# Explosives



## Edrick




----------



## jhochb

" I am a bomb technition, if you see me running.... TRY TO KEEP UP! "


----------



## Edrick

Been there done that lol were all hiding in cars now severe lighting storm coming through and were still not done with setup.


----------



## Edrick

Shows been canceled


----------



## techieman33

That sucks, I helped with a decent sized show in high school and it's a lot of work to put in to have the show canceled.


----------



## Edrick

Yeah it was a large show but we had torrential downpours and lightning and half the product got ruined even with it being tarpped the wind was bad


----------



## JohnD

Better than what happened in San Diego.
Big Bay Boom indeed: San Diego fireworks go up all at once - U.S. News


----------



## LavaASU

*Opps...*

San Diego Firework Show Epic Fail 2012 - YouTube

Anyone know more details? Was everyone OK? Do any of our resident Pyro experts have a clue what happened?


----------



## Edrick

*Re: Opps...*

That's actually partially why we canceled the show, once the product got wet the packing that ignites and propels the product out of the tube might not have worked on every firework, even just one that doesn't launch can destroy the rack and cause a chain reaction. Basically you lite the fuse, instantly it ignites the materials that cause the firework to launch out of the mortar and then it shoots it a few hundred feet into the air and after x amount of time it ignites the powder and creates the firework. The powder used to create the big BOOM and colors wouldn't be of concern as unless it got soaked there's a good chance that would still go off. What was of concern was wether or not it'd launch out of the mortar and if it didn't it'd blow up the rack.


----------



## JohnD

*Re: Opps...*

The San Diego show was by Garden State Fireworks:
Garden State Fireworks
This CBS story has some more info:
Company investigating San Diego fireworks fiasco - CBS News
Here is a quote from the CBS article:
"August Santore, part-owner in the company, said tens of thousands of fireworks on four barges and a pier had been prepared. But because of a glitch or virus in the computer firing system, they all went off with one command, he said.


"Thank goodness no one was injured. Precautions all worked 100 percent," Santore said."


----------



## Les

*Re: Opps...*

Maybe David Rosenbaum (CreativeSPFX) will chime in - even though I know he is extremely busy. His company, Illumination Fireworks, LLC had 5 or 6 shows just yesterday (with several the days prior) so I'm sure they are doing a lot of unloading right now. I worked with him yesterday and in to the night on what was a HUGE and awesome show in the Dallas suburb of Frisco at Pizza Hut Park. What a great guy to work with! I'd post pics, but I'd better check with him first.


----------



## Amishplumber

*Re: Opps...*

As a fellow Bostonian, just wondering where exactly that show was.


----------



## Edrick

*Re: Opps...*

North Reading,

I like how they say a glitch OR computer "virus" caused it. If it was a virus the company should be in some hefty trouble for not making sure their environment was a clean one, especially something that runs the show. Now I think this was more so of a matter someone who doesn't know what's up was talking out of their rear end.


----------



## ruinexplorer

*Re: Opps...*

Yeah, I'm seeing a lawsuit in the future. Obviously the proper safety measures were not in place.


----------



## Les

*Re: Opps...*

I don't know how much I can divulge, but I think I can say that on David's show (that I worked on), the system wasn't even turned on - let alone armed - until about 5 minutes before showtime. Then we ran a timecode pre-roll to make sure everything was communicating. If anyone could speculate, it'd be David.


----------



## josh88

*Re: Opps...*

Today's story of why illegal fireworks are bad and some people just don't have enough common sense around things this dangerous.

Hazel Park paraplegic man's leg blown off in fireworks explosion, possibly by dynamite - theoaklandpress.com


> The force of the explosion severed the man’s left leg just below the knee and blew it about 50 feet across the street where it hit a neighbor’s house.


----------



## avkid

*Re: Opps...*

You kids and your computer controlled firing systems.
We spent the 4th at joint base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst.
Tremendous displays lit by hand.


----------



## gafftapegreenia

*Re: Opps...*


josh88 said:


> Today's story of why illegal fireworks are bad and some people just don't have enough common sense around things this dangerous.
> 
> Hazel Park paraplegic man's leg blown off in fireworks explosion, possibly by dynamite - theoaklandpress.com



Ahh, Hazel Park MI, why am I not surprised......

