Working at Heights Practices

If you are talking a scissor lift or an AWP then you don't need a belt, but if you had recieved training on it you would know that. Walking a ladder is just a matter of time, you can do it a thousand times before disaster occurs.


Me and several other technicians I have worked with and professors from many different schools believe a harness is going to harm you in the long run if a tip occurs. I feel much more comfortable standing in the basket (not on the rails) and if a tip occurs having the ability to jump and roll out of the basket. With a harness I feel your more likely to get caught under the basket or trapped in the basket causing more harm.
 
JereNet, I pray that your luck holds out. The safety practices, unfortunately do not come from speculation about what could happen, but the direct result of accidents and determining how to prevent them in the future.

Put it this way, you live in the Midwest, do you know what to do in the instance of a tornado? It is the training that people get because it is known that tornados are a fact of life living in that region. However, even though there are faults, you probably don't prepare for earthquakes the same way residents of the Pacific coast do. The problem is that complacancy brings about carelessness as in your example of walking a ladder at height. Just because you haven't had anything happen to you doesn't preclude the chance of accident. In fact, the more you walk the ladder, the greater the risk of you having an accident from the simple fatigue of the materials.

Those of us who give advice on safety practices have lived to give the advice. I hope that you will take the time to learn to do things in a safe manner.
I am from the old school of construction and theatre, safety wasn't something we gave a lot of thought. As I have been in it longer plus received more training, I am much more safety concious. I would say 95 to 97% of the falls and work platform accidents are people doing things they were trained not to do or never had the training to begin with. People just flat fall sometimes but most of it they are doing stupid things that they should know better than to do.
 
Me and several other technicians I have worked with and professors from many different schools believe a harness is going to harm you in the long run if a tip occurs. ...
Do you feel the same way about wearing a harness in an articulating boom lift? How about a seatbelt in a car? As Judge Judy says, "I don't care what you believe. The law is the law."
 
Me and several other technicians I have worked with and professors from many different schools believe a harness is going to harm you in the long run if a tip occurs. I feel much more comfortable standing in the basket (not on the rails) and if a tip occurs having the ability to jump and roll out of the basket. With a harness I feel your more likely to get caught under the basket or trapped in the basket causing more harm.

A proper fall protection system in a lift utilizes a shock-absorbing lanyard. This largely reduces the risk of a tip-over in the event some falls -- even dives from the basket of a vertical-mast(w/ outriggers), scissor, or boom lift.

Short of driving a lift off of the edge of the stage, the odds of a scissor tip-over otherwise are almost zero in a theater.

Even in a single-man, to be ejected from the basket in a way that you could be crushed by a lift during a tip-over, you would have to be standing on the railings or something similarly very dangerous to prompt the accident in the first place.

As for being in more danger by being in the basket when it crashes into the floor -- I am able to imagine only one exotic scenario where anyone is safer jumping from the lift than if they were to remain in the basket; a work crew was using an articulating boom lift near a lake, and the crew was required to wear both life preservers and fall-protection. Fall-protection if the lift falls over, and life-preservers if a worker falls into the water. However, wearing both of those makes it incredibly difficult to move around -- it's impractical. When OSHA was called to give their input because the regulations seemed absurd for this particular case, the final conclusion was that the greatest risk was of the lift crashing into the lake, and should that happen, fall-protection would serve the purpose of mafia blocks, anchoring them to the lake floor and drowning them.

The OSHA inspector reasoned that this was a unique case where two regulations collided and were counter-productive to the safety of the workers; he only required that the workers wear life-preservers and that fall-protection could be waived in this case.

Unless you're focusing lights over a large body of water or next to a cliff, you'll not be in a position where you are in greater harm in the basket than if you jump from the lift as it tips over.

That said -- it is not mandated by OSHA that a scissor or vertical-mast lift operator wear a harness, but it will not put you in the way of harm should you choose to wear one. If you come into harm's way during a tip-over, it's because you were misusing your lift in the first place.

