MPowers
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by MPowers. ". . In addition,Quote Originally Posted by MPowers
"". . . In addition, at a high school, a motorized system allows any student, regardless of physical stature or strength, to run a show and it only takes a single person to run the entire show. . . . But, safety and manpower are the things that will dictate the need or practicality of a motorized system.. . . ""
I find this generalization to be both a dangerous seed to plant and somewhat short-sighted as to the safety procedures required to operate even the most simple of motorized hoists, let alone an automated system.
I respectfully disagree that this is a generalization of any kind. I should have made it more general and said "...at [any stage], a motorized system allows any [stage hand], regardless of physical stature or strength, to run a show and it only takes a single person to run the entire show. . . . But, safety and manpower are the things that will dictate the need or practicality of a motorized system." You also have bundled scenarios that refer to high-schools and colleges and professional stages. All are different and have different needs. What is safe for a professional stage and union hands is not necessarily safe for a college or high school stage. What is safe for a professional road house is not necessarily safe for a high school that does one musical a year.
As to the
Note that the first thing I listed as a deciding factor for choosing or not choosing a motorized system is SAFETY. 'Simple' motorized hoist systems, by design, only allow a single hoist to be operated at a time. In addition, these systems are not intended for use during a production, only during work calls. Thus the operator can easily place them-self in a position to see the entire operation and follow the line of sight rules of operation. The "Simple systems" are by definition, just that, motorized electrics and dead hung and/or counterweight for the remaining line sets.
The operation of any fly system, manual or motorized should be done from an operators perspective that provides a clear line of sight to everything that the moving batten (and it's payload) might come in contact with. If the operator is located downstage, as many of the package hoist control stations are, then the operator may only see the very end of the batten, if any part of it at all. Even if the control station is located on an elevated locking gallery and directly aligned with the batten, scenery and other objects may still interfere with seeing the far end of the batten. In those cases the system must also be equipped with a dead-man's switch (usually on an extension cable so the safety spotter can align themselves with the batten of interest).
For automated systems where multiple line sets can move simultaneously on cue, this becomes a more complex issue and requires even more spotters.
I agree 100% with this in principal. I will point out, however, that in many show situations, manual operators of counterweight systems, whether on an elevated fly rail or a deck level lock rail, cannot see the batten or scenery they are running due to tab curtain masking, stored scenic units, cast entering and exiting, blinding cross side lights, etc. With manual systems, a spotter can only yell stop on the headset, no E-stop button anywhere in the system. This potentially makes a manual system far more dangerous than an automated system. This does not mean I think because it is done now it is all OK, it just means both systems have potential danger points that need to be addressed on a show by show basis.
As to what dictates the needs of practicality of an automated system, there are many other concerns as well:Affordability is a key consideration. When a motorized line set costs 3X to 5X the price of a counterweight set, it may not be affordable or appropriate to install everything as a motorized system.
I would completely agree here. Motorized systems are more expensive and that is more often than not a deciding factor in whether or not to include them in a project. However, Some simple systems can approach manual systems in cost. In addition, some factors that can even out the costs in new construction, are building structure. Any system that can use a "backbone" (Powerlift, Vortek, Prodigy, line shaft, Pilewind, et al) reduces the need for building steel, the ability to support a headblock beam and loading, the need to support a loading rail with 30,000 pounds of brick weight. While these items will not completely offset the differences in system cost, they can be a deciding factor when weighing the cost, safety, longevity equation.
There is also a teaching requirement if it is an educational space. Although motorized systems are cool, wonderful, safer, etc., they do not teach a student how to safely run a counter-weighted line set. Having at least one single-purchase and one double-purchase line set in a system is a valuable teaching tool. How else will the students learn to operate the equipment that they will likely encounter in a huge percentage of the theatres in the world?
Again I fully agree. Having taught at the graduate and undergraduate level for over 17 years, I would concur that any good educational institution should include some motorized and/or computerized linesets and some single and double purchase line sets for the same educational goals. For educational training, I would also include at least one, true rigged, hemp line set. There are still many rigging principles and practices that can be best taught with a one-on-one manual rigging.
I do not agree, though, that this diversity is necessary at the secondary school level unless it is a performing arts school or a school with a high production program. In most middle and high schools, the person responsible for technical training, if such a person exists, is a custodian, voice teacher, English teacher, et al. The result is that having manual rigging of any kind can be a seriously dangerous situation.
Again I agree with the statement, however, when was the last time you saw a "seasoned fly crew" at a high school. or even at many universities? I was trained in a IA hemp house in 1963-65, and and I know full well what an experienced, skilled crew can do. Indeed, there are many things that can be rigged easier in a hemp house than any counterweight system, and difficult to impossible to rig with most parallel batten motorized/computerized systems today. That said, I will point out that the "easier" is only with a skilled, experienced crew. Even the best of graduate student trained and experienced crews cannot manage a full stage triple box set change over to a wing and drop ballet without a LOT of grief and instruction and do it again tasks.
If you limit the condition to a Counterweight house, it evens it out a bit, but not entirely, even seasoned crews can blow it. Counterweight sets are not necessarily safe, even in the hands of an IA crew. I have been called in to investigate (and later repair) three run-a-way line set accidents this past year, two in IA houses. All were due to human error even though the crew was professional, trained and capable. So, by this evidence, a motorized set would have been safer.9+
There is also a maintenance consideration. A snagged loft block is fairly easy to fix at five minutes to curtain, but a snafu'd motor winch is not.
First of all, a snagged loft block is a result of several serious rigging errors and should not ever happen on a professionally installed line set - manual or motorized. A snagged loft block would require:
1.A frayed line, everyday system maintenance should find this.
2. a kink in a line usually caused by a slack loop followed by a shock load
3. misaligned or loose loft block.
All things that will show up long before half hour.
"A snagged loft block is fairly easy to fix at five minutes to curtain..." That by your average high school technician or English teacher or custodian who is at home watching TV? A snafu'd motor is synonymous with a fouled head block, not so easy to fix. A fouled loft block is the same in a Prodigy, Powerlift, Vortek, Pile Wind, Clew Winch or counter weight system. A Loft Block is a Loft Block. Electronic bug???? Well that is something only a motorized system can experience. When Computer controlled light consoles first came out, that was a major concern, "what if the computer crashes???" Now, there are very few light systems still extant without a computer somewhere in the system. Europe has made counterweight systems non compliant, at some point the US will follow.
The annual inspection of a motorized system takes more time and a higher level of expertise to perform than an inspection of a counterweight type system. If a school won't budget for the counterweight system inspection, what make anyone think that the motorized system will be any better take care of?
As inspections are part of my job, I will have to disagree here.
Higher level of expertise, no, just different, but the same level, yes. An inspector specializing in CW systems does not need to understand or know anything electronic. An inspector specializing in motorized systems does not need to know about uplift on locking rails, rope locks, tension blocks, head blocks, guide rails, guide shoes, rope/operating line maintenance/condition ...... not more expertise, just different.
Completely agree.
Relying upon vendors to plan a facility wide capital improvement is a recipe for disaster and in many locals actually illegal due to the conflict of interest.
Relying on, vendors, in general, is a bad idea, although there are some I would trust to give advice on a par with consultants and prefer the customer go to another vendor rather than buy a product that is second rate or more expensive than necessary and I think I can speak for them when I say, none of us would ever compromise safety, real or potential to make a sale. To name a few, Sapsis Rigging, Barny Simon of Joseph C Hansen Company, Inc, and I hope to include myself and the company I work for. I Know there are others.
Last edited: