Ringling Bros. Accident

The videos make it look like it's really dark down there, but I suspect it was adequately bright for the people who went running in to help. Not long after that, I'll bet somebody brought up the room lights, however those would likely be of the variety that take a couple minutes before they reach full intensity.

In the photos of the aftermath, I was impressed to see that they lowered some of their video surfaces to ground-level to obscure at least some audience members' views of the incident, giving more privacy to the victims as they were triaged by first responders.
 
Slightly changing the subject, and maybe this has been discussed in another thread, but what is yalls take on how it was handled in the immediate aftermath? Lights stayed low, music kept playing while crew/performers aided the victims. I've never been in this position but I feel like the lights should be brought up...

I can give a really good answer for this!

A little context. In my previous life, I worked for Ringling Brothers on the electrics crew on this unit. During the run of the show, I was the LD for the house followspot operators. There is too much that happens in this show for there to be one LD front of house, so two people do it. Once person runs the console, and the other directs the local followspot operators.

Also, before I continue, I want to emphasize that I am no longer employed by the circus. That being the case, things may be different from what the procedure was when I was employed by them.

During the run of the show, there are a number of crew people who run around with radios. These people include but don't limit to all technicians (electrics, audio, and video crew), stage manager, production manager, floor boss, assistant stage manager, and others. Also, there are crew members that are on a Clear Com system, and that is a more exclusive list of people that are included on that. During the run of the show, the production manager acts as the director for the show on the road. In the line of communication during the show, the production manager is responsible for making any major decisions that directly affect the overall look of the show. In the event of anything happening that deviates from the show before the show starts, such as an extended act or acts being cut from the show, that is reported by the production manager during show notes approximately 8 minutes before the show starts. The production manager may also change something as the show goes on, and reports that over radio. The flow of communication, generally speaking, is done very well during the show.

If there is an accident or a catastrophe that occurs during the run of the show, it is most desired to try to continue the show as normal. I have been involved in a handful of minor incidents during the run of the show where someone was whisked away offstage in the middle of the act and continued the show without interruption. At that point, that person is assessed backstage by the production manager or stage manager to see if they need any medical attention beyond first aid or anything like that. The show must go on if at all possible.

As far as this accident is concerned, I think I have a good idea as to how it may of played out in the immediate aftermath. This is only my opinion, and may not reflect what actually happened.

  1. 911 was immediately called right after this happened
  2. The production manager had audio cut the ringmaster's mic, had the light console operator keep only essential lighting show lighting up, had video fly in the video screens to floor level, and had the followspots dowsed.
  3. The production manager assess what to do next. My best guess is that they told the ringmaster (via in-ear headset) to make the announcement for an intermission, and had the house lights be brought up.
  4. Intermission. Further assessments are made. Communication is maintained by radio contact and Clear Com to other personnel.
  5. The decision was made to end the show, and sent out the clowns and the ringmaster to say goodbye to the public.

This was an absolutely catastrophic event. It happened right at the center of the arena and was the focal point of the show at that time. In my opinion, I think that they handled this aftermath very well. There was no way that they could of kept going with the show, as much as I'm sure that they would of liked to.
 
A post on the Stagecraft and Entertainment Rigging Forum Facebook group:
Paul Weir said:
I wanted to address the recent Barnum Rigging accident...

I can say a few things..

1. They were mimicking something that we do.--basically a mobile with bodies--some of what you have seen at all souls has had as many as 20 individuals hanging.

2. This is known as "single point loading"

3. The gear being used to hang that armature and the bodies was far underrated..and at a single point should have had a 20,000lb. shackle--not a single 45KN rated caribiner--which is what failed. Basically hanging an elephant with a paperclip.

4. Our single point systems are designed at 10 to 1 or greater. and as redundant as possible. coming into a swivel is always a crux--because it can't be backed up effectively..but it can be--as we do--be top rated gear that is engineered for 10 to 20 x times the "working load limit" it comes down to paying top dollar for the next level of gear which will ensure success---ie. outside of an earthquake or a catastrophic force taking something infrastructure down.

