, but it doesn't represent what's out in the real world actually being used day in and day out. 

This may be so. However, the OP was asking the question coming into the picture "fresh" (ie without prior experience), thus I would still suggest that they would be better adopting a system by contracting a performer flying automation supplier (any of the names mentioned above - not just Foy). Circus methods may be circus methods, but in that environment the experience and skill and knowledge of the environment - is mitigating the risk. If the OP does not have this experience, skill and knowledge of the environment; then that risk mitigation needs to come from somewhere else - be that employing the experience of somebody else, by using a more intrinsically safe machine, or, as would be best the case, a combination of both. Whatever it is that circus uses, I am going to stand by my belief that a newcomer coming forward and asking how to get into it should be given this advice - not to attempt to employ traditional circus methods.

11 hours ago, ImagineerTom said:

That winch is very indicative of what the majority of motorised circus flying systems comprise of, a design that has evolved over 70+ years of "automating" lifts in circus and the design incorporates the majority of the features you described (especially around safety and evacuation) in a way that is practical and viable for the majority of circus's to actually implement on a daily basis. For example the unit is traditionally installed at the edge of a tent, at ground level, with the rope going diagonally up to a pully point in the centre of the tent then downwards to the lift subject. The unit is held in place by a couple of stakes (lots of good data about how solid and resistive proper circus stakes are) so that it doesn't go anywhere. Because the unit is at ground level it can be inspected by the performer (and whoever the tentmaster is for the structure) before every single performance, repairs/adjustments can be easily made. If a fault occurs and the unit stops operating there's 3 ways to get the flying subject down, each one much faster than could be done by a traditional aerial rescue team - there will be an electric over-ride to page out the wire, if that doesn't work there will be a physical release to allow a controlled descent, if both of those don't work and the unit is jammed solid then plan C (which I've only ever seen use as a training exercise but it was a relief to see that it works) is for a couple of heavy guys to sit on the "cage" or the winch is mounted on and the shackles (connecting the unit to the stakes) disconnected. It is then possible for those two people to (in a surprisingly slow and controlled way) lower the stranded performer by allowing the unit to slide along the ground (thus shortening the hypotenuse) lowering the performer without anyone or anything ever leaving the ground. These types of winch and these rescue / emergency procedures will be very familiar to the people working in a circus.

Thank you for your explanation I'm sure this will be interesting to many people, me included. 🙂 That said my personal belief is that we should still strive to utilise electronic and mechanical safety controls as far as possible to protect the everyone involved. There may well be times that skill and experience can mitigate the risk, however there are industry-leading performer flying companies still using complex safety systems in their winches because no matter how good you are, on a high speed move an electronic sensor can catch a fault faster than the human eye... this is a proven fact. And electronic sensors can monitor 1000 things at once where a human cannot. And electronic sensors can be programmed to respond in an exact way, over and over again, unaffected by emotions, tiredness, health, etc. The list goes on. Safety controls have developed in all industries because, when programmed correctly, they're better than us at spotting problems and dealing with them predictably. I have come across numerous winches of the style you showed whilst working in trad circus environments and none of them have featured the level of safety controls that you would find on a winch from one of the aforementioned suppliers. 

Also just because you mentioned it - even in bigger arena / concert touring flying acts, manual lowering of the flying subject is possible without needing to deploy a rescue team. The point of my first response was only that you still need to have a rescue team, in case, for whatever reason, manual lowering is not possible or safe. I always stipulate that a performer flying winch should feature a 24V motor brake and a release handle on the shaft brake, for that exact reason. 230V motor brake is usually cheaper but cannot be released from a drill battery.

I don't doubt that what you are describing can be considered safe enough when used inside a well trained and experienced circus environment, with people who do it every day. I do think that it could be better - and when I've supplied systems to trad circus I have used a much safer design of winch for that reason. But in the scope of this particular question, I still think it is pertinent that we do not consider skill level of performers and crew to be a risk mitigation factor because if the OP is asking this question it is probably fair to assume they don't have any.

PS - no dick waving meant. I understand what you mean.
Also have sent you a PM about a project you may be interested in.

Edited December 23, 2021 by dje

[mac.calder]

On 12/22/2021 at 3:40 PM, dje said:

(note - in a smaller show it's possible that some of these roles can be shared - one person doing more than one role). But I would still say you need min 4 people besides the performer, and that number will be higher during creation / rehearsal. 

As you can see, a winch really is the tip of the iceberg.

to be honest, I would say the vast majority of shows with performer flying have MAYBE 2 people dedicated to performer flying (outside the performer) and a few mech/deck staff trained as spotters etc during the run. There is usually the person trained in operation, rescue, maintenance and routine inspection, and there is the 'other guy' - that is trained in the operation and rescue plans. If you are lucky, there is a flight captain or an acro captain within the company - but more than likely that will be a higher duties role of one of the performers. 

