Tallescopes

[gareth]

"surely you can't be serious!"

"I am serious - and don't call me Shirley!" (Sorry, couldn't resist it!)

 

I can't help but wonder whether the reason the HSE are looking like they might be yielding to industry pressure to 'reconsider their position' might be, in part at least, a financial one. After all, pretty much all theatres in the UK (with a few exceptions) use the tallescope as the primary (and usually only) means of access to overhead lighting rigs. If the HSE prevented them from using the equipment in this way, there would be huge financial implications - either in terms of the extra crew required to use the 'scope in a legally-acceptable way within the required timeframe of opening a show on schedule, or in terms of the purchase of new 'approved' access equipment (and the training of staff in its use).

 

Maybe (and this is pure speculation) they are becoming afraid that if they are responsible for making changes to the laws and regulations which place venues under this kind of financial obligation (and let's face it, some venues simply don't have the capital to fund what might easily amount to two or three thousand pounds' worth of access equipment purchase and training), they'd be opening a really big and unpleasant can of worms.

[GreatBigHippy]

"I am serious - and don't call me Shirley!" (Sorry, couldn't resist it!)

RESIST! I would be upset if that wasn't the standard reply!

The extra cost is a large factor in this. But would the HSE be responsible for this anyway? Upright have never claimed that pushing a tallescope with someone in the basket is acceptable AFAIK and as such everyone technically is taking a risk whether the HSE say it is or not.

Is it possible for an independent survey to say that the tallescope is safe to be used in such a way, and for that to override manufacturers recommendations? As Gareth said earlier, the HSE would take a dim view if you felt you knew better than the manufacturers, so what makes them so special? (meaning the HSE)

Understand, I feel it is safe for them to be used for focusing like this as long as all precautions are taken and everyone knows their job. All I'm saying is that we may get ourselves into sticky legal situations if the HSE feel they can override their own rules and manufacturers recommendations in "special" cases.

I don't think you will EVER get Upright to agree that it is safe, as all it would take is one accident where operation wasn't at fault and they would be stuffed. They'd rather the HSE take the fall for that one!

[Bryson]

On the other hand:

 

The current Health and Safety "Regime" is based on Risk Assessment by the person or persons managing the activity. The HSE issue guidance and in certain situations, direct instruction on how that activity is managed, but in the end the responsibility and the ability to choose a work method are left to the person doing the Risk Assessment. Do we really want the HSE to start to micromanage every activity? I'm sure we don't, and I'm equally sure that they don't want to.

 

Secondly, as a Government agency, the HSE have to tread carefully. Quite aside from the financial damage mentioned by Gareth to Theatre Operations, there has to be something pretty serious for the HSE to prevent usage of a single product in it's primary marketplace. Certainly considerably more serious than the few isolated and not terribly serious accidents that can be attributed to Tallescope usage. Remember, the term "reasonably practicable" is in the law - there are certainly ways and means to make a lot of tasks safer, but if the cost of doing so is disproportionate to the increase in safety, you don't have to do it.

 

I have a vague memory (which I will chase up later) that there is already "precedent" for usage of equipment outside the manufacturers intended role for specialist tasks in the construction industry, providing other controls are put in place.

 

I think what happened here is that someone at the HSE made a judgement that later proved to be a little extreme, particularly in the light of the lack of data on Tallescope accidents. They realised that it needed more study before a judgement could be made. So that's what they are doing. A HSE that recognises when it makes hasty decisions and acts to right them? I'm all for that.

[Just Some Bloke]

The Blue Room, of course, conducted its own survey into this a while ago here and here.

 

The results showed that in amateur and educational venues favourite means of access were:

1) Ladders

2) Scaff tower

3) Tallescope

There had been no serious accidents, 6 minor accidents and 92% of responders had never been involved in any accidents.

 

In professional venues the favourite means of access were:

1) Tallescope

2) Ladders

3) MEWP

Again, over 92% of responders had never been involved in an accident, there had been 1 minor accident, but his time there were 3 serious accidents. Of those, 2 gave further details: 1 had used a ladder that was in poor condition and 1 had used a tallescope that was not properly maintained at the time of the fall. This only leaves 1 occasion in 131 cases where a serious incident may have been due to anything other than poor maintenance.

 

Interestingly, only 1 reply in 131 said they use 4 people at the bottom of the tallescope (as suggested at one stage by ABTT: not sure if this is still their suggestion?).