5. There are basically 2 type of riggers in the industry--those that rock climb---and those that do not..
The later (unless they are known to be safe and have been known to "Rig Big" [ex. Bill Sapis, Simon Franklyn etc.] and know the mostly simple math behind designing points)
is to be watched very carefully as they do not have real world experience loading systems that are duty enough to absorb shock loading and other kinetic forces that seems small to our eye--but in the case of that rig--all it took was for all the performers to use their core muscles and raise their legs up--and that extra 400-600 lbs of kinetic forces gave that single steel caribiner it's last ride..

6. several things to consider when rigging bodies:
a. rating on climbing pieces is maximum load for "1" fall
b. working load is not calculated on climbing gear..but you can count on 1/3 the rating usually-when in doubt--back it up-redundancy is your best friend
c. designing the rig from the start using sound math and extra care to ensure you are creating the gear package components properly--a chain is as strong as its weakest link. Gear failure IS NOT AN OPTION and it shouldn't be when you have performers risking life and limb on hand and core strength alone-(as many apparatus cannot have safety gear ie. silks, corde lisse--things that spin basically)
d. The circus world in particular--the single point is everywhere due to the use of swivels. Basic Petzl and other branded climbing/arborist swivels are incredible pieces--for one or 2 people at most with moderate to no shocking loading. They need to be be kept clean, inspected and retired if any stick or any play has occurred or the ears of them are too knurled from use. The next level of swivel starts at $400 and goes up and up. My big rig swivels are $1200 and live in a padded case.
e. Steel is Real--use it where ever you can--(the piece that broke in the Barnum Accident was steel-although it was outclassed by the weight to load ratio)
f. Material usage and wear are a science..steel breaks down aluminum-rope cuts everything-as well as itself-gear has a life for use with bodies and then it goes to the guy wire pile for the merchandise tents. Retire human rigging gear frequently and often-we all love the feel of fresh pieces
g. team work and another trusted and respected eyeballs on the systems each night of a show
 
Interesting write-up. Though I do take issue with the "Basically hanging an elephant with a paperclip" analogy.
 
Interesting write-up. Though I do take issue with the "Basically hanging an elephant with a paperclip" analogy.

Unless we learn that there was a manufacturing defect, that analogy you don't like may very well end up being the cause of 9 people going to the hospital. Granted, it's a very robust paperclip in this case, but I'll bet the manufacturer never intended someone would hang a 350lbs apparatus and several acrobats from a single one of their carabiners.
 
Still creeps me out to not see a shackle being used. I know, in that industry ropes and carabiners are common. The thought of using one on metal equipment just makes the hair on my back stand. Especially to hold 8 people and a 300+lb frame. Metal equipment just has more of a point-contact stress focus. This may not be a factor in this failure if the break points are not at the point of contact. I would be uncomfortable using it. Maybe it's just me.

No rebuttal or justification, but it seems that the carabiner is tested and designed for being banged around against rocks and such, and not sure a shackle is tested for such repeated impacts. Not loads, at least so much, as dropping, like on rocks when climbing or on the ground when loading in and out. While without all of the facts the selection of a 45kN seems undersized, not sure a carabiner isn't the correct piece. I did find at least one with a 72kN rating - which seems closer to what would normally make sense - around 16,000 pounds for a reported 1500 pound load.

I'm guessing the legal system just about assures we'll never know the facts of this case.
 
No rebuttal or justification, but it seems that the carabiner is tested and designed for being banged around against rocks and such, and not sure a shackle is tested for such repeated impacts. ...
When I took the Jay Glerum/Harry Donovan rigging seminar some years back, Jay related asking one of the manufacturers of forged shackles about dropping them on concrete from waist high - the response was that they got dropped further than that onto equally hard surfaces during manufacture. ...
 
Doesn't CB have somebody in that jurisdiction who can be detailed to attend the trial once it happens? Hell if I could afford the flight I'd go do it.