System design, engineering, installation, any system programming and the like will generally come out of the flight company - and they will tend to fly-in, fly-out and (if you're lucky) will also be contracted for routine inspections too.

Used to work in a house with a permanent Foy rig - about 12 axis IIRC. We had 2 full time riggers who did a couple of weeks with Foy to learn inspections, Pegasus software, the winches and correct harness sizing and basic harness repairs, as well as how to re-rope the system and perform other bits of routine maintenance.  Essentially when a new act was built into the show, if it was more complex than some fairly standard moves - ie new apparatus, using multi-axis for 3d flying, or where we were swinging loads significantly, we would bring a flight director in from foy, and potentially an engineer to choreograph the act. If it was a basic act, our riggers programmed it themselves. When it Foy did 6 monthly inspections along side our riggers, and when we did major maintenance (such as a re-roping of the winches) we would bring Foy in then too. But yeah - we could put on some pretty complicated flying shows with 2 riggers (one on the deck, one at the console), a flight captain and a bunch of mech crew who were given task specific instructions by the riggers. 

Strictly looking at what the OP was wanting to emulate, I would strongly suggest that a system with absolute positioning is required - and with the amount of load shifting, it would need to be a nice beefy motorised system

 

[dje]

On 12/24/2021 at 9:34 PM, mac.calder said:

to be honest, I would say the vast majority of shows with performer flying have MAYBE 2 people dedicated to performer flying (outside the performer) and a few mech/deck staff trained as spotters etc during the run. There is usually the person trained in operation, rescue, maintenance and routine inspection, and there is the 'other guy' - that is trained in the operation and rescue plans. If you are lucky, there is a flight captain or an acro captain within the company - but more than likely that will be a higher duties role of one of the performers. 

Well that's just not enough is it? I don't necessarily mean that there are four people whose job is exclusively performer flying... but I would say a show with safe performer flying would have at least four people besides the performer - for me that's:

1. The automation operator (who yes will often also be the maintenance/inspection/repair person for the machinery)
2. The rigger (who will attach the performer and lead rescue) 
3. A flying director (usually, a show caller with particular knowledge of aerial performance, who'll call the rest of the show too)
4. A fourth person - mostly with rescue skills - because not all rescues will be plausible with one rigger only. Once you get into rope access etc, you really need a second.

With regards to mech/deck staff as spotters, this is a trend that personally I disagree with. I know that it happens, but I don't agree with it (and I know that many automation operators with performer flying specialism are on my side with that one). The fact is that unless you are experienced as an operator you cannot be an effective spotter for an operator because a spotter needs to understand what the operator is looking for. In performer flying, if spotters are deemed necessary then they must have the ability to (a) know what to look for and (b) do that job exclusively during flying scenes... this is often not possible when it's given to swings etc. It is a practice which should essentially be eradicated... it's not done because it's right it's done because it's cheaper.

In the 18 months prior to COVID I would say I operated about 300 shows which were all performer flying centric. Not a single one was only done with only 2 staff. Normally I would say that even the smallest shows I do will have a minimum of two riggers, an operator and a flying director (with the FD usually being the show caller) and for me if there is any scope of rescue having to be carried out this should be considered a minimum complement. 

Quote

Essentially when a new act was built into the show, if it was more complex than some fairly standard moves - ie new apparatus, using multi-axis for 3d flying, or where we were swinging loads significantly, we would bring a flight director in from foy, and potentially an engineer to choreograph the act.

Essentially what you describe here is exactly what I am proposing the OP needs. The OP would not in their current state be considered suitable to do this in-house hence why I proposed that they should contract this out to a specialist flying company.

Quote

We had 2 full time riggers who did a couple of weeks with Foy

It's always up to interpretation of course but can "a couple of weeks with (manufacturer)" be considered grounds for "competence" to design, program, risk assess, inspect and maintain? I'm not disputing that this is your practice, or that Foy approved this... but I am not sure that I would.

Edited December 25, 2021 by dje

[ImagineerTom]

1 hour ago, dje said:

Well that's just not enough is it? I don't necessarily mean that there are four people whose job is exclusively performer flying... but I would say a show with safe performer flying would have at least four people besides the performer - for me that's:

Then I have to say your experience of performer flying is very much an outlier and not representative of what’s happening in the bulk of the industry be it Theatre, arena or circus. Thinking through the “legit” shows I’ve worked outside of Cirque & it’s clones the reality is always one or two “flying” people at most. 

