# Things that make you go 'Hmmm'



## RonHebbard (May 28, 2017)

Every now and again I look at a situation and go 'Hmmm'.
Here's one I experienced that makes perfect sense but, then again, 'Hmmm'.
Perhaps @BillConnerFASTC will chime in with a sensibly elegant code perspective.
Don't get me wrong here, I can see the situation from both sides but ... then ... Hmmm...
Example:
Your on a construction site building a brand new venue from the foundations of the third basement below grade to the attic above the coves, booths and fourth balcony; 14 levels in total.
It goes without saying that construction safety is important with no one desiring to be hurt, maimed, killed or sued.
As you're getting higher and higher with the potential for falling further and further, the fall protection demands become stricter and stricter with more eyes watching for even the most minor infractions.
Let's say I want to send brief test tones and polarity confirmations from all mic and line-level lines on the faces of every balcony using small, light weight, portable battery powered test devices.
*Picking numbers out of the air purely for example.*
On the first (lowest) balcony, I'm not permitted to go closer than the third row of seating from the edge without full fall protection: Rated safety lines, rated adjustable grips for the lines, rated deceleration lanyards and a serious harness. (We utilized a harness called a "sit harness" to sit comfortably over the various levels of rails while installing and wiring the connectors during our installation phase)
As my arms aren't long enough to perform simple continuity tests from beyond three rows back, I'm required to supply, rig and utilize the full wank protection gear even to the extent of re-rigging my attachment points as I move across the width of the rail.
I complete my testing on the first balcony and move on up to the second balcony. Perhaps I now need to be in my full safety gear to venture closer than five rows.
You can see where this is going.
I move up to the third balcony and need to be secured seven rows back.
I finally reach the fourth, highest, balcony and, you guessed it nine rows back.
Remember: All I want to do is walk the width of the various rails briefly plugging in portable, hand-held, devices as I go.
*O.K., I get it.* It only takes a moment to fall, safety is important and law suites are costly.
*Fast-forward a few weeks and it's grand opening night.*
Society's most elegant attend dressed in their finest, some choosing sensible seats with sight-lines in mind and others selecting seating more suitable for 'being seen' rather than seeing scenes.
[You know the types, I'm sure no further explanations are required.]
Now, again mere weeks later, it's acceptable for ladies in long gowns completely covering their spiked heals, to walk down the most steeply raked aisles in the venue wearing their contacts rather than being caught in a photo op' while wearing their horned rimmed tri-focals.
Here's what's making me go Hmmm! (Yeah, I'm finally there.)
I walk around the building in my steel toes for a couple of years. My feet and I have become familiar with every inch of the place.
A few weeks later, a lady who's never entered the venue before, is now permitted to venture to the aisles' ends, look over and take in the grandeur simply because she purchased a ticket, has the stub in her hand [And her husband's not close enough to push her over.]
I sorta kinda understand this but it still MAKES ME GO HMMM!?
Mr. Bill (@BillConnerFASTC ) Perhaps you'd contribute a few explanatory / informative / educational lines?
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard. [If this post vaporizes when I hit send . . . ]


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (May 29, 2017)

I've commented often on this. Most sites have a temporary guard rail till construction is complete and the workers that remove it and the cleaners after use fall protection. OSHA and similar regulation for employees are more restrictive than codes that are to protect the general public. OSHA does not concern itself with being able to see the stage while seated. 

I've heard a few venues - arenas - prohibit their vendors and cleaners from the first 2 or 3 rows - 42" from edge. And of course there is a regular guard - 42" or taller - at the foot of sisles, so perhaps in the aisle you're covered.

In performing arts theatres there is practically no record of audience falls from balconies. Stadia and arenas is a different case, even though the same codes apply currently.

Consider that not allowing this would practically eliminate balconies in theatres.


----------



## Dionysus (May 29, 2017)

Seems a little ridiculous that they were using 3, 7, & 9 rows back. Not sure if this was in Canada or elsewhere, however there is no requirement in Canadian code that would require that (unless its more to do with slope perhaps).
I recently updated my fall safety training (yes in Canada you have to take a 8 hour course, updated by a 4 hour course every 3 years to work at height) and can say without a doubt that you are required to stay 2 meters (6'6") away from a potential fall without protection. Typically a "bump line" is required to be temporarily installed.


----------



## RonHebbard (May 29, 2017)

Dionysus said:


> Seems a little ridiculous that they were using 3, 7, & 9 rows back. Not sure if this was in Canada or elsewhere, however there is no requirement in Canadian code that would require that (unless its more to do with slope perhaps).
> I recently updated my fall safety training (yes in Canada you have to take a 8 hour course, updated by a 4 hour course every 3 years to work at height) and can say without a doubt that you are required to stay 2 meters (6'6") away from a potential fall without protection. Typically a "bump line" is required to be temporarily installed.