Also all types of aerial fireworks became LEGAL in Michigan this year, I think people have gone extra nuts this year on the fireworks.


----------



## zmb

*Re: Opps...*


gafftapegreenia said:


> Also all types of aerial fireworks became LEGAL in Michigan this year, I think people have gone extra nuts this year on the fireworks.



Seems like an interesting policy reversal.
There are Indian reservations less than 1/2 hour from Seattle so people get all sorts of neat (illegal) fireworks.


----------



## Les

*Re: Opps...*


avkid said:


> You kids and your computer controlled firing systems.
> We spent the 4th at joint base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst.
> Tremendous displays lit by hand.



You kids? Don't you run digital sound and lighting consoles? lol!


----------



## avkid

*Re: Opps...*

But fire is so much cooler than pressing a keyboard button.


----------



## Les

*Re: Opps...*


avkid said:


> But fire is so much cooler than pressing a keyboard button.



I can definitely agree with that, but I think I would be looking longingly at that keyboard button after the 20-minute show I had the other day. It was a little complicated though. There were two main launching locations. I was at the secondary "rooftop" location, and the product was very spread out among multiple stations up there. We ran what was essentially two shows concurrently, synced by two consoles and firing to the music via timecode. It was a [-]neat[/-] amazing show, and while I can definitely appreciate the "oldschool" firing method, we would have needed so many technicians! The Pyro company I worked for also had about 4 other area shows happening at the same time. [-]I think some of their smaller town shows were fired by hand[/-]. Our show was just too big/spread out/choreographed.


----------



## JohnD

*Re: Opps...*

Back to the San Diego debacle, I have to wonder, where is the error checking. I can't see "virus or glitch" as a valid reason.


----------



## ruinexplorer

*Re: Opps...*

I agree. I would think that there should have been some sort of E-stop. I can't imagine a system that is completely controlled where you don't have any back-up manual control.


----------



## cpf

ruinexplorer said:


> I agree. I would think that there should have been some sort of E-stop. I can't imagine a system that is completely controlled where you don't have any back-up manual control.



Or failing that, the power cord for the controller... Maybe it was just a chain reaction set off by the initial misfiring?


----------



## gafftaper

Sorry I'm late, I've been out of town for a while. Here's another great story from the Seattle Area. A guy was storing a shipping container filled with the fireworks for two small community 4th of July shows in his junk yard. $80,000 worth of fireworks all, prepped and ready to go. Around 1am on July 1st the owner of the junk yard decides to go test out his new rifle... Guess what happened. 

You can read the rest here.


----------



## zmb

gafftaper said:


> Sorry I'm late, I've been out of town for a while. Here's another great story from the Seattle Area. A guy was storing a shipping container filled with the fireworks for two small community 4th of July shows in his junk yard. $80,000 worth of fireworks all, prepped and ready to go. Around 1am on July 1st the owner of the junk yard decides to go test out his new rifle... Guess what happened.
> 
> You can read the rest here.



Poulsbo, a semi-touristy Norwegian-themed town, was one of the towns that had their show occur prematurely, somehow got enough fireworks for it not to be any different than other years. One tidbit about their show, they have it on July 3rd. And an indian reservation is next door so the people shooting off fireworks nearby can blend in with the professional show.


----------



## CreativeSPFX

Sorry I haven't been able to check this earlier. To address a few points:


Edrick said:


> North Reading,
> 
> I like how they say a glitch OR computer "virus" caused it. If it was a virus the company should be in some hefty trouble for not making sure their environment was a clean one, especially something that runs the show. Now I think this was more so of a matter someone who doesn't know what's up was talking out of their rear end.



Garden State has just recently started to narrow down the problem. To my knowledge, virus has been ruled out at this point and was unlikely to begin with. Most companies do a pretty good job at isolating their computers to be used exclusively for shows. August Santore is far from "someone who doesn't know what's up." He probably misspoke, but I can't imagine the situation he was in. I'm not going to criticize how they handled it with the media because they were so shaken up.


ruinexplorer said:


> Yeah, I'm seeing a lawsuit in the future. Obviously the proper safety measures were not in place.



Probably not. What safety measures are you speaking about specifically? Please quote NFPA 1123 and tell me what they did wrong. For something of this caliber to happen (on a barge shoot no less), they were doing something right if nobody got hurt. At anytime, something can go wrong (and they do) which is why safety measures are in place.


avkid said:


> You kids and your computer controlled firing systems.
> We spent the 4th at joint base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst.
> Tremendous displays lit by hand.



