Legal age of working at height

[Wuddy]

David while I agree that lots of things are practicable; in the UK and this is a UK forum as Dmills has pointed out we have some specific restrictions that do not apply in your country.

 

As well as the specific restrictions that apply to working at height we also have statutory speed limits put in place to protect road users, exceeding such speed limits is breaking the law and could lead to fatal consequences, that is why all UK drivers comply with statutory speed limits. :)

[mac.calder]

when is someone allowed to work at height alone? or is this never the case?

 

The general opinion in most places I have worked is that nobody should do work at height without someone else at least present (not necessarily standing at the bottom of the scaff/scissor/etc, but at least within earshot).. So, no, you should never work at height alone.

 

That said, people work at height alone all the time, and no one really enforces those sorts of things, but if there was an issue (I don't know, maybe you get jostled out of a scissor one morning on a Saturday and end up slowly bleeding to death, being found Saturday arvo when the rest of the venue crew arrive), questions would be asked.

[nothingatall666]

No young person of compulsory school age can be employed

 

under 16?

or

until school breaks up in the summer term regardless of whether that person is 16 before the school year ends?

 

I'm 16 in November and will be in my last year of compulsory school.

 

To sell or deliver alcohol.

surly that is wrong?

 

this topic is slowly turning in to one made a while back, about the legal age of working in a theater

[David A]

I grew up in England, at 14 I rewired a little cinema in a village called Tutbury, which was a bingo hall in the week and a dance-hall at weekends, I continued my life of crime in Wellington, stage manager at a dance hall in the swinging sixties, then I did an apprenticeship with English Electric and had great fun with industrial cranes and blowing up gear in the high power test lab, I have never seen an industrial accident even without the benefit of endless pages of waffle to make us safer.The safety rules in Australia mirror most of the UK ones, our bureaucrats are too lazy to have any original ideas, but I always find the H&S rules to be sensible because there is always an exception or change allowed to cater for real world situations, some Pratt will come along with a quote from a H & S course he was on last week, saying you must wear a safety harness on a particular job, but in the fine print it says a safety harness must be available if you feel the need for it but it is not compulsory, and this kind of scenario plays out frequently, so when I hear a quote which sounds like rubbish I now invite the complainer to share the regulation with us and lo and behold in the pre-amble it is "when practicable" "should be considered"'reasonable precautions"etc.etc.etc.That is why a legal quote with no context is meaningless.

[paulears]

There is a lot of info here, and while most does have some kind of grounding - as was said, and kind of dismissed, context is all important. The sensible view of the authorities, not just on the height issue, is that people in full time education, or part time students on programes that are delivered by registered educational establishments are not (for the students) workplaces. This then neatly 'un-links' their activities from legislation designed for the industry. It's replaced by the school or college having the responsibility for safety, and their insurance company carry the financial risk. Blame, if required, is directed at the individual teacher who was responsible for the students. So in practice, our type of work is revolving around the use of access equipment. Safe and competent instruction and risk assessment seem to cover the issue. This is how gym equipment can be used safely - and at the other end, how students can be trained to walk a high wire, or use a flying trapeze - both at first glance hazardous activity for young or old people. Schools and colleges are very different to the industrial workplace - which is were all the legislation seems centred. Misplaced links to construction site rules simply don't work. Use safety boots as an example. Most stage people will have experienced the situation where the things would have really been a good idea, but weren't being worn. In the industry, most experienced adult crew wear them - but how about students at school or college? Some make them buy and wear them - others don't.

 

Is a scaff tower with some lights hanging from it access equipment or a work platform - or should it be considered as a bit of big truss?

 

In my own experience, schools make their own rules up. Somebody is charged wth being responsible and they produce something their insurers are happy with. The outcome is that some will not allow any student to climb on even a short pair of steps, others are happy to let them use towers, A-frames, tallies, and ladders.

 

I have never heard of any intervention in education matters by the authorities. The LOLER, PUWER, HSAW etc have almost no impact on the teachers - and I suspect that many have never heard of them. It just isn't something that their management know about. The caretaking staff, and visiting contractors know all about them - but that's nothing to do with education.

[Just Some Bloke]

In my own experience, schools make their own rules up.

[snip]

It just isn't something that their management know about. The caretaking staff, and visiting contractors know all about them - but that's nothing to do with education.

I can concur. We recently had a day, arranged by the County Council Education people, when 4 schools came in and each gave a performance on a given topic (bullying or drugs or something - I forget which). One school brought a scaff tower from the top of which (it was about 2.5m high) a pupil was to fall and be caught by the others. The pupils set up the tower themselves and, before they used it, our house technicians correctly decided that they didn't seem to have brought a "competent person" with them so sensibly referred it upwards to me. I looked at it and immediately spotted that the hand-rail was too low, but also remembered that we currently have a load of building work going on in our other venue (same building), involving "competent", professional scaffold erectors. One of those kindly agreed to inspect the scaffolding for them, agreed with my comment about the hand rail and gave the rest a thumbs up.