 

OK, so there weren't enough replies to make this statistically usable, but maybe anyone who didn't vote last time might like to add a vote now. It's 100% confidential so you can tell the truth without fear of a knock on the door from the HSE!

We have 5,452 registered members, 50.45% of whom claim to favour lighting. With those who also do lighting as a secondary thing we could maybe get a few thousand votes if everyone has a go. That would be a usable sample then! :)

[DavidLee]

Just spotted in the latest bulletin from the HSE to LAs...clicky.

Intriguing....

The HSE are now gathering information because the entertainments industry is anxious that they reconsider the stated position?

Surely the stated position is that the HSE made the rules that equipment should be used as the manufactures intended? I'm not sure how the HSE could reconsider their position without going back on this pretty central rule.

Can the HSE make exceptions to this rule without opening themselves up for all sorts of criticism? They surely can't make the decision that they know better than the manufactures.

No. HSE are aware that standard operating procedure commonly does include the movement of a Tallescope whilst the basket is occupied. The issue is whether or not it is possible to mandate operating procedures and restrictions, additional to the basic manufacturers' instructions, which will allow this usage to be carried out safely and so reduce the risk of falling due to fatigue caused by the need otherwise to repeatedly climb the 'scopes ladder each time it is moved.

 

Obviously a survey of current operating practice and accident statistics is the sensible starting point but HSE do have a history of commissioning serious research initiatives in order to solve just these sorts of issue.

 

A perfect example is their recent response to issues of single-handed use of top-handled chainsaws by arborists. Such use is contrary to manufacturers' instructions and has resulted in an unacceptably high rate of serious injury and so the manufacturers' stance was initially endorsed by HSE. However, just as in the case of Tallescope movement, these restrictions imposed serious limitations on the work of properly trained and experienced professionals. Thus HSE commissioned a major research project to investigate safety issues and produce guidelines covering all aspects of the safe advanced aerial use of top-handled chainsaws, resulting in this publication.

 

From report conclusions:

This research project has identified safe working methods of using a top-handled chainsaw in all situations in which a climbing arborist may expect to operate. In the exceptional circumstances where one-handed operation is desirable, the methods and techniques described in this report will enable the operations to be carried out efficiently, ergonomically and with the minimum of risk of injury to the operator.

I have spoken with members of the HSE Leisure Industry team in the past (regarding smoke and dry-ice effects) and have found their attitude very reasonable and not at all "jobs-worth", as seems to be implied by the majority of HSE-bashing correspondents.

 

My prediction is that the outcome will be a set of HSE guidelines defining the situations in which an occupied tallescope may be moved and the additional safety precautions that must be observed and that the procedure will not be very different from current "best-practice".

 

David

[GreatBigHippy]

Groovy.

Cheers for that David. The example there does go a long way to clearing up some things!

I often find that the workings of the HSE are fairly opaque and often can end up going for the wrong stick, let alone the wrong end. But it's nice that someone is looking out for my health and wellbeing!

Ta very muchly

theHippy

[Simonc]

Use of a tallescope by moving it with a person or equipment in the bucket has just been stopped at my venue. This follows specific instruction from our Enforcement Officer that he is obliged to take enforcement action if we are using the scope in this way. It does not have to be the result of an accident - our risk assessments and safe working procedures define our method of carrying out this work safely, i.e. moving with a technician in the basket, which is in contravention of the manufacturers instructions and therefore PUWER. I quote:

'...contrary to sections 2(1) and 2(2) © of the HASAW 1974 and regulations 4 & 8 of PUWER regs 1998.'

 

I was instructed that if we continue to operate in this way he would have no option but to take enforcement action. We have never had an accident or near miss with a tallescope, and had not done anything to bring the matter to his attention - it was simply that he became aware of the information in an HSE newsletter, previously mentioned by a BR contributor.

 

Ironically, the EO was aware of our existing procedures, and with our independent H&S adviser, was of the opinion that we were operating in a safe way. In fact, knowing what this would mean for us he questioned the advice internally before approaching us with the news - which may have inadvertently drawn more attention to the issue. However, recent and very strongly worded guidance from HSE has left him with no choice but to take this stance. We have a good working relationship with our local EO and I do not believe he has any choice in the matter.

 

Worryingly for the rest of you out there in theatre land, he also felt it was likely that the HSE were going to re-enforce this message with all local authorities and that the result may be that everyone gets the visit we have just had very soon.

 

I'm sure this is not the end of the road yet, but it feels like a pretty big nail for the coffin! In the meantime, we have already experienced difficulties with schedules and crew levels, and at least one major production is considering cancelling a summer engagement as a direct result of the time / cost implications of this position.

