Another pit cover collapse.

When will directors realize putting 20 teens on a temporary stage jumping at the same time is just a bad idea...

The pit cover should be designed for the same loads as on stage.

Third in 12 months, expect legislative activity since the theatre industry has failed to address this. We have all kinds of rigging safety activity and relatively few incidents - certainly not three in past year resulting in injuries and making national news - and no orchestra pit safety activity for either falls into the pit nor pit filler collapses.
 
When will directors realize putting 20 teens on a temporary stage jumping at the same time is just a bad idea...
Oh, temporary? By what definition? These are in place at most high schools for all but one or two weeks a year. Would an electrical cable in p!ace for that long be temporary? This is people doing things like building a pit filler who are not qualified and school administrators who let it happen.

I wonder how many pit are going to be permanently covered as a result of have pit fillers constructed so heavily that they might as well be permanent.
 
The reason I say its temporary, is in all the pit fillers I've seen that have been installed in high schools they are rated either at or just below what the stage could handle and they were stupid heavy. Anything else is retrofitted by the TD for the space with little thought as to how much weight is actually going to be put on them.
 
Sadly it usually goes to the cheapest bidder to supply something which appears to do the job.

Theatre consultants, stage building experts... they are expensive. Some generic school theatre firm who sell chinese LED pars and IWBs on stud hangers will be able to knock something together out of plywood and 4x2 and for the most part, for many years, it will more than likely be fine. But they do not anticipate the complex loads associated with many people jumping up and down in different timings and how this does not present a simple load of x - kg.

More regulation can be disheartening to schools and amateurs because it makes things more expensive, where they were previously economising responsibly. However, it can only be a good thing if things like pit covers are taken more seriously. I advised a school in the UK who'd not used theirs for several years and had a slowly deteriorating steeldeck-type cover on it, that probably the best option was filling it with concrete. It sort of sucks because it's nice to have that facility there, but not at the expense of the risks it brings, if you're not able to afford a proper purpose built cover, or better still a lift.
 
The reason I say its temporary, is in all the pit fillers I've seen that have been installed in high schools they are rated either at or just below what the stage could handle and they were stupid heavy. Anything else is retrofitted by the TD for the space with little thought as to how much weight is actually going to be put on them.
Its so easy to design to basic stage load rating using relatively light weight platform products from StageRight, Wenger, SECOA, Stageing Concepts, and probably others. Expect more stupid heavy as a result. And expect more permanent as a result.
 
That's all I ever see is stupid heavy solid monstrosities. If more people would talk to staging companies rather than the local carpenter contractor who builds houses...

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
Theatre consultants, stage building experts... they are expensive.
.
I disagree. Many times I have seen my fee easily saved by the expertise and knowledge and experience I bring to the design. First, rather than a sole source design as a result of "free" consulting by a sales rep, just the true and fair competition of a good design probably alone saves our fee. Second, we know ways to not waste money on everything from the construction of catwalks and stage structure to right sizing rooms and eliminating waste space. Third, I'd like to think there is some value to a theatre that just works better, where people can see and hear well, where the faculty and staff time is not wasted shoving boxes around and doing other donkey work, and simply supporting the artists better.

And when the pit filler doesn't collapse and no one ends up crippled for life for falling into the pit, isn't that worth a lot?
 
I disagree. Many times I have seen my fee easily saved by the expertise and knowledge and experience I bring to the design. First, rather than a sole source design as a result of "free" consulting by a sales rep, just the true and fair competition of a good design probably alone saves our fee. Second, we know ways to not waste money on everything from the construction of catwalks and stage structure to right sizing rooms and eliminating waste space. Third, I'd like to think there is some value to a theatre that just works better, where people can see and hear well, where the faculty and staff time is not wasted shoving boxes around and doing other donkey work, and simply supporting the artists better.

And when the pit filler doesn't collapse and no one ends up crippled for life for falling into the pit, isn't that worth a lot?

Sorry you have not really grasped what I am trying to say.

Theatre Consultants ARE expensive in the sense that the number on the bottom of the first form the accountants have to sign is bigger than it would be if the pit cover was designed by a pupil's father who is a domestic carpenter. Or if it were designed by some local race-to-the-bottom sound and light provider. Or any of the other poor examples of theatrical installers who have blighted our theatres over time. There is a difference between expensive and bad value for money. I agree. It does usually work out cheaper by the end of a proper job to have employed a consultant. But accountants don't see the correct choice of materials, they don't see the cost of 18 young adults being mutilated at the bottom of the pit when the cover falls apart. Right now, all they know is that the pit needs some kind of platform on it and seriously we both know that there are bosses out there who would have it made out of tissue paper as long as they had the assurance the imminent disaster wouldn't come back on them.

Possibly one of the biggest challenges theatre consultants face, IME, is convincing clients of their necessity. Lets face it, every disco dave amateur lighting enthusiast running a small hire company is pretty convinced he is an installer as well and would happily take on designing an international opera house given the opportunity. As a result, it can be hard for a school to take on an independent consultant - at an additional rate - when all of the installation contractors quoting for the job, are explaining that they have 25 years experience designing school theatres and there is really no need for the school to be hiring anybody else, when they can include the consultancy in their installation/sales fee.

In the interests of safety, my view is that if authorities want to keep a better control on theatre environments, they should draw up a list of approved theatre consultants - both local and national - and when building any new theatre or undertaking major modifications on another, it should be compulsory to employ one. I am seeing brand new theatres with stupidly dangerous hazards installed from the offset. It is stupid, and it needs to be addressed. If consultants were enforced - and could be called to account for shoddy work - I think an improvement would be seen immediately.
 
I'll post a picture later - already here someplace - but tensioned wire grid about 7" below stage, filler sits on top, no fall hazard even for those installing or removing filler. Much better than nets that don't really protect the musicians in the pit.

And that makes complete sense now you have explained it.

A theatre which I designed a pit cover, I did not consider that and perhaps I should have. Instead I used 3m x 1m fabricated decks which sat in the pit gap on concrete ledges, with screw in eyebolts into the centre of each deck piece. This allows the crew to stand on the deck whilst they attach a slack chain, lift the piece with a motor in the roof on a purpose-installed unibeam track, whilst controlling it's direction from the stage edge and front row, rotate it through 90 degrees, and lower it down the pit, where it can then be rotated back to the correct direction, and becomes the floor of the pit in it's 'low' position. Does that make sense?

If you're wondering how you do the first few pieces when there is not a 3m wide gap in the cover... you start in the middle, and use the rolling track to stack the first 4 pieces on decks to the side of it, to create a gap big enough to start filling the pit. And yes, when the floor is in it's up position, there is a drop down from the pit doors to the concrete floor of the pit. This is solved by simple rostra steps.

It might sound complicated but we spent a full day practicing it and it's pretty swift.
 
Wow I just heard this story on the Seattle News Radio, top of the hour national news update from CBS radio.
 
These accidents are beginning to happen like clockwork. Worst part of my morning was finding that we have multiple threads here at CB now titled "Another Pit Cover..."
 
proxy.php

looks to me like the lid was part of the original stage design, not somthing that was added later.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back