Tallescopes

[mikienorth]

I'm sure this is here before but anyway:

 

In this newsletter to local authourities (the people that will be making the visits alluded to in the HSE comments from the Scottish conference) The HSE are still looking for information relating to tallescope use. This is only just 6 weeks old, this newsletter. I personally will be very impressed if any government body can make a decision that quickly. I am concerned by this, and do not question the fact that the HSE's entertainment expert (which B.Baker is listed as somewher in the HSE website) has said this, but it might be a little too soon for him to make a comment.

 

I wait with baited breath for the proper publication of something from the HSE.

 

Does anyone know how far ABTT got with their research? I recall filling something in for them at my last theatre, and I recall the plan was that they would be doing some serious research into the situation.

 

Anyhow, I will continue to scour google for HSE based tallescope information

[gareth]

The implications of this, across the whole of the theatre industry in the UK, are enormous. David, is there anything in writing to support this (documentation from the HSE, transcript of the conference session, etc.)? I'm not in any way suggesting that you're spinning us a yarn!! I just think it would be really helpful at this stage to see some sort of documentation to back up what Barry Baker said at the conference.

[Steve Macluskie]

What Barry Baker said at the conference was that the HSE have done toppling and moment calculations at their labs and have concluded that moving the 'scope with a person in the basket is unsafe in their opinion (and against manufacturers specific instructions as a bonus). They effectively have thier information for the first test case.

 

The ABTT have also been gathering evidence for their case but, in the HSE's opinion, relies upon testimonials rather than scientific data.

 

This isn't going to be tested until the first test case surfaces and the no-win-no-fee lawyers will be falling over themselves to take an easy win for the claimant.

 

Remember that an accident or injury is merely the aggravating factor which is often the reason a criminal case is brought forward. Often the injury was incidental since the prosecution would be looking to convict on the grounds of gross negligence by the employer to identify and manage the risk which led to the injury.

 

Steve Macluskie

[iainutron]

Your IPAF card is not a licence. There is no such thing as a MEWP/scissor lift licence, nor is there any such thing as a forklift licence.

 

Interesting...

 

Having done such a course today it is obvious the training staff either don't know or are pedalling inaccurate information in order to maximise sales of their courses. Judging by the war stories (from his own firm!!!) they require a refresher course.

 

I'd prefer an experienced line manager gave me a 20 minute check over/up down and test the emergency descent procedure and test rather than someone with no theatre industry knowledge embarking on an all day marketing excercise including irrelevant machinery. I was bored so asked about an alternative to tallescopes. Much shock and wonder from other participants and general ranting but no helpful solution or advice offered. They gave me a nice folder and a pen though.

 

Can't say I'm impressed or reassured.

 

Have had folk coming in the venue saying "I've got a licence" Where should I point them if I decide their information is incorrect?

[Simon Lewis]

By stating it's not a licence, I'm saying it doesn't have the same status as a conventional driving licence, where you have to have passed it to drive (legally) on the roads.

 

The cherry picker "ticket" doesn't have the same rigour as a driving test, but it does appear to satisfy those who need to show that training has taken place.

 

Therefore, the ticket is a requirement in many places, but does not guarantee that the driver is experienced and safe using the equipment.

[DavidLee]

What Barry Baker said at the conference was that the HSE have done toppling and moment calculations at their labs and have concluded that moving the 'scope with a person in the basket is unsafe in their opinion (and against manufacturers specific instructions as a bonus). They effectively have thier information for the first test case.

I emailed Sarah Jardine (HSE) asking for clarification and this is her reply - dated 16th March 2007:

 

Thankyou for your message and I note your comments.

