Stage/Theatre Renovation

[MPowers]

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

"....safety procedures required to operate even the most simple of motorized hoists, let alone an automated system."

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.

There are also useability aspects. A seasoned fly crew can hoist a line set at very high speeds and yet stop on a dime. High-speed motorized sets can do this, too, but are even more expensive due to the complex motor control hardware involved.

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.

Back to the original question posed: Hiring a design team (Architect, Engineers, Theatre Consultant, Acoustician, etc.) is vital to the planning of a renovation.

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.

 

[jglodeklights]

Before I make my comments...a reiteration of my background regarding the subject at hand. I have worked extensively in two hemp houses, two counterweight single/double purchase mix houses and two winch houses. Additionally, I have worked extensively with one high school, and a little bit with another.

Observations:
1. Yes, it is good to train high school students on proper counterweight system operation, as it and dead hung/pipe grids will be what most of them see most often in working in theater (those that choose to go into this career path).

2. Often you can not babysit the high school building, and it is multi purpose for band and community events.

3. Even trained professionals will run a line set by forgetting to unload weight before scenery/lights.

Conclusion: what will work in the building and be most safe?

 

[RickR]

Well said Brad!

I would suggest a list that reads something like:

• Motorized rigging because it's safer for students to use
• New lighting fixtures that will cost less to use
• LED fixtures for ease of color changing and to learn this exciting technology
• Replace all curtains for looks and to update the fire retardant
• New controls on the elevator so it actually goes when needed
• Side lighting positions for new artistic opportunities

This conversation is part of what happens when consultants are involved. Think about what problems you work around constantly and what you would like to do, but can't.

If the budget were truely unlimited, then I would demo the building and start over.

---
RickR

 

[teqniqal]

. . .

2. Often you can not babysit the high school building, and it is multi purpose for band and community events.

. . .

And this is the crux of the problem. Schools / Theatre owners that don't understand that "you can't let inmates run the asylum." This exposes the students (and others) to enormous risks - and those that may enter the facility after them to 'discover' the potential booby-traps they may have left behind. If you can't man the venue with qualified personnel, then the venue shouldn't be used. I know this may sound unreasonable, however, there are many accidents / incidents / injuries that occur every year due to unsupervised (or supervised by unqualified personnel) workers (students, staff, guests, artists).

How to get properly trained staff can be a complex question. It involves the existing staff recognizing the need for more training and seeking it out (both the funding and time to do it); it involves discipline on the part of the staff present to corral and contain the students / crew that are under their watch; and it involves educating the venue management about the real and present dangers of the facility. This can be uncomfortable for some as they may have had a hand in the creation of the hazards present. Recognize the hazards. The hazards are there whether you admit it or not. They can injure and kill people whether you admit it or not. Just like any good 12-step program - you have to admit you have a problem before you can deal with it.

 

[teqniqal]

I'm a little confused here. First you are speaking of safety requirements, which I whole heartedly support. Then you speak of the educational component of having manual linesets which require a higher level of training, with your point of seasoned fly crews. The majority of secondary schools do not have teachers who are qualified riggers or are even well seasoned fly crews, yet you advocate them using a system that arguably takes more skill?

So, while I agree that having a school where the tech staff has the ability to learn counterweight systems is good, there has been more than one thread on these forums talking about the dangers of improper use. Since the type of school in question is probably not a performing arts school that has the highly skilled staff, I would assume that having the safest solution would be ideal.

I can only hope that more school districts will come to see that maintenance on theatrical systems is a life safety requirement and not optional.

They make rope locks with padlock fittings, they make rope locks with out-of-balance lock-outs, they make counterweight arbors that are less prone to dropped weights or forgetting to tighten the weight locks down, so many of the safety issues can be addressed with modern design tools. What I am concerned about is the construction of teaching theatres that don't provide sufficient tools to teach with. Counter-weighted fly systems, like them or not, are a reality that must be addressed. If the students (and staff) are taught how to use them, shown the dangers and hazards they present, they they will be prepared to see the hazard when they encounter it in other venues. I have seen people that were not familiar with counter-weighted fly systems learn enough about them in just a few minutes to potentially prevent innumerable disasters. However, had they received no instruction at all, they may well have gone on to wreck havoc.

Schools do this every day in the chemistry lab, auto shop, welding shop, cooking class, ceramics shop, driving school, and even sports. In the theatre we do this with tool safety, fire safety, ladder safety, PPE, and many other aspects of mounting a production. Show people the right way and the wrong way, and make sure they understand the consequences of doing it wrong (don't use the 'because I said so' excuse - always give them the real reason). Teaching counter-weighted rigging is not difficult, or time consuming. You will spend more time on CPR, fire extinguishers, and electrical safety (hopefully). Take a moment to learn about it and do it correctly.

