Management putting the pressure on...

[Dmills]

Got a little 'debate' going on here!

 

I work in a community centre (that is building a theatre, hence why I am on board), anyway the centre is involved in some youth work and our youth worker wants to purchase on of these:

A bungee trampoline

Which I would not have a problem with, except that apparently I will be helping to set it up.

 

Now, I am a electrician not a rigger and while I am happy enough suspending a basic static load, I am no Peter Foy and am not at all happy about being effectively handed responsibility for what amounts IMHO to flying children (OK, so using someone else manufactured apparatus), especially as I suspect that I will also end up responsible for inspecting the bloody thing.

 

The problem is that I am by far the best equipped person here to do this, but fully recognise that I have nothing like the level of rigging experience to have any business setting up / operating / inspecting the systems used for flying people.

 

Some comments from the suggested suppliers also do not exactly inspire confidence,

apparently it only requires inspection once a year (LOLER Says six monthly in general for lifting people IIRC, and I could make a good case for more often with this sort of setup).

Also, apparently half a days training is provided together with a DVD, I wouldn't let someone suspend a bloody gauze with that level of training!

 

I have asked for risk assessments and a method statement (And have the requests on file), but the response has been fairly derisory and questions about suspension trauma in the event of a power supply or motor fault have been met with blank stares which does not inspire confidence!

 

Anything more I can do to encourage these people to either get me the appropriate training (Not easy to find, and possibly not available outside of the rigging companies in house training), or drop the idea?

 

I would rather this did not come down to me quitting, especially as while that would solve the problem for me (At the cost of MAJOR aggro), I can still see this thing being used, only without any sort of inspections and with 'riggers' even less competent then I am.

 

Bringing in the local enviro. health would probably put a stop to it, but would still result in my having to quit the gig.

 

Am I worrying too much?

 

These things are used all the time at the fairgrounds, but I am just not comfortable with being responsible for something that imposes those kinds of shock loads on a system that is suspending members of the public and is not checked by a competent person after being set up every time.

 

Any comments?

 

Regards, Dan.

[paulears]

I think you are worrying too much.

The company produce manuals and seem to offer training if required. Maybe if you are really worried you could go to the company and spend a day checking it out.

 

If you follow the manufacturers instructions, and the employers insurance company, then the risk assessment may well show you don't have a problem. Obviously, you will will be responsible for making sure it is set up in accordance with the manufacturers instructions, but that comes with the job. If you do it properly, then you don't have a problem. If an accident happens, which it will of course, then if you did it properly no sweat. If you forgot a pin, or catch, or didn't spot the frayed webbing, then you are in the poo, but quite fairly!

 

You sound as if you don't think you are competent? Fair enough, but maybe then the job isn't for you. Everything you do is potentially dangerous, minimising risk is you job. Managing risk is the issue here.

 

You don't need to be a rigger to run one of these things, the web site makes that clear.

 

A competent person does inspect it every time - you!

 

Your requests for "This is safe" documents probably can't be answered. Most danger will come form incorrect assembly and undetected damage. This, you can be responsible for. They probably can't give the assurances you want, as it is out of their care and sight. As for the inspection period - if they say 12 months, what is the problem?

 

Flying a gauze - half a days training and a dvd would be overkill here.

 

I really do think you have to make a decision. Wash your hands of it, and face the bosses who will assume you are just being awkward - or look forward to the prospect of instigating a set up safety system, with appropriate check lists etc etc.

 

You mentioned Foy - they have a very simple check list for their flying systems. Things that need checking every day, bi-weekly and weekly. The person inspecting signs the form, and takes the responsibility. One of my colleagues on a previous Foy show was reluctant to do this, fearing what would happen if it wasn't done properly. My answer is to make sure it is done properly by doing it myself, and then putting my name to it. If I co*k up, I'll take the blame - seems fair to me. It is quite useful in making sure you really do check, and not guess.

[mac.calder]

After a brief look at their site, I agree that you are over-reacting a little bit.

 

IF you had to install rigging points for this thing to work - or if it involved you having to work anything out, make a choice etc, it is understandable - but all the rigging is in place - all you do is 'connect part A to part B' to make what is most definatly rated a SAFE appliance - I doubt the govt. would allow the sale of such a device to everyone without stipulation of training if it were unsafe. I see these things at local country shows - 4 of them, with one supervisor and they have the IQ of a monkey. I would not trust them to hang a painting on the wall, yet I have not heard of any accidents on them.

 

You will probably find their 'yearly' checking is for a far more in depth 'assessment' more than just a check - before each use it would be recomended that you check all ropes etc. The yearly would be a much closer inspection.

[Dweeks]

Seen so many of these about recently, I can't imagine they'd be so popular if they had any element of risk to them!

 

Really wouldn't worry about it too much :)

[Russ]

If it's a complete system, provided by one manufacturer, and you are following the instructions provided by them, then it's their fault if it breaks - it doesn't take a lawyer to come to that conclusion.

 

It's simply a case of demonstrating who is at fault. If you design a system, and the system fails and kills somsone because of a failure of your design, then you are obviously at fault. Not the guy who rigged the thing.

 

If the system fails because of a failure of someone else's design (and the design includes the appropriate safety documentation), and you can prove you followed the instructions to the letter, then it ain't your fault.

 

Obviously (and this should go without saying), you should make sure your insurer is satisfied with the whole arrangement, especially since it's going to be used by the general public.

 

Having said that, I wouldn't buy from a company whose grammar is that terrible... :D

[SparkySteve]

would this count if whoever was putting it up was a little unsure that the instructions were wrong or somehow incorrect and as their duty in the sense of H&S reported it to the OP who then told them to carry on... would the OP then become liable as well as the manufacturer?

 

I'm asking this as a purely hypothetical question and am a little unsure as to what the correct answer is.

[Brian]

would this count if whoever was putting it up was a little unsure that the instructions were wrong or somehow incorrect and as their duty in the sense of H&S reported it to the OP who then told them to carry on... would the OP then become liable as well as the manufacturer?

 

I'm asking this as a purely hypothetical question and am a little unsure as to what the correct answer is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is no correct answer.

 

In theory, anyone involved with the incident could be prosecuted. In practice, it will depend on the HSE/LA as to who they wish to prosecute and then it will depend on the court as to who they find guilty (if anyone).

 

On the HSE website are the guidelines they use to decide who to prosecute.

[paulears]

the test seems to be if what took place was 'reasonable'? So, if you carried out processes indicated by the manufacturer, and even added extra safety measures, then as long as a court determines the action you took as reasonable, then fine. Trouble is, this all takes place after somthing nasty occurs. Then, everyone does a runner, leaving you standing there with the instruction leaflet!

[David]

I did PA for an outdoor event last weekend, one of these units setup next to the commentary box. It was set up and run by 1 old boy and his wife. Took 1 hour to set up and it looked like it was self building (using the motors that pill up the bungee to pull up the structure.

 

They charged £5 for 10 minuets and there was a Q all day. We worked out that they must have taken £800