Sent from my SPH-L720
 
Generally speaking, the OSHA investigations are not public. When the company has the chance to challenge any of the fines, I believe the employees of said company are allowed to attend. Otherwise, we only get the publicly released report. Obviously, there is a possibility of a civil trial, but that may happen in a different city. I doubt there will be a criminal trial.
 
Doesn't CB have somebody in that jurisdiction who can be detailed to attend the trial once it happens? Hell if I could afford the flight I'd go do it.

Sent from my SPH-L720

Feld is based in Palmetto, FL... so trial (if there is one) could happen there.
 
While without all of the facts the selection of a 45kN seems undersized, not sure a carabiner isn't the correct piece. I did find at least one with a 72kN rating - which seems closer to what would normally make sense - around 16,000 pounds for a reported 1500 pound load.

72Kn :shock: were did you find that, the highest i have seen is omega pacific and 50 Kn not that i personally need that strong a biner but still...
 
This looks like the one time a "safety" cable could have actually made things worse. These girls were hanging by their hair, and therefore supported by their necks. It the frame had done a free-fall and then was halted suddenly at a lower elevation, the trauma to the spine and neck may have been fatal.

I disagree with the earlier post that there is no point in watching the video. I am a firm believer in history and learning our mistakes in hopes that they can be avoided in the future. Unfortunately, in almost every endeavor there are critical parts who's failure will cause tragedy. This may have been one of these cases. Still, as with the space shuttle, you want to learn why that part failed in hopes of changing the design and avoiding history repeating itself.

Hey JD, you make a valid point in the value of video in analysis. I was rather unclear in my statement. My feeling was that usually when this sort of thing happens, lots of people (general public, news agencies, etc...) go running for the video because of the inherent sensationalism of watching people get (bleeped) up. Information is always of value, no matter where it may come from, in a situation like this so that it may hopefully not happen again. Am I making more sense now?
 
So it looks like Fusion made the carabiner that broke. and i have been seeing some testing on them that they are breaking below their rated capacity. I might have all mine tested and would recommend it to anyone else who has their biners in any critical components.
 
So it looks like Fusion made the carabiner that broke. and i have been seeing some testing on them that they are breaking below their rated capacity. I might have all mine tested and would recommend it to anyone else who has their biners in any critical components.

Thats concerning. I use quite a few of their carabiners. None of mine are 45kN and none that I'm seeing on the current price list are 45kN, so not sure what model that could be. I will be requesting copies of their test data (they've offered it before, but I've never really worried about it).
 
Their rated *breaking strength*, which should be substantially higher than their "rated capacity", right?

****Carabiners are rated by breaking strength NOT WLL/rated capacity****

I feel like this needs to be in bold at the top of every rigging page. A typical climbing carabiner has a rating of 25kN which is about 5000lbs (it's actually slightly more). The WLL/rated capacity of it would be the 5000lbs divided by the appropriate safety factor of the application. So if using it for rigging that you want a 10:1 safety factor for, that carabiner has a 500lb working load.

We know that the carabiner failed below its rated 10,000lbs. However what we DO NOT know, and won't until lab testing results are available, is whether it failed due to a manufacturing defect, abuse, ect. If that carabiner had been dropped from the high steel 10 times, then broke at 3000lbs, thats a whole different story than if it had been treated appropriately and failed substantially below it's rated breaking strength. Also, I believe carabiners are rated by mean breaking strength, not minimum breaking strength. Obviously since they are intended for life safety, they *ALL* need to be pretty close to rated breaking strength. I would say if correctly treated carabiners are breaking more than 5-10% below the MBS, theres a problem.
 
I thought I read that the ANSI standard was to indicate minimum breaking strength, but check. Were using it in a rigging install, I'd use a design factor of 8:1 at least. I did read that in some testing that dropping them even from high up did not seem to affect their strength, which makes sense since they seem to regularily get smashed into rocks for climbing.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back