# ANSI performer flying standard



## What Rigger? (Feb 18, 2016)

Well, I seriously am excited to read this. A welcome addition to my world, for sure. ANSI E143-2016. 
http://tsp.esta.org/tsp/documents/published_docs.php


----------



## Lextech (Feb 19, 2016)

Thanks for the heads up, had not seen that this was at this stage.


----------



## What Rigger? (Feb 20, 2016)

I've only been waiting on this since around 2002 when I first got wind that the process was about to start.


----------



## RickR (Feb 21, 2016)

I am so glad that this issue has been addressed. 

I can hear the conversation now: "So you want to fly someone? Here is an industry standard on methods to help you understand what's needed. Yes it is very complex. If you don't think you're up for it then hire someone or drop the effect. If you don't follow the standard you could be liable for all injuries."


----------



## ack (Mar 2, 2016)

Very glad to have this and a large thank you to everyone that worked so long and hard on it. I run mid sized PAC and since we opened 5 years ago it has been our policy that anyone using the facility wanting to do performer flying needed to engage a qualified, certified rigger or company experienced in performer flying to design, install and supervise the operation of the flying effect. Up to this point we have not had anyone wanting to do aerial dance or acrobatics.

I note that the new standard does not cover aerial dance or acrobatics. I assume this is because the final connection from the performer to the rigging system is the performer's own grip. My question to those of you with experience in operating a facility is where to draw the line with outside groups coming into your facility and wishing to do this type of activity. When we present or produce a show we have control over the situation; we can influence the artistic direction of the production and how the bit is integrated, we can cast the performer and be assured of their training and experience. We can control the amount rehearsal and other performance elements that could impact the safety of the bit. In short, we can do the dangerous stuff because we can assess the risk and minimize it through planning, training and professional execution.

However, when we go into a rental situation we lose most of that control. Inevitably information on the technical details is incomplete in some fashion or other. The amount of time and money spent on the effect is out of our control. Changes are often not communicated in a timely manner. Vetting the degree of training and experience is difficult. I am talking about situations where the degree of professionalism is difficult to assess. This is not Cirque or the Peking Acrobats. 

For me, at the end of the day I am not sure it is worth the risk to allow activity that cannot be properly assessed. We don't allow pyrotechnics with out proper, definable licences, safeguards and procedures. We don't allow scenery that is not flameproofed or high platforms without railings or flown pieces that do not have proper hardware and connections. So how do I assure my superiors that a situation where performers are 15-20' in the air hanging onto a strap or silk or a bar are fine when there are no standards for evaluating that decision? I am interested if folks who are on the facility side could share their experience. Do you allow it? Do you evaluate on a case by case basis? Or do you outright not allow it?


----------



## RonHebbard (Mar 2, 2016)

If the aerial performers bring in their own, totally ground supported, rig I feel much better about it. I played ME on a fringe festival venue where the officious young (know it all) TD didn't even know some of the questions to be asked and answered. With four aerialists and only three points you had to know there were going to be more than one artist per point at some points (Inadvertent point pun unintended.) Dig into the math and do some calculations. Yeah, I understand that individually "they don't weigh much soaking wet" but when you get two on a point, they slide down rapidly and decelerate very quickly they can generate quite amazing loads on your gymnasium's roof trusses that were designed to handle a typical snow load at best. (Then do this during the winter months when there's already a substantial snow and ice load in place.)

With apologies for my edit to correct somehow accidentally hitting post in the midst of typing.
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 3, 2016)

The inevitable consequence is more performer flying and therefore more injuries and fatalities. It's just math.


----------



## ack (Mar 3, 2016)

Bill, I am going to put you down as a "no".  

Ron, thanks for your comment. For me, I am not sure how their ground rig changes the situation enough. They could say, to take a different example, it is our scenery - regardless of how rickety and poorly built. I would still feel a responsibility not to let it on our stage if it is not built to accepted standards. I know I am not qualified to assess ground supported aerial rigs and I definitely do not want to be put in the position of doing the rigging math for them.