Your insurance provider or employer may have stricter policies though. I know of film studios where even just getting into a lift to drive it from one side of the room to another at ground-level without fall-protection, a hard-hat, AND steel-toe boots will result in a suspension.

To elaborate on Derek's comment, the great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not. Like a mother telling her 7-year old not to play in the street -- whether the child understands why they shouldn't play in the street or not does not change the fact that if that child does play in the street, there's a pretty good chance they'll get hit by a car.
 
Last edited:
a work crew was using an articulating boom lift near a lake, and the crew was required to wear both life preservers and fall-protection. Fall-protection if the lift falls over, and life-preservers if a worker falls into the water. However, wearing both of those makes it incredibly difficult to move around -- it's impractical. When OSHA was called to give their input because the regulations seemed absurd for this particular case, the final conclusion was that the greatest risk was of the lift crashing into the lake, and should that happen, fall-protection would serve the purpose of mafia blocks, anchoring them to the lake floor and drowning them.
I was in a similar situation and I convinced OSHA that the fall protection was more important than life vests. The water was only four or five feet deep and if I was fully extended to 88ft I would over shoot the water. I would have to be below twenty ft in an 88 ft lift to actually hit the water.
 
Do you feel the same way about wearing a harness in an articulating boom lift? How about a seatbelt in a car? As Judge Judy says, "I don't care what you believe. The law is the law."

Having never been in an articulating boom lift i can't say, as far as a seat belt goes i wear one every time. The car is designed when impacted to absorb impact while still being rigid in the core to save from collapse upon the people inside. A lift on the other hand doesn't have that ability. A harness is to me still a bad decision.

In a single man as well as our multiple we generally are 20 foot in the air. There is enough sway to easily get me edgy about a possible tip. This is on a flat surface with outriggers down. There is always enough give in the metal pole to sway. I feel much more comfortable without a harness than i do with one. And when it comes down to it that will save me more often than not. Being uncomfortable with anything as far as safety almost always ends badly.

And personally Judge Judy is just an old codger who hasn't had enough contact with her kids so she takes it out on everyone else. Also laws are not strict devices that if certain conditions are made it happens its all upon the review of the courts to decide if what is illegal is.

With that... Follow your local laws and jurisdictions. I work in an environment that allows me to choose whether a harness is used or not. Most places it doesn't work like that. And I will always say safety first. I just turned down loading weight 40' in the air because the arbor had to be below the loading rail and no way to clip into a fall arrest system. Did i get booted out? No, i came down and someone who was willing went up.
 
Me and several other technicians I have worked with and professors from many different schools believe a harness is going to harm you in the long run if a tip occurs. I feel much more comfortable standing in the basket (not on the rails) and if a tip occurs having the ability to jump and roll out of the basket. With a harness I feel your more likely to get caught under the basket or trapped in the basket causing more harm.


This may or may not be the best option for you. Many people feel the same way when in a forklift, but the requirement to wear the seatbelt is to prevent people from trying to exit in case of a tip over. In that instance, you are more likely to be killed if you exit the vehicle than if you stay inside.

However, since OSHA classifies scissor lifts as mobile scaffolds and not aerial platforms (see 02/23/2000 - Fall protection, training, inspection and design requirements of aerial lifts and scissor lifts/scaffolds. being an updated interpretation of 9. Additional Requirements for Specific Types of Scaffolds -- 1926.452 b. Scissors lifts are addressed by 1926.453 - Aerial Lifts, not by 1926.452(w), mobile scaffolds.), the mandated protections include
3. Fall Protection Requirements. Fall protection is required for employees when working 10' or more above the next lower level.
a. The employer has the option, in many instances, of providing a guardrail system or of having each employee use a personal fall arrest system. Exceptions are provided in 1926.451(g)(1)(i) through (vi), and are discussed below.
f. The fall protection to be provided for employees working on aerial lifts will vary according to the type of aerial lift involved.
(1) Some lifts are intended to be used with guardrails, while others are designed to be used by employees protected by personal fall arrest systems.
(2) The consensus standards listed in Non-mandatory Appendix C indicate what fall protection would be appropriate for particular types of aerial lifts.
CPL 02-01-023 - CPL 2-1.23 - Inspection Procedures for Enforcing Subpart L, Scaffolds Used in Construction - 29 CFR 1926.450-454

Of course, I have not been designated a "qualified/competent person" for any of your employers and as such cannot be able to tell you how to operate in your venue. That will be up to your employer to provide such a competent person to determine the risks at your venue and designate the proper safety measures.
 