Hand firing is fun on occasion. However, you just can't do everything by hand to pull off certain looks or precise choreography. It all depends on the needs of the show. Personally, I'd rather be as far back as I can while shooting. Our company only does electronically fired displays. They're flat out safer because they allow the shooter to be farther back.


ruinexplorer said:


> I agree. I would think that there should have been some sort of E-stop. I can't imagine a system that is completely controlled where you don't have any back-up manual control.



Most systems do have an E-stop or deadman switch. The show fired so quickly that there was no stopping it by the time the operators knew what had happened. Although the "show" lasted 15 seconds, the actual cues probably all fired in 5 seconds or less. The system they were allegedly using does have a backup manual control. But again, if it all fires, there are no more fireworks to shoot manually.


cpf said:


> Or failing that, the power cord for the controller... Maybe it was just a chain reaction set off by the initial misfiring?



Good theory. The show was already loaded so with each shell in a tube, it wouldn't have been a mass "chain reaction." Also, multiple barges all reacted the same way, which leads to the belief that the computer was in control with that. If shells weren't loaded and sitting on top of mortar tubes, or in cases that were ignited, you would see more of a "chain reaction" which would be devastating. 


I've heard Garden State (fireworks company), along with the firing system manufacturer, are supposed to come out with a joint press release to explain what happened. A few points:

This is very rare, but obviously can happen. Sometimes shows don't go as planned. I think it was a programming error since all barges acted the same. It could have been in the design software or done manually. It's still up in the air.

Garden State is a well-respected company in the industry. They do a lot of shows. Again, sometimes things happen. 

How many of you have ever had a lighting console freeze up? Scary stuff! Computers can be helpful, but it always adds another layer of complexity for more things to go wrong. Of course, the media also latches onto this, despite the thousands of shows that went off just fine that week.


----------



## ruinexplorer

CreativeSPFX said:


> Sorry I haven't been able to check this earlier. To address a few points:
> 
> 
> 
> Garden State has just recently started to narrow down the problem. To my knowledge, virus has been ruled out at this point and was unlikely to begin with. Most companies do a pretty good job at isolating their computers to be used exclusively for shows. August Santore is far from "someone who doesn't know what's up." He probably misspoke, but I can't imagine the situation he was in. I'm not going to criticize how they handled it with the media because they were so shaken up.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not. What safety measures are you speaking about specifically? Please quote NFPA 1123 and tell me what they did wrong. For something of this caliber to happen (on a barge shoot no less), they were doing something right if nobody got hurt. At anytime, something can go wrong (and they do) which is why safety measures are in place.



I can't since I don't have the facts of their set-up. Plus, just because no one was hurt does not mean that they were doing it right. We can look at many posts on this forum to see how people have escaped injury when something went wrong, and found that it was preventable. Even respected and well known companies can have a catastrophe and be sued. This is America after all, we love lawsuits. However, without an independent third party doing an investigation (since there were no injuries), we'll see if it's just settled out of court.




> Most systems do have an E-stop or deadman switch. The show fired so quickly that there was no stopping it by the time the operators knew what had happened. Although the "show" lasted 15 seconds, the actual cues probably all fired in 5 seconds or less. The system they were allegedly using does have a backup manual control. But again, if it all fires, there are no more fireworks to shoot manually.



So, since you have the experience in fireworks shows and I do not, why wouldn't the deadman essentially be in place until the show is allowed to go live? This is how we do it in theater when we have a computer controlled pyro effect. That switch should have been thrown the moment the first shell discharged. Again, once those fireworks are connected to a firing mechanism, they should be watched at all times for safety. Even five seconds is too long.




> Good theory. The show was already loaded so with each shell in a tube, it wouldn't have been a mass "chain reaction." Also, multiple barges all reacted the same way, which leads to the belief that the computer was in control with that. If shells weren't loaded and sitting on top of mortar tubes, or in cases that were ignited, you would see more of a "chain reaction" which would be devastating.
> 
> 
> I've heard Garden State (fireworks company), along with the firing system manufacturer, are supposed to come out with a joint press release to explain what happened. A few points:
> 
> This is very rare, but obviously can happen. Sometimes shows don't go as planned. I think it was a programming error since all barges acted the same. It could have been in the design software or done manually. It's still up in the air.
> 
> Garden State is a well-respected company in the industry. They do a lot of shows. Again, sometimes things happen.
> 
> How many of you have ever had a lighting console freeze up? Scary stuff! Computers can be helpful, but it always adds another layer of complexity for more things to go wrong. Of course, the media also latches onto this, despite the thousands of shows that went off just fine that week.