I wonder if there is an argument for allowing it. Lord knows there are plenty of Aerial Acrobatic schools and flying studios around the country now. There are easily half a dozen in the Denver Metro area, but their studio is not my stage and there are just too many variables at play for me to feel comfortable without some measurable standard that can be applied.


----------



## RonHebbard (Mar 3, 2016)

ack said:


> Bill, I am going to put you down as a "no".
> 
> Ron, thanks for your comment. For me, I am not sure how their ground rig changes the situation enough. They could say, to take a different example, it is our scenery - regardless of how rickety and poorly built. I would still feel a responsibility not to let it on our stage if it is not built to accepted standards. I know I am not qualified to assess ground supported aerial rigs and I definitely do not want to be put in the position of doing the rigging math for them.
> 
> I wonder if there is an argument for allowing it. Lord knows there are plenty of Aerial Acrobatic schools and flying studios around the country now. There are easily half a dozen in the Denver Metro area, but their studio is not my stage and there are just too many variables at play for me to feel comfortable without some measurable standard that can be applied.



I really dislike seeing aerial performers rigged from the lower horizontal members of an open, welded, truss. If they'd at least pass a rated Span-set over the top of a roof support beam I'd feel a little better about seeing their loads more properly applied to the beam but to see loads attempting to rip welds apart REALLY bothers me. In my area I more often see them working from ground supported rigs outdoors in parking lots where primarily the police and parking authorities keep an eye on them.
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard


----------



## What Rigger? (Mar 8, 2016)

Legit points about the aerialst type stuff. But that's the thing I like about the ANSI document, is that it says it's not for that sort of thing (i.e. where the performers grip or wrap is the attachment point). In other words, when I'm doing rope slides on hemp rope with stunt performers, I don't have to adhere to this document. When I do a production of Peter Pan, I do. 
I'm waiting to get a little face time with people smarter than me (who also helped author the standard) to address questions I have, and various "what if's"- I'm lucky that way. If I come up with anything good, I'll be sure to pass it along here.


----------



## MNicolai (Mar 8, 2016)

@What Rigger?, Devil's advocate. Technically no one has to adhere to this standard. It's non-binding and not likely to be adopted as law by any governing bodies. The only cases where it's binding are if your work falls under the umbrella of a contract specifically referencing this standard, or if you have a broad interpretation of a contract clause in effect stating something along the lines of "industry-accepted standards for safe methods and practices".


RickR said:


> If you don't follow the standard You could be are liable for all injuries"


Fixed that for you.

@BillConnerASTC, not sure if you meant the consequence of this standard is more flying, or if more flying is generally inevitable. Like putting a man on the moon, so now we need to put one on Mars, aerial performances by qualified and unqualified people will only grow more frequent and the existence of this or any other non-binding standard is unlikely to sway that trend in any manner for better or for worse.

For those saying that this will be a great guidebook for unqualified people to learn not to try it themselves, I wouldn't give this or any other TSP standard that kind of credit. This is a technical standard that gets qualified, industry veterans speaking the same language and setting the same bar for safety and methodology. It will not be on the radar at all for any amateurs. If they want to try to learn how to do performer flying, they're going to watch YouTube and think "_That doesn't look too hard!". _And if you happen to put this standard in front of them, they'll send you a link to that video and say "_Seriously, now, this isn't rocket science it's not like we're reinventing Cirque."_

This is why when I want to tell someone to hire a pro, I send them a link to YouTube and a link to NPR. Especially the link to NPR.


----------



## What Rigger? (Mar 9, 2016)

MNicolai said:


> @What Rigger?, Devil's advocate. Technically no one has to adhere to this standard. It's non-binding and not likely to be adopted as law by any governing bodies. The only cases where it's binding are if your work falls under the umbrella of a contract specifically referencing this standard, or if you have a broad interpretation of a contract clause in effect stating something along the lines of "industry-accepted standards for safe methods and practices".
> 
> 
> Fixed that for you.
> ...



Devil's advocate? Aw man, c'mon...they kicked me outta h3ll 'cause they were afraid I'd take over. So anyhoo...