Of course, I have not been designated a "qualified/competent person" for any of your employers and as such cannot be able to tell you how to operate in your venue. That will be up to your employer to provide such a competent person to determine the risks at your venue and designate the proper safety measures.



One point I found interesting during my boom lift training was that apparently, a "competent person" in a legal sense is simply a person who takes the liability... So according to that theory, anyone who will sign on the dotted line saying that [xxx activity is safe] is now a "Competent Person"...
 
One point I found interesting during my boom lift training was that apparently, a "competent person" in a legal sense is simply a person who takes the liability... So according to that theory, anyone who will sign on the dotted line saying that [xxx activity is safe] is now a "Competent Person"...

Something like that, but I bet I can direct an 18-year-old student employee to hop into a scissor lift who has never been trained except for a brief "and this drives it forward...", and if they get hurt, a court of law will beg to differ that they were ever a "Competent Person" and then the employer likely becomes liable for allowing that person into the lift in the first place.

Even if a student employee signed the dotted line on a liability waiver, I'd venture a guess that no court of law would recognize it if the employer was not able to provide proof of adequate training.

A "Competent Person" working independently or having falsely claimed competency to their employer is likely ultimately liable in the event of an accident. An employee who admits to having no prior training and subsequently causes an accident likely puts more of the fault on the employer than the employee.

It's both the employee's responsibility to safely work within their expertise and the employer's responsibility to enforce workplace safety.
 
I just completed a day of EWP training at our local college. Turns out that in australia, you can go up to 11m (36') with only the one day course, and a certificate of competency is issued at the end of that. to go Higher, you can do the Govornment accredited licence, which allows you to go up to 35m (100'). In most cases, the certificate is more than enough.

Also, interesingly, in a Boom Lift, you are legally required to wear a fall arrest harness, while in a scissor lift, you are not.
 
Something like that, but I bet I can direct an 18-year-old student employee to hop into a scissor lift who has never been trained except for a brief "and this drives it forward...", and if they get hurt, a court of law will beg to differ that they were ever a "Competent Person" and then the employer likely becomes liable for allowing that person into the lift in the first place. ...
See http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/news/22087-college-student-dies-scissor-lift-accident.html . I believe the latest development is that Notre Dame is appealing the IOSHA fine, which is common (standard?) procedure.
 
In Washington, I'm not "technically" allowed to go above 10'. Volunteer or paid.
 
In Washington, I'm not "technically" allowed to go above 10'. Volunteer or paid.

Man, how do you live? Although maybe it's a middle school thing. Regardless, I sense you've had your fair share of "sixty feet in the air upside-down in the dark" moments.
 
Man, how do you live? Although maybe it's a middle school thing. Regardless, I sense you've had your fair share of "sixty feet in the air upside-down in the dark" moments.

I just pretend I hadn't read that and get on with what I'm doing. Though not particularly high (the space isn't that large), the scariest was the 75+ year old 15' wooden ladder. Trying desperately to focus some leaf gobos.

