Safely Unloading Cradles

[kerry davies]

Ali tube is nominally 48mm while steel galvanised tube is nominally 2 inch or 51mm or less. Decent scaff clamps are 48-51mm in nominal size to accommodate both. Doughty

 

So I don't really understand what Glyn meant as I would have expected the things to have sufficient thread spare to do what he intended but as IndyLD says, events guys wouldn't go there from here because we wouldn't be here in the first place.

 

Management takes H&S seriously which theatre management will need to do if the proposed changes to enforcement take place in October.

[indyld]

I'm going a bit OT, I'm sure but it's been bugging me for a while - mainly since I returned to theatre after being away in the event world. When it comes to methods, even the big theatre shows seem to endlessly rely on large numbers of crew to get their stupidly heavy and badly designed lumps of metal into the gig and up. It's like we are still working in the days of running canvas flats, but in reality every single welded awkward behemoth needs 10 people to even get it off the truck, and then a hair raising ride on questionable dollies before finally being hoiked into position using spotlines found lying around in the roof.

 

To return to the question of manual handling vs mechanical means, which is significant in this discussion, when I look through the MAC charts here and remember any recent theatre load out of scale. Pretty much every single part of getting a single piece of stupidly heavy scenery off the truck and onto stage is in the red zone, from posture, positioning, grip on load, predictability and all the rest. This is the "High level of risk - prompt action required" area for manual handling.

 

Having worked plenty in all sides of our business, I can say for certain that the Rock and Roll methods are crawling in forklifts, pallet trucks and handles and wheels on everything, whereas touring theatre shows still fanny about trying slide tons of steel junk on a Paul Matthews truck floor. No one seems to think that it's anything other than "the way things are" despite countless unreported incidents and the fact that everyone's back is knackered. FFS, these touring sets don't seem to even be designed to actually tour half the time, being designed with no gripping points and being unwieldy even with 10 guys around them. Then carrying said lump across a series of box steel hurdles because the show floor hasn't been put down yet.

 

I mention this, not because it will get Glyn's trees out but because the whole conversation indicates the fundamental difference in attitudes between guys like Seano and Kerry, and the equally professional and experienced theatre people like Pete and Hippy. I'm agnostic on the issue of overhauling to be honest, but I believe in questioning attitudes including my own. I'm sure the HSE will continue to question our attitudes too.

[Peter Tovey]

It's interesting that the out and out theatre guys, one of whom I work with personally and respect, see nothing wrong in the practice that has gone on for years and yet the Rock and Roll riggers and safety consultants opt for the mechanical working method. They argue that such practices involve risks that could be avoided.

 

Theatre still has some way to go in understanding risk management in my experience.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say 'see nothing wrong with', more perhaps that it is a risk with which we are familiar and have over decades developed working practises which successfully minimise those risks.

 

Of course the risks could be avoided [insert discussion about reasonably practicable here], but one has to be careful about introducing alternative risks by doing so.

 

Now if only all counterweight installs could be retrofitted with a rated I beam, beam trolley and half tonne chain hoist above the head blocks :)

 

And yes, theatre in general definitely has a way to come (not just theatre mind - have seen scary practises in other arenas as have we all!). I'd certainly like to see touring companies thinking a lot harder about manual handling issues. Heck, never mind breaking sets down small enough to sensibly carry, I'd settle sometimes for small enough to fit in the venue doors without dismantling parts of the building... Looking forward to a couple of shows later this year Rob!?

 

Pete

[indyld]

Looking forward to a couple of shows later this year Rob!?

Not sure looking forward to is how I'd put it, but I'm pretty sure I know which ones you mean. Am sure you also recognise certain recent show builds in the above ravings. Can't hope that the upcoming ones have made a better fist of designing their lumps to do such frivolous things as fitting through the door, surely?

[brainwave-generator]

Now if only all counterweight installs could be retrofitted with a rated I beam, beam trolley and half tonne chain hoist above the head blocks :)

 

Well you sort of can...

 

I am working with a small-medium theatre and we are looking hard (and have been getting quotes) at getting JR Clancy's solutions to modernise the way we do lifting in the theatre.

 

We are looking at a number of Powerassist systems to replace some of the bars which tend to occupy the same 3 or 4 positions - LX, main backdrops, etc. The powerassist (for those who don't know) is an automated counterweight system that uses a winch instead of a hauling line and uses a fixed weight in the cradle and a variable pull on the winch to ensure any load on the bar can be accommodated without changing the weights.

 

We are also looking at a number of Lineshaft Winches which will replace the C/W set entirely. The lineshaft winches sit on top of the grid and feed the lift lines straight onto the battens. The line shafts ensure all lift lines move at the same speed and they're high speed winches ensuring nothing is lost on the speed of C/Ws.

 

We will still keep some counterweights although the conversation has of course taken place with regards to eventual replacement of all manual counterweight sets. Both systems are extremely capable, completely automate-able for artistic possibility improvement, reduce our need to work at height, remove the need for manual handling of weights, etc. Yes it's a shame that the flyman trade will kind of get bitten by technology, but it was always going to happen one day. There will still always be jobs for flymen and riggers, they'll just change the roles a little.