Sure, the media latched onto it. Surprisingly, they did not bring up a similar situation in Scotland a few years back. Audiences are often unforgiving. Ask any sound guy. You do a perfect show and the audience feels, well he did his job. Let one squeak out and they think you're an amateur. 

As for lighting consoles freezing up? If you are on a high profile show, you have a live tracking back-up system, maybe more. Believe me, you don't want to have to answer to the higher-ups when the reason they had to refund the house was because you didn't have your system properly managed. 

I love that they say that they'll do a make up show. When, for Mexican Independence Day? Sometimes in show business you get one shot to do it right. If you don't, you get judged by that. It's a touchy business. One day you are well respected, the next, not so much.


----------



## CreativeSPFX

ruinexplorer said:


> I can't since I don't have the facts of their set-up. Plus, just because no one was hurt does not mean that they were doing it right. We can look at many posts on this forum to see how people have escaped injury when something went wrong, and found that it was preventable. Even respected and well known companies can have a catastrophe and be sued. This is America after all, we love lawsuits. However, without an independent third party doing an investigation (since there were no injuries), we'll see if it's just settled out of court.



My point was, you made a bold statement by saying "Obviously the proper safety measures were not in place." And as you pointed out, you don't have the facts of their set up. I don't either, so I won't accuse someone/a company of something when I don't have the facts. You're statement very well could be true. You make a lot of bold statements for someone who doesn't have experience with professional large-scale displays.



ruinexplorer said:


> So, since you have the experience in fireworks shows and I do not, why wouldn't the deadman essentially be in place until the show is allowed to go live? This is how we do it in theater when we have a computer controlled pyro effect. That switch should have been thrown the moment the first shell discharged. Again, once those fireworks are connected to a firing mechanism, they should be watched at all times for safety. Even five seconds is too long.




Again, I don't know much about their set up. Those that do know, aren't talking much. Another theory is that the programming fired all at 0:00:000. In this scenario, maybe the deadman was held down as it should have been but everything fired at once. With so many fireworks, it very well could take 10-15 seconds for the sky to clear even if all was fired at once.

My understanding is that the show fired once loaded and ready to go (even if during the testing and pre-roll). It wasn't like things randomly went off during set up. Many of the practices you're talking about that you've seen in theater are accurate, but are definitely common practice. They were on barges, so it's not like someone left the show and walked away.

There are so many things that COULD have happened, regardless of safety measures in place. I can't, nor can most, speculate. We also use the same firing system so I'm very familiar with it. The system used is one of the most widely used in the world. Again, just like any computer, initially it's so hard to say what happened. We'll have to wait for the company to make a report. I'll try to update the thread if I find out additional information straight from the source.



ruinexplorer said:


> Sure, the media latched onto it. Surprisingly, they did not bring up a similar situation in Scotland a few years back. Audiences are often unforgiving. Ask any sound guy. You do a perfect show and the audience feels, well he did his job. Let one squeak out and they think you're an amateur.
> 
> As for lighting consoles freezing up? If you are on a high profile show, you have a live tracking back-up system, maybe more. Believe me, you don't want to have to answer to the higher-ups when the reason they had to refund the house was because you didn't have your system properly managed.
> 
> I love that they say that they'll do a make up show. When, for Mexican Independence Day? Sometimes in show business you get one shot to do it right. If you don't, you get judged by that. It's a touchy business. One day you are well respected, the next, not so much.



My point was things can happen and computers fail. That's about all that can be said. Their company still does great shows. I shouldn't have compared lighting and pyro. There is no true comparison, but I'll try again. If all of your light bulbs burn out at once, what's your backup plan then? Backup/redundant systems wouldn't have made a difference.

Not sure why you have so much against them. I own a competing company and still have more empathy. So they offered to do a makeup show. Why would you put them down for that? They're trying to make it right. For your information, fireworks are used year-round. I shot 22 this last week, and do 2-3 a week the rest of the year. 

