ANSI performer flying standard

[RickR]

I don't see much downside. If a fast talking yahoo want to skip the standard they will do so, whether they know about it or not. If they have actually read the standard, even if they are trying to bypass it, I believe the result will be better than if the standard didn't exist.

Kids still jump off high places without understanding the implications. Engineers still apply the wrong theories to problems and have the dam crack. (Local issue!) Otherwise intelligent adults rig swings on stage. Even some actors rig their own nooses. We must try our best to make the world better, not freeze in place afraid of unexpected results.

 

[BillConnerFASTC]

I don't see much downside. If a fast talking yahoo want to skip the standard they will do so, whether they know about it or not. If they have actually read the standard, even if they are trying to bypass it, I believe the result will be better than if the standard didn't exist.

Kids still jump off high places without understanding the implications. Engineers still apply the wrong theories to problems and have the dam crack. (Local issue!) Otherwise intelligent adults rig swings on stage. Even some actors rig their own nooses. We must try our best to make the world better, not freeze in place afraid of unexpected results.

Not unexpected by me. And why not plan for all parts of the system rather than just a piece?

 

[What Rigger?]

First, I believe some venue contracts do require certified riggers and electricians, so by contract certification is required. Second, my specifications and those of other designers require ETCP certified technicians for some of the work. A certification program is about an individual, so the "might as well throw that out" could be applied to public schools, colleges, and lots of things. Its a product or service and it seems people want it. A great thing about a market economy.

I am not sure but I believe that OSHA does require that the ANSI biner, and not having it is a violation of a federal statutory law.

It seems easy to toss things like ETCP and standards into one bag, but they really need to be considered separately. Certification is a product resulting form market demand, and may provide an economic benefit, a return on investment. A standard like the DMX standard or audio standards for interoperability is also driven by market demand - the manufacturers and users both want it - and again the investment returns an immediate benefit to the user - stuff works and you are not captive to one manufacturer. Safety standards - like the rigging standard and performer flying standard, like building and fire codes - are different in that the benefit is more to society and individuals other than the one paying for it. There doesn't need to be a law passed by a legislature to require DMX or even certification; but building and fire codes do need to be required and enforced as laws, because if its optional, the building next door may burn yours down or may injure you when you enter it. Not quite such dire results if you see a show that doesn't use DMX.

I do find it a missed opportunity that the entertainment safety standards have not been referenced by the building and fire codes so they become law and are required by statute and enforced in every jurisdiction across the country, like the standards for sprinklers, alarms, fire doors, and many others are. It does require the standards to be written as safety standards, not design guides or specifications, and written to be suitable for enforcement.

Solid points all around, Bill. You're one of the "smarter guys than me" that I really appreciate around here.
-Brian

 

[BillConnerFASTC]

Solid points all around, Bill. You're one of the "smarter guys than me" that I really appreciate around here.
-Brian

I'm not smarter, I've just for some reason have invested a lot if time for a long time on codes and standards and have been especially lucky to have had some good teachersvand mentors, the one constant secret of success for any endeavor. But thank you for expressing your flattering view.

 

[Jonathan Deull]

I note that the new standard does not cover aerial dance or acrobatics.

Sorry to jump in late. To clarify, if you read it carefully you will see that the standard applies to all aerial performance, regardless of "style," BUT it does not apply to the final connection between the performer and the system if the connection relies on the strength or skill of the performer (most apparatus other than harnesses). In other words, in your aerialist situation, it applies to the entire system, but not the fabric or trapeze or rope that the performer is holding on to. Everything else about the standard is intended to be applicable.

 

[ack]

Sorry to jump in late. To clarify, if you read it carefully you will see that the standard applies to all aerial performance, regardless of "style," BUT it does not apply to the final connection between the performer and the system if the connection relies on the strength or skill of the performer (most apparatus other than harnesses). In other words, in your aerialist situation, it applies to the entire system, but not the fabric or trapeze or rope that the performer is holding on to. Everything else about the standard is intended to be applicable.

Excellent point! Thank you for that. We have already amended our rental contract to reference the standard as a requirement for any group planning on performer flying.