Technically nobody is required to hire ETCP electricians and riggers, so we might as well throw that out, right? 

Technically, you don't have to use carabiners that meet ANSI Z359.1-2007 in the workplace. But good luck with that in a lot of places. Maybe even most places. 

And if a _ton_ of people that are WAY smarter than you or I took over a decade to write this document, surely the whole time they must have been saying "this is all for poops and grins, it isn't going to actually _do_ anything to improve things". They probably didn't have anything better to do than write this useless stack of fun (the 3 current and/or former bosses of mine that helped write this document might disagree, though. Not to mention the half dozen friends/acquaintances/colleagues that contributed as well). 

Here's where I see your point of view falling flat: this kind of pro level stuff does filter down. Why and how does ControlBooth exist? For this very reason. You and I know there's all kinds of *gnarly* individuals on this board who know their stuff backwards and forwards, and it gets shared with guys like you and me and every other person who ever came here and asked a question and got a solid answer, including but not limited to "hire the pros when you fly". It will take time, but eventually everyone ups their game because of stuff like this, it will up mine and I hope it ups yours. 
Here's an example for you: in the 70's and 80's, BMX was raced on flat pedals and everyone wore Vans or something similar. In the 90's some pros started using clipless pedals and the dork shoes that go with them. Use of clipless pedals spread. Nowadays, even kids in 5 year old Novice class races are clipped in, looking for that advantage that guys racing Nationals and the Olympics are using. Guys racing on flats in Vans are anachronisms, holdouts from a past era. (AKA, "me"). However, I'm a sucker for tabletops off driveways, but I digress...

Yes, we in the industry will adopt all of this first, and quickest. And this will drive change throughout the industry. Everybody wants to be the fly guys, and I can't tell you how many people have aped my style and work approach over the years. If my loud, obnoxious self can influence people like that, you bet your hair gel budget that this standard will do the same thing. It's not a fix all, because idiots reproduce at an alarming rate, but this is absolutely something the entertainment industry has needed for a long time. I'd suggest everyone get used to it, 'cause here we go!

Okay, I gotta go lie down and have some tea or something.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 9, 2016)

To Mike's point/query, I believe a standard like this will lead to more performer flying by people not qualified but believing they can do it by just following the guide. Some people will want to fly performers, become discouraged by the cost of hiring a qualified company, and decide they can follow the standard and do it themselves. Unintended consequences. No different than the development of a standard for indoor pyro lead to a significant rise in it and significant increase in incidents. If these things were as necessary as driving a car, maybe it's justified, but I prefer it be more difficult to attempt and to generally be more restricted. 

We agree, that if you take charge or even support or participate in performer flying, you are liable, standard or not, qualified or not, period.


----------



## MNicolai (Mar 9, 2016)

@What Rigger?, I agree with you that just because it's non-binding doesn't mean it's not important -- but by and large -- the people flying performers who will voluntary adhere to standards such as this are the ones who didn't need the standards in the first place. They've been operating safely all along. Meanwhile, the people who most need standards for something like this are so far off the beaten path from compliance that the closest they'll ever come to this standard is in a court of a law following an accident.

However, keeping people from getting hurt will have a lot less to do with this standard and a lot more to do with making unsafe flying socially unacceptable. A lot like the "Don't Text & Drive" campaigns. Making it a law by itself would've had minimal or no effect on roadway fatalities. The texting and driving fatalities were curbed by making it socially unacceptable to text while driving. Not to say people still don't do it, but everyone knows they can't use it as a valid excuse if something happens and they try to darnedest to not do it while anyone's looking.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 9, 2016)

What Rigger? said:


> Devil's advocate? Aw man, c'mon...they kicked me outta h3ll 'cause they were afraid I'd take over. So anyhoo...
> 
> Technically nobody is required to hire ETCP electricians and riggers, so we might as well throw that out, right?
> 
> Technically, you don't have to use carabiners that meet ANSI Z359.1-2007 in the workplace. But good luck with that in a lot of places. Maybe even most places.



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.