[dje]

I just don't understand how that's possible. Are you saying that you commonly find two people who between them can perform the full range of rescue roles required in an acrobatic act, whilst also performing sometimes complex mechanical, electrical and controls faults, and calling the show? Like I said at the bottom of my post... I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't personally find it reasonable nor practical. And I should strongly imagine that if you are doing it with two people then you are relying on external support for at least some of those aspects.

For clarity - are we considering a performer-flying-experienced SM as part of the two or not? My figure of four was inclusive. You may not be including?

I am sure that this is not a popular point of view with those holding the purse strings but I strongly believe it's the right point of view. Performer flying is a very responsible act. It's funny that you say outside "Cirque and its clones" - is there no mileage in thinking that if companies like Cirque - who are arguably the most experienced companies in the industry - think that more than two people is appropriate... there might be a logic to that? It's certainly not due to any perceived abundance of money!

ANSI 1.43 - the American standard for Performer Flying - identifies the following roles in a performer flying environment:

Quote

Creative Designer
First Aid Attendant
Flying System Designer
Flight Sequence Programmer
Flying Operator
Flying Performer
Flying Safety Supervisor
Flying Supervisor
Incident Commander
Observer
Professional Engineer
Rescue Rigger
Spotter
Stage Manager
System Installer
System Supplier
User

As I said already - it's common that several of these roles will be jointly performed by one person and I have no objection to that; it's quite normal that some of these roles (Designers, Supplier, Programmer, Engineer etc) may not be present during the show flying sequence; and indeed some of these roles may not always be required (ie Observer) but even then... whether or not it is possible, is it professionally ethical to entrust the remaining responsibilities all to one or two people.

You can claim I have the wrong experience all you like but like I said, I'm not disputing whether it happens, I'm disputing whether it should, and aiming to promote what we should consider "best practice", in the situation of somewhere like the OP's environment, where it would seem that performer flying is beyond the scope of normal work the show company is not familiar and experienced with performer flying as part of the show. In an environment where performer flying is a more regular occurrence and everyone involved is familiar with such practices then it would not be impractical to suggest that the number of specialists involved might be reduced since all supporting staff can be considered specialists to some extent.

My number of 4 was also based on the OPs location of Dominican Republic and the fact that therefore complex faults may need to be resolved 'in-house' because it would not be practical to outsource the support in the event of an issue. Within regional touring shows or entertainment resorts this may not be an issue because of the ability for support to be sourced externally. So I think my original number of four may be being taken slightly out of context if both people who questioned it have not included the SM / Flying Director in that number and have assumed that more complex technical problems would be resolved by external technical support from the supplier. With those assumptions in place, and simple rescue facilitated by system design, two people does not become so impractical.

Edited December 26, 2021 by dje

[ImagineerTom]

There’s a lot to unpack here but let’s start with the fact that cirque (and it’s clones) fundamentally are NOT representative of circus as a whole. In circus world a performer or performers will spend their whole life developing an act, having props (and rigging systems) designed specifically for that act and will have an intimate knowledge of how all the equipment their arial act uses works and is maintained as they will be expecting to trust their own lives to it twice daily for the rest of their career. They will typically install their own kit in the performance venue and will pretty much always be the one who makes the final connection moments before performance. 
 

cirque et al (because of how their global business model works) don’t employ circus people to do their act but typically employ gymnasts and dancers who are trained to perfectly replicate the act someone else created for this show and so don’t arrive at the performance moment with the same investment or experience that a trad circus performer will. The same goes with the technicians and crew involved in the process and so to ensure replicability and scalable safety the cirque model is to over-staff with very niche specific roles for each crew/performer so that replicability and precision can be achieved by people with (comparatively) little skill or experience in the genre they are performing. 
 

As to “how can only two people possibly do these 20 different jobs?” Well I’ve already explained how rigging practice in a traditional circus means that the need for whole Rescue teams is eliminated because the systems are developed to fail in ways such that bringing people to the ground is still easy and fast; the entire infrastructure of trad circus is designed to be safe and viable with a few people. The entire infrastructure of Cirque is designed to be safe and viable for (relatively) unskilled/inexperienced people who can be interchanged as required by global touring requirements. 

Don’t even get me started on the height issue- in trad circus and theatre it is effectively impossible to fall (from failure in some sort of aerial sequence) more than 8m because of the height of performance venues which whilst a painful fall is rarely a life changing fall. Cirque etc have aerial performers 15-40m above often concrete or steel surfaces where a fall is thus considerably more serious and so understandably extra safety precautions are taken  

I would argue that “best practice” we should be striving for is probably closer to the system being used thousands of times a day, world wide, for 100+ years with an astonishingly small number of accidents (in comparison to number of performances) by circus’s, theatres & pantos across the globe than it is to the operating procedures from a single creative family that have a completely different set of priorities, have spent the last 15 years lurching from financial crisis to crisis because of their phenomenally high operational cost and who have (unfortunately) a higher rate of accident and injuries in aerial performance than the trad circus and panto “rent a track and teach the crew how to use it in a weekend” industries have. 
 

