Winch for aerial trio wheel

[kerry davies]

David, just to confirm what Tom writes. Even the Cirque shows are created using a tiny skeleton crew then developed into automated repeatable mass productions. To quote what Debra Brown's PM said to me when just we two were doing the flying for C.O.K.E. "All aerial accidents are human error. I don't trust humans, but you I can just about tolerate."

 

 

[dje]

37 minutes ago, ImagineerTom said:

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. 

I'm sorry if I didn't explain my rationale well but my justification was nothing to do with "how a niche operator" does it.

My last post is the best explanation of distribution of roles that I can offer.

That's not to say that its four or not at all. What I was getting at is this is where I got my original number of four from. I think with the OP being new to this, it is pertinent to start at four - with all bases covered (within reason) - and then perhaps that can be reduced through assessment of the show realities. 

Sorry if I haven't done a good job of explaining this, it makes sense in my head.. My number of four is based on being able to call the show, service all the equipment and deal with a range of rescue scenarios. I don't object to that number being reduced if there is no justification for having them. My only intention was to give a starter point to somebody tackling this for the first time.  Better, I think, to expect 4 and reduce than to expect 2 and be understaffed. 

But I certainly never meant to give off the impression that it's based on the behaviour of any particular operator because that's just not accurate at all. 

[dje]

12 minutes ago, kerry davies said:

David, just to confirm what Tom writes. Even the Cirque shows are created using a tiny skeleton crew then developed into automated repeatable mass productions. To quote what Debra Brown's PM said to me when just we two were doing the flying for C.O.K.E. "All aerial accidents are human error. I don't trust humans, but you I can just about tolerate."

 

 

Im familiar with how such shows are created... I've done 3 in as many years. "tiny skeleton" crew is not accurate though - creation teams are typically bigger than touring crews because they include the creative team, the creative team's technical team, and the touring technical team. 

As for accident causes... I don't like to say "all" because it breeds complacency. Probability - yes - but the fact we have a good track record shouldn't be justification to keep aiming higher. 

[ImagineerTom]

I agree aiming higher isn't intrinsically a bad thing but there is a point when over-engineer / over-staffing / over-safetying becomes a grossly disproportionate response to solving a problem that doesn't really exist. Whilst you're not a fan of the "typical" circus winch I linked to previously and you don't feel that the safety and operational procedures used are appropriate we do have to remember that in the Uk alone there's dozens of this type of winch, being used in the way I described, at least twice daily, 40 weeks a year for at least the last 50 years without problems (from memory I can only think of two serious injuries to Aerialists caused by equipment failure in the uk in my lifetime) which suggests that the "best practice" is probably pretty close to the setups being used now and probably isn't improved by adding multiples of staffing and equipment purchases.

This topic is getting difficult to follow because the different genres of "flying" (circus performer in a tent, circus performer in a theatre, circus performer in an arena, actor in a show, circus performer replicating someone else's routine, magical effects, stunt effects) all have very different technical needs and operating practices that are specific to their sectors and inappropriate to other sectors; I wouldn't dream of using a circus winch to fly a nervous celeb 30m up in an arena production of Peter Pan but conversely a multi axis, fully automated, touch screen controlled flying system with 3 specialist crew and a full time schedule of testing and maintenance wouldn't be appropriate for lifting a lifelong circus performer up and down 4m in a hoop whilst they do the splits either. 

I'd love to hear others points of view on this all though

[dje]

57 minutes ago, ImagineerTom said:

I agree aiming higher isn't intrinsically a bad thing but there is a point when over-engineer / over-staffing / over-safetying becomes a grossly disproportionate response to solving a problem that doesn't really exist.

Perhaps then what we have to draw from this is that more information is needed from the OP in order to advise what level of staffing support might be reasonable to expect

Quote

Whilst you're not a fan of the "typical" circus winch I linked to previously and you don't feel that the safety and operational procedures used are appropriate we do have to remember that in the Uk alone there's dozens of this type of winch, being used in the way I described, at least twice daily, 40 weeks a year for at least the last 50 years without problems (from memory I can only think of two serious injuries to Aerialists caused by equipment failure in the uk in my lifetime) which suggests that the "best practice" is probably pretty close to the setups being used now and probably isn't improved by adding multiples of staffing and equipment purchases.

Yes and no. I'm not necessarily a fan of the principle that something having not gone wrong (or not been known to go wrong) frequently is intrinsic evidence that it is safe. From looking at the picture of that winch (which albeit is very basic, but I have worked with very similar winches in real life in the circus setting) I feel it probably doesn't comply with the design criteria laid out in ANSI 1.43 and since that document was put together by some of the most knowledgeable performer flying experts in the world and ultimately made it to publication (which is not to be taken for granted) we might like to take that into consideration. I don't want to come across as simply being a case of "it's not the kind of winch I'm most used to so therefore I'm turning my nose up to it"... I have my reasons and believe in standing by them.

More importantly, as I alluded to before and did so with total respect to the skills of circus performers and crew, I should imagine the risk mitigation in that environment is predominantly skill whereas the risk mitigation in other environments is achieved through the machine. So I stand by my point that best practice - in the scope of the OP who seems to have not practiced aerial performance / performer flying before - would be to mitigate that risk via a more intrinsically safe machine (a point that frankly you also allude to at the end of your response too) and with more specialist support crew, because the skill and experience is not developed yet to a stage where it can be reliably considered to be the primary means of risk mitigation.

Like I said in my last post, and you indeed did in yours, it's about scaling the solution to the situation and I think we are essentially saying the same thing there.

[pmiller056]

I've never been involved in the flying of performers, but I've often wondered 'How do they do it?'. I've learned a lot about the preferred techniques depending on context by following this discussion. Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge and wisdom. I'll leave it to the experts...