----------



## CashewsInMyDimmers (Mar 9, 2016)

BillConnerASTC said:


> To Mike's point/query, I believe a standard like this will lead to more performer flying by people not qualified but believing they can do it by just following the guide. Some people will want to fly performers, become discouraged by the cost of hiring a qualified company, and decide they can follow the standard and do it themselves.



Does this mean that you are also arguing that this standard is insufficient for insuring safety? If someone does follow this standard exactly would the performer be at more risk than if they had hired a professional company that also followed this standard exactly? 

This is a different question than asking "Do you think Joe Shmoe can follow this standard?" Obviously someone that thinks they can follow this standard and fails to is putting a performers life at risk. I'm also not saying that people should think that just because there is a standard that they don't have to hire a professional. Professional services are obviously safer than an amature saying "I think I can do that".


----------



## CashewsInMyDimmers (Mar 9, 2016)

EDIT: I'll include the post that this was in reply to by quoting but will not include the author since they deleted their original post for a reason. I just want this to make sense.

> I think most of us know to hire someone who knows what they are doing, be it a company to do the effects or an individual who is certified etc. But when you get into the bowels of theatre around the country, (high schools, community theatre, small hole in the walls) the budget/desired effects can start to be less... rigid? I've seen a bunch of amateur theatre where egos and lofty ideas build on each other unchecked until some really stupid decisions are made. Luckily its not always a life safety issue, bad directing/acting usually just makes an audience groan, not die. Combine that with a joe schmo type who is over confident in their abilities and who has read the standard and theres the rub. They "think" they know what they are doing because they've rigged some paper lanterns before and present themselves confidently and a director who doesn't know better goes along for the ride.
> 
> I'm not trying to be disparaging in my examples, I just think the odds of that happening increase as budgets shrink and you get well intentioned but uninformed people added to the mix. Different levels of experience and knowledge can quickly have different ideas of what a "pro" is. To answer your first to questions, the answer can be yes for both, its dependent on the operator/user. An idiot armed with some info on paper is still an idiot, someone trained to do it already armed with the same paper at least has some more guidelines that speak directly to what they already do, in theory strengthening their application of their work.
> 
> TLDR: I know I can't rig crap, I don't know how, I can hang paper lanterns. I know to hire someone who knows what they are doing, but I know people who wouldn't because they think they can do it on their own.



I mostly added the line you quoted to make sure people understood that I am still in favor of professional services and not condoning someone reading a piece of paper and putting up some ropes.

But you left the heart of my question unanswered. I'm not talking about an idiot reading a piece of paper and pretending or convincing someone that they know what they are doing. That is obviously unsafe and hopefully doesn't happen. Everything you said in your post is true.

But the heart of my question was if someone can read the standard and is able to follow it completely is that less safe than a professional who is going to do the same thing. The key to the question is that the person is not an idiot, instead they are someone who understands the document, facts, and figures enough to be able to implement a system that follows it completely. They just aren't one of the major flying houses. Is the document a good document. If so, why couldn't a competent person read it and implement a system following it's specifications?

I am not trying to claim that I am that competent person. I am also not trying to claim that armed with this standard I would be ready to go fly a performer next month. I'm not really interested in designing flying systems for performers. Anyone I can think of that is such a competent person that is also interested in flying performers is already a professional doing just that (and has some ETCP certs under their belt). Which is why they should be hired. They both care about the work they are doing and have the knowledge and experience to design systems under this specification. Which is a load off of the backs of directors / producers / etc. Hiring a professional means that you don't have to find someone competent enough to read and implement this new standard.

Really the reason I am asking these questions is because I am interested to know what people think on the subject. I'm not trying to suggest that people should just read this and do what ever they want and always believe that paying an expert is better than accepting additional life safety risk. I'm totally on board with Bill's sentiment that "if you take charge or even support or participate in performer flying, you are liable, standard or not, qualified or not, period."