I agree with most of what you've said. It's show business and you do have one time to get it right. Sometimes things happen. Some are foreseeable, some are not. That's life. I'm sure Garden State will be just fine. They have probably shot a dozen or more shows since then with no issues whatsoever.


----------



## SanTai

CreativeSPFX said:


> Again, I don't know much about their set up. Those that do know, aren't talking much. Another theory is that the programming fired all at 0:00:000. In this scenario, maybe the deadman was held down as it should have been but everything fired at once. With so many fireworks, it very well could take 10-15 seconds for the sky to clear even if all was fired at once.



That would be my guess. Do you know what controller they use?

For example, I know show director is very glitchy and it is quite easy to bump all the cues to 00:00:00:00, I have never had any problem(of this kind) with the Field Controller itself though.

If they used any chains, I am suppressed of how short it was even if all the cues fired simultaneously.


----------



## CreativeSPFX

SanTai said:


> That would be my guess. Do you know what controller they use?
> 
> For example, I know show director is very glitchy and it is quite easy to bump all the cues to 00:00:00:00, I have never had any problem(of this kind) with the Field Controller itself though.
> 
> If they used any chains, I am suppressed of how short it was even if all the cues fired simultaneously.



The general consensus is that it was a FireOne system. Specific hardware is still unknown. Are you thinking about timed chains (with delay fuse)? If they were standard quickmatch chains, I think the timing would have been about right. Some people also double match their chains to get more of an "instant feel." Another detail that could have made a difference and nobody outside of this really knows.


----------



## SanTai

CreativeSPFX said:


> The general consensus is that it was a FireOne system. Specific hardware is still unknown. Are you thinking about timed chains (with delay fuse)? If they were standard quickmatch chains, I think the timing would have been about right. Some people also double match their chains to get more of an "instant feel." Another detail that could have made a difference and nobody outside of this really knows.



Yes, I meant chains with delay fuse, either in "series" or "parallel", if you know what I mean. I do not know if I think of the same fuse as you when you say quickmatch would take 15s to ignite the all of the shells. I often count quickmatch as instantaneous. But that doesn't matter.

I would be interesting to know if hardware failure were the cause of the accident or if it was a programming error(or something else).


----------



## CreativeSPFX

Yeah, it really is a "who knows?" situation. Hopefully more information will come out in the next few days.


----------



## ruinexplorer

CreativeSPFX said:


> My point was, you made a bold statement by saying "Obviously the proper safety measures were not in place." And as you pointed out, you don't have the facts of their set up. I don't either, so I won't accuse someone/a company of something when I don't have the facts. You're statement very well could be true. You make a lot of bold statements for someone who doesn't have experience with professional large-scale displays.


I won’t concede that I made bold statements. My opinions may be strong, but that does not make them wrong. This company may have taken all industry standard precautions for safety and they may not. I don’t know; neither will anyone if there is not an independent investigation. I’m not speculating on what they did or did not do, just that there is an obvious need for alternate safety measures that were not used since an uncontrolled set of fireworks were discharged with no means of stopping them. We as a community rely on your experience to help us understand what went wrong and what went right in a general sense. We don't need a how-to since nobody should do this without proper training.

> Again, I don't know much about their set up. Those that do know, aren't talking much. Another theory is that the programming fired all at 0:00:000. In this scenario, maybe the deadman was held down as it should have been but everything fired at once. With so many fireworks, it very well could take 10-15 seconds for the sky to clear even if all was fired at once.
> My understanding is that the show fired once loaded and ready to go (even if during the testing and pre-roll). It wasn't like things randomly went off during set up. Many of the practices you're talking about that you've seen in theater are accurate, but are definitely common practice. They were on barges, so it's not like someone left the show and walked away.


In your opinion, is the standard practice to verify your show prior to starting the firing sequence by computer? This is standard practice for large scale shows which I have worked on, even without pyro effects (i.e. proofreading for the literary world). Call it superstition or safe practice, as I said, we want to ensure that it works right the first time.