 

 

 

Yes it's off topic but yes I completely agree with everyone that theatre could really do with modernising the way manual handling tasks are carried out. People like Tait Towers have proven there is absolutely no reason why colossal pieces of scenery cannot be built for easy transport, movement and setup. Doing both Roger Waters and Take That tours I was really impressed how Tait managed to get everything into easily-forklift-suitable pallets on sturdy steel chassis' and wheels; IMO set designers across the board should be pushed to do the same. There is no excuse for knackering the cassies backs as an alternative to designing a suitable wheels-and-handles system for set pieces.

[Gareth A]

One reason I loved touring Denmark a few years back - every bar was motorised. Counterweight is becoming non - existent over there. I think I went to 6 venues, and none of them had counterweight in them. All motorised.

 

Was lovely.

[Seano]

Yes, motors will happily control a cradle-heavy set going out, but why add this level of complexity and opportunities for things to go wrong?

My suggestion doesn't seem at all complex to me, maybe that's because that kind of technique is well within my 'comfort zone'.

 

I would take issue with the second part a bit though. There's no way to do this job without some risk of things going wrong - what you propose is no exception. I rather think the use of motors mitigates more risk than it introduces, but that's just my opinion.

 

I think you will find that LOLER does not approve of using humans as counterweight.

LOLER has no opinion on the matter, it doesn't "approve" or "disapprove" of anything not specifically mentioned in the regulations.

You might consider it poor practice, you might be right - but you weaken your argument, not strengthen it, by claiming that LOLER itself somehow expresses an opinion and agrees with you.

[brainwave-generator]

I think you will find that LOLER does not approve of using humans as counterweight.

LOLER has no opinion on the matter, it doesn't "approve" or "disapprove" of anything not specifically mentioned in the regulations.

You might consider it poor practice, you might be right - but you weaken your argument, not strengthen it, by claiming that LOLER itself somehow expresses an opinion and agrees with you.

 

Sorry Seano but without creating a conflict I do genuinely disagree with that sentiment.

 

LOLER demands that lifting equipment be " sufficiently strong, stable and suitable for the proposed use" and " positioned or installed to prevent the risk of injury, eg from the equipment or the load falling or striking people"

If using humans as counterweight by sitting them on the bar, can you genuinely say that you are positioning or installing them to prevent the risk of injury? I don't think you can.

 

Whilst LOLER does not specifically mention the use of humans as counterweight, which I suppose may be what you are pointing at; it does absolutely contain regulations that prevent you doing so.

[Peter Tovey]

Seano,

 

Didn't mean to imply that your suggestion was in itself complex (we theatre types are also pretty comfortable with motors and rigging techniques), more just that it involved a greater number of steps.

 

Of course there is risk in both methods. I know how I would assess both techniques, and very much suspect I'd come out with a different answer to you, but of course all risk assessment is essentially subjective. I'm never a fan of de-rigging set pieces off a bar at height if it can be avoided. Combination of the two techniques would work, but we're up against that 'reasonably practicable' argument again. Which Lofstedt has identified as a problem due to widely varying interpretation.

 

While trying to avoid the fallacious argument that 'everyone does it, so it must be ok', I'm very conscious that in the world of touring theatre, overhauling a 350kg bar (so pulling in just under 200kg) with (say) 2 people in flys and 2 lines on the deck with 3 crew to each is incredibly commonplace and that with appropriate training and working practices can be low risk. This isn't to say that it shouldn't be avoided if possible and that there are often many better ways of doing the job (stack build, powered cradles, motor assists, confiscating all steel stock from the scenery workshop and substituting for timber and canvas). One certainly has to fight the issue that it is SO commonplace that it is easy to become complacent about the risks being controlled in the process. Nobody LIKES it, and hell yes much scenery is being made too heavy and unwieldy now. No good reason why a bar of tree flattage should weigh third of a tonne...

 

Pete

[Seano]

Sorry Seano but without creating a conflict I do genuinely disagree with that sentiment.

No need to apologise, you're entirely welcome to disagree with me as much as you like, genuinely or otherwise.

 

... I don't think ... ... LOLER does not specifically mention ...

Quite so. Hence you're not telling us what the regulations say, you're expressing your own opinion on how they should be interpreted.

 

 

 

I know how I would assess both techniques, and very much suspect I'd come out with a different answer to you

No doubt, risk assessment being a somewhat subjective process as you say - I don't think our answers would be so very different though, even if we didn't agree on whether to prefer method A or method B.

 

While trying to avoid the fallacious argument that 'everyone does it, so it must be ok', I'm very conscious that in the world of touring theatre, overhauling a 350kg bar (so pulling in just under 200kg) with (say) 2 people in flys and 2 lines on the deck with 3 crew to each is incredibly commonplace and that with appropriate training and working practices can be low risk.

Yep, I can definitely go along with that. With reasonably skilled people and good teamwork its quick, simple and efficient.

In this specific case, if the trees were on steel wire drifts and the bar could come straight in without the swapping and loosening of clamps I think I'd be in complete agreement with you.