Yes Steve @Dionysus it was in Canada. The Four Seasons Opera & Ballet Centre in the heart of downtown Toronto in to be exact.
As I clearly stated in my original post: The numbers 3, 5, 7, & 9 were *"Picking numbers out of the air purely for example"*. Yes the GC (PCL) had a "bump line" (as you phrased it) in place plus the on site safety inspectors were watching like hawks for anyone passing the "bump line" without total protection. I believe I was very clear in my original post and I appreciate @BillConnerFASTC 's support in raising / clarifying / elaborating upon this situation from his well versed perspective. I'm finding ZERO fault with the construction safety issues, no, no fault at all. What I'm attempting to point out here is the vast gap between worrying about our construction workers vs. our patrons paying good money to support the arts from which the majority of us are earning our livings and paying our bills. We're probably never going to change the world but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. 
I relinquish the lectern and bull horn. (And descend from the podium) 
Thanks @BillConnerFASTC
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (May 29, 2017)

If there were NOT good seats with good sight lines in an intimate space, all of which make balconies essential, there would be many fewer patrons supporting the arts.

And as noted, the record does not support changing the regulations for performing arts theatres.

NOT added


----------



## RonHebbard (May 29, 2017)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> If there were good seats with good sight lines in an intimate space, all of which make balconies essential, there would be many fewer patrons supporting the arts.


I'm definitely missing something here. 
Separated by a common language, as I often phrase it. 
May I ask why?
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (May 29, 2017)

RonHebbard said:


> I'm definitely missing something here.
> Separated by a common language, as I often phrase it.
> May I ask why?
> Toodleoo!
> Ron Hebbard.



Corrected.

Maybe with fewer negatives: balconies with low guards are essential to good sight lines and intimacy, and without them theatre going would be much less attractive and alluring.

That better?


----------



## FMEng (May 30, 2017)

Presumably, it's easier to trip and fall while deeply engaged in work, than it is to fall while walking to a seat. High heals and long dresses aside, that's a reasonable idea. The person dragging a vacuum could trip on a power cord or snag a hose on a seat, etc.

Interestingly, a balcony that serves as a choir loft in a church has to have a full height railing, even though the choir's vision would be obstructed. At least that what I was told by an architect. If the codes are more permissive, I'd love to know.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (May 31, 2017)

FMEng said:


> Presumably, it's easier to trip and fall while deeply engaged in work, than it is to fall while walking to a seat. High heals and long dresses aside, that's a reasonable idea. The person dragging a vacuum could trip on a power cord or snag a hose on a seat, etc.
> 
> Interestingly, a balcony that serves as a choir loft in a church has to have a full height railing, even though the choir's vision would be obstructed. At least that what I was told by an architect. If the codes are more permissive, I'd love to know.


I disagree with your architect's interpretation of building code. Sightlines are sightlines and apply, and that is the basis for the guard exceptions. OSHA many federal regulations are generally not enforced and/or not applicable in places of worship, but it raises an interesting issue if a church is used for other than "religious" purposes. Does a paid choir have more protection than unpaid?


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Jun 2, 2017)

Bill, you appear to have understood FMeng (with whom I agree here) differently than me.

I believe he's pointing out, as I was about to, that the difference between audience members and construction workers, walking around in the same spaces, is twofold:

For the audience, the space is clean, and properly floored and lit, and they have no other requirements of them while walking to their seat than to walk.

All of those things are untrue of a person working in the space before opening: it's dirty, things may be laying on the floor temporarily, the lighting may be substandard (even though code covers this), and (to quote George Carlin about New Yorkers walking in Manhattan) "they got crap to *do*"; it's easy for them to be distracted enough to fall and be injured, in a way that it's not for the audience, later.

it sounded as if you disagreed those differences were significant?


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Jun 2, 2017)

Sorry, Ron: 

"Hmmm..."


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Jun 2, 2017)

FMEng said:


> Presumably, it's easier to trip and fall while deeply engaged in work, than it is to fall while walking to a seat. High heals and long dresses aside, that's a reasonable idea. The person dragging a vacuum could trip on a power cord or snag a hose on a seat, etc.
> 
> Interestingly, a balcony that serves as a choir loft in a church has to have a full height railing, even though the choir's vision would be obstructed. At least that what I was told by an architect. If the codes are more permissive, I'd love to know.


It seems that by "presuming" you believe the regulations are based on science and research and that the regulators usually or always know best. Having been very involved in the writing of these codes and standards for thirty years, I strongly suggest you reconsider presuming so.

Besides OSHA is federal government, and Washington bureaucrats who believe they know better than anyone. Building codes are developed by the local building officials. Neither one has any real expertise on theatre. The building codes have a process that let's people like me be heard. The feds don't really.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Jun 2, 2017)

"Washington bureaucrats".

Sorry, Bill; I can't hear you over that axe you're grinding.


----------



## RonHebbard (Jun 2, 2017)

Jay Ashworth said:


> Sorry, Ron:
> 
> "Hmmm..."


@Jay Ashworth ; No need to apologize to me Jay, I merely raised the topic for open discussion.
We're still good.
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------