 

Firstly I would like to clarify what was said in the HSE Newsletter to Local Authorities of February 2007. The actual wording was that "HSE Entertainment and Leisure Sector are anxious to gather information on accidents involving tallescopes." and not that we were "anxious to reconsider our position" as you suggest in your message below. I think the confusion may have arisen as the article went on to say that there are persons within the entertainment industry who are anxious that we reconsider our stated position on the use of tallescopes. My request for details of accidents is a part of this process. HSE is aware of a number of accidents which have occurred involving tallescopes in premises for which we are the Enforcing Authority, however, as Local Authorities enforce health and safety legislation at the majority of UK theatres I am keen to obtain the broader picture.

 

I have spoken to Barry Baker to confirm what he said at the Federation of Scottish Theatre conference earlier this month. His recollection is that what he said was to the effect that HSE had already done some research that gave us concern about the stability of tallescopes, and that we are doing more research at the Health and Safety Laboratory in Derbyshire to further investigate the technical details. This should not, however, be taken as evidence that we were changing our view, which currently remains that tallescopes should not be moved with someone in the basket.

 

I hope this clarifies the current situation and clears up any perceived inconsistencies in HSE's approach.

 

Regards

 

Sarah Jardine

HM Inspector of Health and Safety

Entertainment and Leisure Sector

City Gate West

Toll House Hill

Nottingham NG1 5AT

VPN 513 2813

Tel 0115 971 2813

[GregB]

We are looking into other forms of access and are currently trying the Skyjack 3219 scissor lift (some of us having recently gained our IPAF licenses )

 

If a manufacturer is happy to build a motorised working platform that moves when occupied, surely the same appliance of science could be put to unmotorised variants. I see the 'scope as an MEWP with out the motor. Manufacturers really need to get on board with this mind set!

[Roderick]

If a manufacturer is happy to build a motorised working platform that moves when occupied, surely the same appliance of science could be put to unmotorised variants. I see the 'scope as an MEWP with out the motor. Manufacturers really need to get on board with this mind set!

Where that theory falls apart is the difference in weight. MEWP get there stability from an awful lot of weight in the base of the machinery. To achieve a similar stability on a tallescope you'd probably (just a rough guess, no science or calculations involved) be looking at 500kg - 750kg in the base of the 'scope. Apart from doubting that it could support that weight, for which it wasn't designed, it would make it a bastard to move.

Apples and oranges I'm afraid.

[Bryson]

Except, of course, the Esca people prove that it can be done at a low weight.

 

Has anyone had a look at the Esca 300 properly as a possible replacement? While I have some reservations, I'm getting a demo so I can make an informed decision. The 3000 looks a lot less "rickety" than the 2000, which was my main worry.

[andy_s]

Except, of course, the Esca people prove that it can be done at a low weight.

 

Has anyone had a look at the Esca 300 properly as a possible replacement? While I have some reservations, I'm getting a demo so I can make an informed decision. The 3000 looks a lot less "rickety" than the 2000, which was my main worry.

 

for your typical dance production (flat floor, wings borders and backcloths) from what I've seen or read, I think it would be very suitable. For theatre shows with rakes, level changes etc it would perhaps be less convenient, but still to my mind a more appropriate replacement for the talley (should one be eventually needed) than a genie or cherrypicker.

[Bryson]

I also worry that the "walking" motion of the wheels will ruck the dancefloor up. But yes, the width of the base and lack of floor support would be a concern when trying to maneuver around set.

[Tomo]

I find it hard to trust a place that says this:

What is working at height?

Working at height is when an operator is safely working at shoulder height. For example, our 6m unit has a platform at 4m, the average person is 1.8m. Therefore, subtract 2m from the working height to obtain the platform height.

 

It's apparent what they mean, but it's not what they say.

 

Is the ESCA fully height-adjustable?

 

The photos don't imply it, but I can't find an actual owner's manual to confirm or deny this.

 

The video shows multiple work platforms, but that won't get you under a flown bar.

 

There is one bit of the video that scares me though - it shows a guy moving a safety bar around at the top.

And that bit of bent metal isn't attached to anything, and gets hung on the side of the unit.

Tip it up for storage, and that's going to fall!

 

I trust that has been changed in later versions.