 

[ruinexplorer]

They make rope locks with padlock fittings, they make rope locks with out-of-balance lock-outs, they make counterweight arbors that are less prone to dropped weights or forgetting to tighten the weight locks down, so many of the safety issues can be addressed with modern design tools. What I am concerned about is the construction of teaching theatres that don't provide sufficient tools to teach with. Counter-weighted fly systems, like them or not, are a reality that must be addressed. If the students (and staff) are taught how to use them, shown the dangers and hazards they present, they they will be prepared to see the hazard when they encounter it in other venues. I have seen people that were not familiar with counter-weighted fly systems learn enough about them in just a few minutes to potentially prevent innumerable disasters. However, had they received no instruction at all, they may well have gone on to wreck havoc.

Schools do this every day in the chemistry lab, auto shop, welding shop, cooking class, ceramics shop, driving school, and even sports. In the theatre we do this with tool safety, fire safety, ladder safety, PPE, and many other aspects of mounting a production. Show people the right way and the wrong way, and make sure they understand the consequences of doing it wrong (don't use the 'because I said so' excuse - always give them the real reason). Teaching counter-weighted rigging is not difficult, or time consuming. You will spend more time on CPR, fire extinguishers, and electrical safety (hopefully). Take a moment to learn about it and do it correctly.

While I do not disagree with all that you are saying, I think that this is the exception in the majority of high schools throughout the nation, and perhaps the world. The reality is, theater is low on the budget list in many school districts. Beyond getting qualified persons to maintain the equipment, they rarely have competent persons to teach. As previously stated, it is common to have a teacher from another field be the person in charge of the theater program. While that person may be able to come up with the artistic vision to put on a production, certain skills cannot just be learned out of a book. They take experience and training. The person who is in charge while the installation occurs may receive the proper training and possibly be able to have some of the students trained at the same time, but what happens in five to ten years? Most likely someone else takes over and again they may be coming out of a different discipline and you are back in the same situation. This is where I think we are comparing apples to oranges, most of the other courses that you speak of have teachers who were trained for that skill or have the needed resources. Definitely what we need is better training. Though having potentially dangerous equipment without that training may not be the answer. I know about all of the locking mechanisms for counterweight systems to prevent unauthorized use along with systems to prevent motorized systems. I have also seen some facilities that will go so far as to have their fly system behind a cage or, as with a double purchase system, literally behind locked doors (separate floor).

So, how do we make sure that schools have staff that is properly trained, so that they can properly train their students?

 

[museav]

While I do not disagree with all that you are saying, I think that this is the exception in the majority of high schools throughout the nation, and perhaps the world. The reality is, theater is low on the budget list in many school districts. Beyond getting qualified persons to maintain the equipment, they rarely have competent persons to teach. As previously stated, it is common to have a teacher from another field be the person in charge of the theater program. While that person may be able to come up with the artistic vision to put on a production, certain skills cannot just be learned out of a book. They take experience and training. The person who is in charge while the installation occurs may receive the proper training and possibly be able to have some of the students trained at the same time, but what happens in five to ten years? Most likely someone else takes over and again they may be coming out of a different discipline and you are back in the same situation. This is where I think we are comparing apples to oranges, most of the other courses that you speak of have teachers who were trained for that skill or have the needed resources. Definitely what we need is better training. Though having potentially dangerous equipment without that training may not be the answer. I know about all of the locking mechanisms for counterweight systems to prevent unauthorized use along with systems to prevent motorized systems. I have also seen some facilities that will go so far as to have their fly system behind a cage or, as with a double purchase system, literally behind locked doors (separate floor).

So, how do we make sure that schools have staff that is properly trained, so that they can properly train their students?

Totally agree on this. Many schools seem to not understand the risks involved in the operation of some theatre tech systems and the importance of proper training and oversight until something goes wrong. And many instructors are asked to take roles related to theatre technology for which they have limited directly relevant training and experience. I routinely encounter schools that are provided physical facilities or systems but not the training or resources to properly utilize and support them. That is why I believe that understanding the users, and in the case of schools the instructors, is a critical component in determining what technologies may be most appropriate. And I have seen not just fly systems, but even AV equipment racks have to be in cages or behind locked doors.

It seems that for some schools the theatre tech instruction is actually handled by the students, being handed down from one 'generation' to the next. Even if that starts with good information and maintains the best intentions, one has to wonder what happens after several iterations of the information being transmitted.

 

[Windrider]

Hey sorry i haven't replied, my school's musical is coming up and I head lighting, so it's been pretty busy around here.. there's been no new developments on the reno except its most likely happening before 2014.. (the year i graduate ) There has been more recognization of our crappy tech lately though which seems promising, for example we rented a couple grand worth of moving lights and speakers... hopefully some of our own equipment soon!