 

Internally, we - as did some other contributors to BR - always identified the risks of falling whilst ascending / descending the ladder, and accessing the bucket, to be considerably greater than being moved in the bucket (given the strict use of safe working procedures) and that the fatigue of repeated climbs will make this worse. Now that the option of moving the scope with the technician in the bucket has been taken away from us, we must try to mitigate the already identified greater risks of the climb.

 

It has been made quite clear to us that should anyone suffer an injury as a result of the additional climbing up and down, this is our responsibility as it is a recognised risk which we will have failed to safely manage. Ultimately, this risk isn't going to stand as argument in favour of breaching manufacturers instructions, but rather that the tallescope is not suitable for most theatre use even without moving it. (I wonder what the scrap value of a tallescope is?)

 

It is naive to suggest, as some BR contributors have in the past, that we should stop complaining and get on with it / start fund-raising. For most regional theatres there is no magical sum of money that the managers will release when they realise they have no choice - in my experience it is a myth (and an offensive one at that!) that managers are just trying to save a penny at the expense of their teams safety. And we already fundraise for every penny we can get to try to provide quality theatre and a sustainable wage.

 

Ultimately, it is hard to argue against the EO's application of the legislation. Without official acceptance of the industries use of the tallescope, and a nationally agreed set of safe working procedures, we will always come up against the same barrier of the manufacturers instructions. I know that there is now a strong movement within the industry to get something done - lets just hope it can be achieved soon enough!

 

I would be interested to hear if other venues get this treatment. Thanks for listening!

 

Simon.

[gareth]

my venue

Which is ..........?

 

 

(Sorry for being nosey, but I'm interested in hearing about venues which are having these restrictions forced upon them.)

[Simonc]

Hall for Cornwall - Truro.

[Powerlines2k]

Basically we all need to persuade our venues that this: http://www.tracked-access.co.uk/range/teup...%20T%20engl.pdf is the way to go.

 

Seen one in action an it is a remarkable piece of kit. Price may be a little issue though. :D

 

http://www.teupenamerica.com/products/leo23gt/index.htm

http://www.teupenamerica.com/gallery/leo23...t-photo-001.htm

http://www.teupenamerica.com/videos/inoutdoor.wmv

http://www.teupenamerica.com/videos/spezialisten.wmv

[Ike]

While http://www.teupenamerica.com/videos/spezialisten.wmv is quite impressive I bet I've got tallescopes in tighter spots than you would ever get that.

[andy_s]

While http://www.teupenamerica.com/videos/spezialisten.wmv is quite impressive I bet I've got tallescopes in tighter spots than you would ever get that.

 

yep - they say it will go through a normal sized door, but only if you've got about a 20ft turning circle either side of the door....

 

I do like the method of getting on to the back of a flatbed truck, though - Thunderbirds are go....

[David Ripley]

Barry Baker from HSE Entertainment branch spoke at the Federation of Scottish Theatre conference in St Andrews

 

HSE have now done the research into using Tallescopes. They have concluded that it is dangerous to move a tallescope with someone aloft, regardless of any current industry practices.. They will be spreading the word and enforcing this. If you fancy arguing against government funded research and the manufacturers explicit instructions in a court of law then good luck.

 

Any talk of HSE and the industry 'sorting this out' has now passed, therefore so everyone will need to reassess their working practices, no matter how inconvenient, if they have ben using the Talle 'old fashioned style'

 

They will also be 'dropping in' so to speak to inspect the rescue plans for anyone using fall arrest equipment. Anyone without 'suitable and sufficient' planning will be prosecuted, this will obviously mainly involve EHO's due to the small number of HSE inspectors but they are very keen on Working at Height issues at the moment

 

David

[Bryson]

Well, there we go then. What a huge opportunity missed.

 

I find it incredible that I now have to go and buy a scaffold tower to be able to continue to operate, which is effectively the same thing, only less flexible, and IMHO, not as safe, because Upright refused to acknowledge the primary way in which their product is used. They deserve to lose 90% of those sales, I guess.

 

So, start your funding engines people, you need about £1500-£2000 to replace your scope with a crappy tower that takes ages to put up. Or you can spend tons of money on a Genie if you have the funds (and a floor that'll take it.)

 

Did I mention I'm leaving this country ASAP? Because I am...

[the kid]

Hmmm I fear that it is time to send this topic to the relevent people in college and hope HOPE that I might just get a new tower by september IF it is decided that we will get another one.