From Washington State Department of Labor and Industries:
Work activities teens are prohibited from doing in non-agricultural jobs
• Working at heights greater than 10 feet off the ground or floor level.
(and less having to do with heights but...
• Any power-driven machinery
• Construction
• Loading or unloading trucks
• Ladders and scaffolds

I think I've broken almost all of those... :oops:
 
..... of course, we're in the Midwest. I'll go up in a lift 25+ feet without even thinking.....
Well You got that last part right, but being from the Midwest has nothing to do with it. I also am from the Midwest and I guarantee, it does not make one braver or more foolhardy, smarter or more bullet proof. I don't have a problem with heights (except at my age I get out of breath climbing up to them) As a teenager I worked at a lumber camp as a topper. Trust me walking a 15' ladder has nothing on a 60' pine when the top goes and you're there with a 48" bar running chain saw. What did I learn? I learned that was a foolish risk and stopped doing it. FWIW, They don't allow toppers any more in American lumber camps, or teenagers at heights, or with construction tools, etc.

.....Of course, I've been doing that kind of stuff my whole life.....
And an incredibly short life it has been so far, I have paint brushes older than you. And, if you continue to treat safety the way you do, it is highly likely to stay very short. The problem with that kind of reasoning is that one never knows just what their limit is.....until they exceed it. Then it is too late. I've been rigging for a couple of "weeks" now. Definitely longer than you've been alive and probably longer than your parents have been living. My first professional rigging job was in 1963. One thing I have learned is the adage is not just an old hackneyed saying, it is all too true. There are foolish riggers and there are old riggers.....There are no old, foolish riggers. Look at the Stage hand who died at the concert in Florida 2 years ago. High rigger for 30 years, knew his stuff, had his harness on, didn't clip in on his climb up, slipped that one time....fell to his death.

You sound like an intelligent person who has had relatively little real training in safety and good work practices. Use that intelligence and learn from the people around you in the business. If you want to walk ladders, go join Cirque. If you want to work in Theatre as a lighting, sound or rigging person, play it safe, learn the rules, follow them and teach others to do the same. Maybe 48 years from now you'll still be in the biz, doing what you love and loving what you're doing!
 
Last edited:
When someone decides to take a risk, that person decides to not only risk their lives but to also put the livelihood of others on the line. Insurance companies don't succeed by making payments. So, when there's an accident, they will do their absolute best to push the liability on to someone else. That somebody will be the employer or supervisor. So, when you knowingly break the established procedures, you could potentially be sending someone to the poorhouse, or jail (if there have been OSHA violations of the same nature before, then, depending on severity, jail time is a possibility). Maybe you hate your boss and hope that if you get injured that he will have to pay, but don't count on that.

chausman, you post the law for state labor law. You will likely find (as with the US Dept. of Labor), that in an educational setting with proper instruction that you may be able to undertake some of those activities legally. However, once you start earning a wage, then the labor laws go into effect and you put your employer at risk of some pretty heavy fines and you will likely be terminated for knowingly failing to abide by the law. So, it is in your best interest to learn the limitations placed on you due to your age and work within those limits.
 
chausman, you post the law for state labor law. You will likely find (as with the US Dept. of Labor), that in an educational setting with proper instruction that you may be able to undertake some of those activities legally. However, once you start earning a wage, then the labor laws go into effect and you put your employer at risk of some pretty heavy fines and you will likely be terminated for knowingly failing to abide by the law. So, it is in your best interest to learn the limitations placed on you due to your age and work within those limits.

I know that that doesn't apply to high school or anything like that. Now where does CYT fall in to that though...
 
From Washington State Department of Labor and Industries:


I think I've broken almost all of those... :oops:

Guess I have too and I'm in Washington...
Doesn't present any issue in school (hey, they offer classes involving power machinery) but the intresting place is when I receive stipend pay with a non-profit theater in a city venue.

gafftaper, being in Washington and working in an educational setting, perharps you could help explain why is/isn't legal for chausmen and I as students to do tasked that are banned by the state OSHA.
 
Last edited:
I do arena rigging so it is different than working in a theatre. I have done that also but not as a rigger, i did lighting and set construction. The rigger that did a lot of my initial training was an old steel worker and he did a lot of less than spiffy things, but what he always told me was you only get one mistake.
 
...but what he always told me was you only get one mistake.
How does the T-shirt slogan go?
If at first you don't succeed, rigging is not for you.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back