There’s lots I love about cirque & clones, there’s lots they do that I love; but they operate in an ecosystem that is entirely unique and of their own creation. 
 

caveats - I have worked extensively for cirque and trad cirque companies. 

By “cirque” I’m including all the companies that operate in a similar global product way that is the anthisis of the operating model of trad circus and regional theatre. Cirque du soleil, the many Dragoné, La Reve, Ringling Brothers productions all fit under the “cirque” term I use above. 

Edited December 26, 2021 by ImagineerTom

[dje]

Sorry I wasn't happy with my previous post and was going to change it but fell asleep... but I think this has gone off the rails somewhat, my intention was not to drag "Cirque vs Circus" into it. I wish to discuss only Performer Flying, not Circus; because that is essentially where the OP pitched their question. The OP gave no indication in their post whether they are a circus, a theatre, or anything else... so to argue over the semantics of what constitutes circus, and its benefits and pitfalls is meaningless. 

To address Performer Flying , not Circus ; and in this case I think  more specifically, automated performer flying because the OP asked specifically about using a winch; I personally feel that working within the framework of the roles assigned by ANSI 1.43, it is impractical that two people can perform the full range of roles expected in a performer flying operation. However that essentially changes dependent on the expectations of what is cared for in-house and what is cared for externally. My original estimation of four was based on the OP being based in the Dominican Republic where the ability to have manufacturer support on site quickly may not be practical. That number reflects the following assumptions:

• That the show caller should be specifically experienced in performer flying, and therefore constitutes one of the four as they would probably 
• That the winch equipment will require some maintenance and troubleshooting from a skilled automation technician with experience in mechanical, electrical and controls which - in order to bring all expertise in-house - is beyond the scope of what a rigger can expect to learn on a training course
• That there will need to be a rigger in order to connect the performer to the apparatus, inspect the equipment, etc; and that typically this rigger will be the primary responder in the event of a rescue being required
• That whilst insightful, your example of rescue - brake release handle or, in event that can't be used, sitting on the winch and dragging it across the floor - doesn't constitute a one size fits all rescue plan and is specific to the environment in which it is used and possibly not suited to the OPs environment, and therefore my assumption for 'rescue team' included enough people to perform a rescue from height if required

Therefore working within the ANSI 1.43 framework I would expect to need a minimum of four people with specific performer flying experience in the following job roles:

1. A show caller with specific performer flying experience, who would be considered the Stage Manager and often represent the Creative Designer.
2. An Automation Technician with specialist knowledge of mechanical/electrical/controls engineering as well as use of show automation control systems; who would be considered the Flight Sequence Programmer, the Flying Operator, and depending on how the theatre utilises their equipment, possibly (one of) the System Installer(s); as well as being responsible for the background maintenance of the system.
3. A rigger with specialist knowledge of performer flying apparatus and procedures; and rescue and post-rescue care; who would be considered the Spotter, Rescue Rigger, Flying Supervisor and First Aid Attendant.
4. An overall supervisor of the operation who would double check the work of the other relevant parties and act as the decision maker and command the team during a safety incident; who would be considered the Flying Safety Supervisor, Incident Commander, and User; plus additional Rescue Rigger (since if the aforementioned rigger has to climb to height to effect an aerial rescue, they too now require rescue cover).

In some operations this could be more granular with an individual or several individuals per job role... but I feel four is the minimum number of specialists (and by specialist I mean person with specialist knowledge - it doesn't have to be their exclusive role) that should be expected when planning to include performer flying into a show. Granted there may be some equipment and operational ways in which that number can be reduced (which you already alluded to and I do not doubt). Nothing that I've worked on in the last 10 years has been able to fulfil that spec which is why I produced the number four as my minimum.

Edited December 26, 2021 by dje

[ImagineerTom]

The op hasn’t engaged in the conversation but this is a valid topic none the less so I’m keen to explore it further. 
 

I still stand by what I’ve posted- the bulk of performer “”flying”” (by several factors) is undertaken, without injury or incident, within the “reduced” staffing framework I have outlined. If you feel it should have more staff involved I’d love to hear why you feel that but I do need to hear more than “because that’s how a niche operator” does it to justify a change of operating procedures than I and the majority of performer flying workers need to change our procedures.