 

The point of this is that here was the first time anyone competent had checked their scaffold. It wasn't right, but they had been rehearsing with it built the same way in school.

 

On a side note, there was also no written Risk Assessment for the pupil who was falling off a 2.5m tower. I had a quick chat and was happy that what they were doing was safe and the risks were low, but if that had been something we'd initiated ourselves (if our own Youth Theatre were doing it, for instance) a risk assessment would have been absolutely necessary.

 

Rules are meant to be followed, but unfortunately it's not always easy to do so. Teachers have a lot to worry about and schools can't afford to employ a full-time Production Manager.

[Roderick]

[snip] in the UK and this is a UK forum [/snip]

OT, my apologies, but when did this happen?

I was under the impression that this was an international forum on all things related to technical theatre?

For me one of the great values of the Blue Room is the possibility to discuss how similar matters are dealt with in different countries and continents, and learn from different viewpoints and solutions.

To disregard opinions from members outside the UK is ridiculous and, quite frankly, offensive.

[David A]

In my own experience, schools make their own rules up.

[snip]

It just isn't something that their management know about. The caretaking staff, and visiting contractors know all about them - but that's nothing to do with education.

I can concur. We recently had a day, arranged by the County Council Education people, when 4 schools came in and each gave a performance on a given topic (bullying or drugs or something - I forget which). One school brought a scaff tower from the top of which (it was about 2.5m high) a pupil was to fall and be caught by the others. The pupils set up the tower themselves and, before they used it, our house technicians correctly decided that they didn't seem to have brought a "competent person" with them so sensibly referred it upwards to me. I looked at it and immediately spotted that the hand-rail was too low, but also remembered that we currently have a load of building work going on in our other venue (same building), involving "competent", professional scaffold erectors. One of those kindly agreed to inspect the scaffolding for them, agreed with my comment about the hand rail and gave the rest a thumbs up.

 

The point of this is that here was the first time anyone competent had checked their scaffold. It wasn't right, but they had been rehearsing with it built the same way in school.

 

On a side note, there was also no written Risk Assessment for the pupil who was falling off a 2.5m tower. I had a quick chat and was happy that what they were doing was safe and the risks were low, but if that had been something we'd initiated ourselves (if our own Youth Theatre were doing it, for instance) a risk assessment would have been absolutely necessary.

 

Rules are meant to be followed, but unfortunately it's not always easy to do so. Teachers have a lot to worry about and schools can't afford to employ a full-time Production Manager.

But was it a scaffold tower or a set piece made of scaffold, do your set pieces, rostra, ramps, staging pieces, comply with building standards? no. no way.So a "safety" clause from one application is farcical in another.

[Roderick]

But was it a scaffold tower or a set piece made of scaffold, do your set pieces, rostra, ramps, staging pieces, comply with building standards? no. no way.So a "safety" clause from one application is farcical in another.

Well, the short answer is that they should comply with all current Building Codes, at least in Australia.

All set pieces must meet the fire retardant criteria as outlined in the BCA and be structurally sound. All rostra, ramps, stage pieces etc. must be structurally sound and 'fit for purpose'. Larger 'temporary structures' will require an engineer sign-off, for which they will need to meet all applicable codes.

Scaffold structures, never mind what their purpose, in Australia must comply with AS/NZS 1576.1:1995 : Scaffolding - General requirements. Some smaller alloy 'QuickScaff' structures can be build by a competent person but any steel scaff must be build by a qualified scaffolder.

 

For some reason there seems to be this myth that because it is theatre, we are 'special' and common laws and regulation do not apply. This is wrong, all regulations apply as they do for everyone else except where there is a specific clause that allows a variance, such as the requirement that would nomally require a handrail in front of a stage.

[David A]

Last year a small dance company wanted an industrial look scaffold to dance on, in and around, their requirement to drape themselves around it meant that it was changed considerably from its normal format and would have been in breach of regulations, but the regulations are for safe use as a scaffold not safe use as a dance prop.I often make band risers out of ali scaffold again for the industrial look and of course its safe but not complying with all the scaff regulations because it's not a scaff.Theatres are not building sites, I work in both and act accordingly.

[Wol]

In my old school, the member of staff who ran the theatre was tower trained, and would give the students a brief tower training session during one of our lunchtime training sessions. Only members of the 6th form, so age 16 and over (as it was mixed from year 9 to 13 in the school), were allowed to go up the tower, and only in the presence of the member of staff who was tower trained.

