Jump to content

Guns n Roses Stage Collapse!


Recommended Posts

Saying all that though , wasnt the stage STILL being built? If thats the case, then maybe at the point of the storm, as it wasnt complete, this was why what happened, happened!!

 

If the design and spec of the stage is meant to withstand storms - or whatever else - of that size when finished and complete and this happened on completion, then thats worrying - but if a structure is still in the process of being built, therefore at risk to the elements would this not just have benn a natural accident which no-one could have foreseen regardless of the RA's and H&S of the stage itself?

 

The RA for site evacuation looked like it needed to be looked at though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be brutally honest there are many territories in the world where the words "Health & Safety" and "Risk Assessment" are simply not a priority. Many is the time when I have encountered un-earthed structures, scaff uprights sinking into mud (no base plates and pads!) causing said stage to list at crazy angles, tarps that have no method of quick release so they can be dropped in high winds, flat roofs that allow water to gather in the middle......the list goes on and on!

We may moan on occasion about rigorous H&S etc. in this neck of the woods but it is there for a good reason! Doing shows in some places is certainly an enlightening experience, you have to insist that some things are made good for the safety of the band, crew and audience before a show can commence. Sometimes when there is potential fault with the structure itself and inclement weather it is essential that stage evacuation is immediate and I certainly wouldn't pick an artic truck as a place of refuge, the words "match wood" come to mind. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good reason for H&S strictness in this country but also good outcomes.

I've made this point before but GB is the safest place to work in the EU with a fatal accident at work rate of 1.3. Portugals' rate is 5.2 so they kill four times as many over there and I would imagine Brazil is much, much worse again.

(Last figures I can find are 1987's 22.0, 17 times the UK's! That is a really worrying stat in that only 25% of the workforce were covered by their version of National Insurance and there was a high level of non-reporting.)

 

One good reason for our touring brethren to be X amount of times more safety conscious abroad. I don't believe that particular stage would ever be built in the UK; loose corrugated sheets, flat roof with high risk of tropical rainstorms, kit exposed to the elements etc. And, yes Rob, it does happen far too often, but a lot more often abroad than over here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we really risk assess to is the worst case scenario that we think is likely to happen*. That stage in Rio would have been built (presumably) to handle a storm of a certain magnitude. Without knowing the specifics of the case it would be reasonable to assume that the storm they had may have been above the design limit for the stage.

And therein lies the difference between risk assessment and risk management. One of my favourite HSE myths (HSE May 2007) explains it nicely by stating that no-one has ever been saved by a piece of paper, it is the actions that are required that can save people from harm.

So if we are looking at this case, maybe there were design restrictions on the weather conditions it could handle. But if those conditions only existed on a piece of paper from an engineer in a folder on someone's desk then it is not going to do anything.

What should have happened, as normally does with reputable stage builders, those limitations should have been listed and a wind speed meter should have been installed on the roof of the stage. Weather forecasts are nice but never a substitute for local information. If wind conditions are starting to get near the allowable limit, emergency procedures should have started to kick in. And for a large site like that it should have been a staged evacuation, simply put: If the wind reaches this speed - this should happen, if it reaches this speed - that should happen, etc.

 

Risk assessment is only the first step, not a solution. The findings of a risk assessment should be incorporated in a risk management strategy which must be communicated to all involved.

Then, and only then, do we have an effective management of risks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good reason for H&S strictness in this country but also good outcomes.

I've made this point before but GB is the safest place to work in the EU with a fatal accident at work rate of 1.3. Portugals' rate is 5.2 so they kill four times as many over there and I would imagine Brazil is much, much worse again.

(Last figures I can find are 1987's 22.0, 17 times the UK's! That is a really worrying stat in that only 25% of the workforce were covered by their version of National Insurance and there was a high level of non-reporting.)

 

It's all very well saying that, and of course it's true.

 

But I attend a lot of business events in the City and elsewhere (in my capacity as Audio or Video person) and can tell you this -

 

The suits are always bleating on about how "uncompetitive" Britain is compared with elsewhere, especially when it comes to the cost of employing people and all the "red tape" involved in doing business in Britain.

These are their favourite justifications for exporting British jobs offshore, generally to the third world but also, yes, to places like Portugal and Brazil.

 

You may find stats showing the disparity in work related death and injury "worrying", but that is what makes most multinational companies profitable in the age of Globalisation, and allows the fatcats to continue to live in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

 

Life is cheap, and Money is God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite a culture of risk assement ect in this country (UK) I have seen a 5M high set beeing blown over just after we had finished building it and before the opera company started thier run through. I that case I dont think anyone did any proper structual / risk assement, I suspect this is often still true for many small outdor events or tours where a mobile/ moveable struture is used.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.