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 9, 2016)

CashewsInMyDimmers said:


> Does this mean that you are also arguing that this standard is insufficient for insuring safety? If someone does follow this standard exactly would the performer be at more risk than if they had hired a professional company that also followed this standard exactly?
> 
> This is a different question than asking "Do you think Joe Shmoe can follow this standard?" Obviously someone that thinks they can follow this standard and fails to is putting a performers life at risk. I'm also not saying that people should think that just because there is a standard that they don't have to hire a professional. Professional services are obviously safer than an amature saying "I think I can do that".



Yes - all by itself - just as the standard for fire sprinklers is insufficient to assure safety all by itself. It requires a whole system that besides there being minimum standards shared to all users, it requires users who are educated and experienced in the discipline, probably through some sort of apprenticing, and it requires uniform enforcement, including the training and education of the enforcers, not so they are expert but so they know what to look for and how to tell if the person is qualified. By itself and without the other parts- and this may be incomplete still - I believe it will embolden unqualified people without the oversight that enforcement provides to attempt performer flying, and the results will be an increase in incidents resulting in bodily harm or death from performer flying.

I liked the general concept that no one should do this without the proven experts with a long track record of success, and accountable because they pay a lot for insurance and would go out of business if they screwed up. I believe that served us well. No, any fast talking yahoo who can read the standard will convince people they don't need experts and can diy Peter Pan. Do you disagree that will happen? And that's a different question than asking "Should this happen"?

Were life only so simple that passing a law or writing a standard - no matter how good - would solve every problem.

PS: I responded to your post two above, not just the edited one just above - which will be all screwy if you delete one or heaven forbid someone inserts one. I'm still trying to decipher the edits. Sorry. Darned hard to earn a living and meet deadlines and always be able to be cogent here.


----------



## CashewsInMyDimmers (Mar 9, 2016)

BillConnerASTC said:


> Any fast talking yahoo who can read the standard will convince people they don't need experts and can diy Peter Pan. Do you disagree that will happen? And that's a different question than asking "Should this happen"?



Actually Bill, I do agree that that will happen. It already does, and if some fast talking yahoo is smart enough to find this document they will probably use it to embolden themselves even more. It does and will continue to happen and it should not. 

I liked what you said about regulatory agencies adopting entertainment safety standards so that they actually become law. At the same time, that would be impossible if we decided that the companies currently in the business are doing a great job regulating themselves and people already know to hire them. Without publishing standards and recommended practices, no one can adopt them. Additionally If I was looking at hiring a company to do some flying I can now ask them if they are compliant with this standard. If one company doesn't know anything about this standard and the other does that's definitely an indication about who I should consider hiring. At least one is up to date on the relevant industry literature.

I just want to explore what the implications of releasing standards like this might be because I think it's an important conversation to have.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 9, 2016)

CashewsInMyDimmers said:


> Actually Bill, I do agree that that will happen. It already does, and if some fast talking yahoo is smart enough to find this document they will probably use it to embolden themselves even more. It does and will continue to happen and it should not.
> 
> I liked what you said about regulatory agencies adopting entertainment safety standards so that they actually become law. At the same time, that would be impossible if we decided that the companies currently in the business are doing a great job regulating themselves and people already know to hire them. Without publishing standards and recommended practices, no one can adopt them. Additionally If I was looking at hiring a company to do some flying I can now ask them if they are compliant with this standard. If one company doesn't know anything about this standard and the other does that's definitely an indication about who I should consider hiring. At least one is up to date on the relevant industry literature.
> 
> I just want to explore what the implications of releasing standards like this might be because I think it's an important conversation to have.



I don't disagree with your reasoned point of view. I have not looked to see who worked on this standard but likely all of the qualified companies were aware of its development or were involved, probably leading. I'm somewhat suspect it will change their work, or at least any more than if they simple had met and discussed it.

Not sure how different publishing a standard like this is from posting how to make a bomb.


----------



## RickR (Mar 9, 2016)

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 (Mar 9, 2016)

RickR said:


> 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? (Mar 11, 2016)

BillConnerASTC said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 11, 2016)

What Rigger? said:


> 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 (May 23, 2016)

ack said:


> 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 (May 24, 2016)

Jonathan Deull said:


> 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.


----------