 

 

 

[snip] in the UK and this is a UK forum [/snip]

OT, my apologies, but when did this happen?

I was under the impression that this was an international forum on all things related to technical theatre?

For me one of the great values of the Blue Room is the possibility to discuss how similar matters are dealt with in different countries and continents, and learn from different viewpoints and solutions.

To disregard opinions from members outside the UK is ridiculous and, quite frankly, offensive.

 

I'd say that, under first impressions, the URL of blue-room.org.UK would be a good giveaway to a newcomer that this was a UK forum, rather than an international one. Yes, if you do spend a while looking around here you can see that there are people from across the globe, and I agree on your last comment. But to someone who doesn't know, there are a large amount of signs pointing this forum as a UK only one, such as the url, the fair few of the posts regarding venues and places in the UK, a fair percentage of the members being from the UK (Cambs, Lincs, Surrey, Brighton, Oxford, Glasgow, Kent, Hamps, Lowestoft, compared to three from Australia, in very small sample set that is this thread)

[Stewart Newlands]

OT, my apologies, but when did this happen?

I was under the impression that this was an international forum on all things related to technical theatre?

For me one of the great values of the Blue Room is the possibility to discuss how similar matters are dealt with in different countries and continents, and learn from different viewpoints and solutions.

To disregard opinions from members outside the UK is ridiculous and, quite frankly, offensive.

 

Ok, we have not heard back from the OP (an we don't know where they are from) and we seem to be digressing some what, but this is a .UK domain so unless someone talks specifically about another country, it is fair to consider things in a UK context. This is especially true when discussing law.

 

It is not a question of disregarding people from outside the UK it is just that they are less likely to be aware of our local rules, just as we are of theirs. Rules change and what was ok one year especially decades ago, may not now be the case here in the UK.

 

Most people here are not kill joys and like to get on with creating memorable dynamic performances one way or another, the BR is a forum that tries to promote good practice and inform people sensibly of things they may wish to consider. I don't feel BR disregards anyone with valid comments but we do have a local UK domain and core membership.

[David A]

My basic point was that as a kid growing up in the UK I did all sorts of exciting and interesting stuff while at school and as an apprentice, but in the name of safety and regulations kids are being denied those experiences, so many will go to illicit practices to get some excitement, I have tried to show how regulations are frequently misused to restrict kids, like this working at heights rubbish, when they can climb rock walls or gymnasium ropes without restriction, just think twice before refusing to assist kids, as long as there is no real risk, don't accept rulings that seem stupid or illogical, they are usually mis-interpretations.If anyone else says "its the law" or "responsible adult" again I will scream, the law is the little bits that a court will enforce, and I meet more responsible teenagers than adults.

[steve h]

There are countless laws over centuries and we all break laws everyday and courts only apply sensible laws so unless this law has had some practical effect somewhere it can be disregarded as not relevant.

 

I wouldn't want to be the person to take that risk!

 

I went from being in a school where I was allowed up ladders as a student to working in a school where only staff are allowed up them. What I found was that in such a grey area as this it came down to the H&S guys (or gals!) judgement as to whether the work was safe or not. If he didnt want the students up the ladders theres nothing I can do about it. Even if it was definatly legal for them to do so he could stop it. I just had accept this and move on!

[GreatBigHippy]

I've been following this thread silently with interest for a while now.

I'm a performing arts technician at a secondary school and I run a technical crew with age ranges from 14-18. I have run in to all these issues time and again and decided that, within the law, I would have to make a decision that I would be happy standing by in any circumstance. Thus my take is that I will only allow students at A-level age to use the access equipment, and only with my supervision. The reasoning is partly based on the fact that under 16s are not allowed to work in theatre normally, so I am not denying them access to an experience that they can get elsewhere (I don't let them ride my motorbike either :( ).

Over that age the first thing I say is that our industry relies a lot on trust between people. If I lose that trust in them I cannot allow them to put themselves or anyone else in danger and I am very strict on this. I have to be present as PUWER regulations say that equipment has to be safe for use. The only way I can guarantee this is if I check it every time it is used.

When it comes down to it you have to put yourself in the scenario that you are explaining to Mr. and Mrs. Jones that little Jonny won't be coming home today. 6th formers should be able to look after themselves to a reasonable extent (but don't rely on it!) whereas all teenagers have thier mad sessions and I can't take the chance that a normally sensible kid would try something nuts when my back is turned. Just think of the rest of your crew/audience also. I don't want anybody hanging anything unless I am certain they will do it right everytime. By 6th form we have a good idea of who can be trusted and who can't.

This is a discussion that comes up time and time again. If there was a definitive answer then someone would have found it and posted it by now.

Do your risk assessment, read the relevant guidelines, make your own decision, can't really say more than that.

 

cheers all,

theHippy