> There are so many things that COULD have happened, regardless of safety measures in place. I can't, nor can most, speculate. We also use the same firing system so I'm very familiar with it. The system used is one of the most widely used in the world. Again, just like any computer, initially it's so hard to say what happened. We'll have to wait for the company to make a report. I'll try to update the thread if I find out additional information straight from the source.
> My point was things can happen and computers fail. That's about all that can be said. Their company still does great shows. I shouldn't have compared lighting and pyro. There is no true comparison, but I'll try again. If all of your light bulbs burn out at once, what's your backup plan then? Backup/redundant systems wouldn't have made a difference.


I am extremely pleased that they are a professional company who managed safety well enough that even though something dramatically was out of their control that no one was injured and no property was damaged. 
You are correct that there is no true comparison between pyro and other effects of a show. Not everything can cause serious bodily harm should there be a catastrophic failure in the system (except maybe automation). Since your second example is just as unlikely (what computer glitch would make all my lamps blow?), we could talk about power. It’s true that on a one off event, there is likelihood that the main power could blow due to a transformer failure or something else out of the operators’ control. It would likely be from either miscalculating the load (human error) or an act of god, not just blaming it on a computer glitch. In the large venue where I work, when we had a transformer blow, exterior from the facility, the only way that the audience knew that the power had failed was that emergency lights had come on. We have UPS and back-up generators for all of our power and could have (irresponsibly) continued the show on that back-up system since we have enough power to continue for at least 30 minutes. Sometimes, when so much is at stake, you have to go beyond the basic guidelines established by the government.

> Not sure why you have so much against them. I own a competing company and still have more empathy. So they offered to do a makeup show. Why would you put them down for that? They're trying to make it right. For your information, fireworks are used year-round. I shot 22 this last week, and do 2-3 a week the rest of the year.
> I agree with most of what you've said. It's show business and you do have one time to get it right. Sometimes things happen. Some are foreseeable, some are not. That's life. I'm sure Garden State will be just fine. They have probably shot a dozen or more shows since then with no issues whatsoever.


For the record, I have nothing against them. I have nothing against the fireworks industry, my kids love them. You may have more empathy because you are in the industry and can feel what it must be like to have that happen. The same can be said for me feeling for all those who have had outdoor stage collapses in the past few years. I stopped doing outdoor shows back in the 90’s because I hated dealing with unpredictable weather. 

The reason I was so snarky about the callousness of a make-up show is that, correct me if I’m wrong, the two really big days for fireworks in the US are the Fourth of July and New Year’s Eve. Your other shows are for sporting and other special events but are on a different scale. After all, it isn’t just that people didn’t get to see fireworks. There were many people who probably traveled to come down and see the show. They had to pay to park, which could be $10 or more. They may have tried to make an evening of it so they splurged when they might not necessarily do so (many families do this as one of the few things they can afford each year). They were out money and got nothing for it. Or on another token, many businesses (or independent food cart vendors) will have prepared for the evening and lost revenue because people were turned away, though it’s possible some made bank on those who waited the ½ hour waiting for the real show to start. The repercussions from this failure are much more far reaching. I doubt that they intend on making sure that there is free parking for a make-up show. The businesses who lost revenue from there not being a show could also try to seek compensation based off previous years’ revenues. A make-up show cannot guarantee that the same number of visitors will come to the area since there is not another similar time of congregation until New Year’s. I apologize if you took offense to that cynicism.


----------



## derekleffew

- John Huntington's Blog - What Happened In San Diego at the Big Bay Boom? Garden State Fireworks*Explains

That Huntington guy knows effin everything!


----------



## jstroming

I read the full press release, and it looks like alot of double speak to me. Why not just say "It was a human error when processing the master and backup file" if that was the case? There's no need to explain any of that other stuff. They could have left it at a 1-2 paragraph P/R and it would have done the job. The fact that they went to such lengths to explain it makes it look to me like they're trying to cover something up. Just my opinion!


----------



## DuckJordan

I agree, all that needed to be shown was that last paragraph, they wrote the program wrong. their show files were correct but the program to double check them was completely off.


----------



## CreativeSPFX

Updated info...I spoke directly with the system manufacturer. It was 100% user error. They manipulated their software file on site and all cues were set to fire at 00:00 on accident. Negative timecode was ran to start with, but it all fired simultaneously. Even with a deadman, the show would not have been able to stop. This was avoidable, but has nothing to do with more safety and following government regulations. Sometimes mistakes are made.


----------



## ruinexplorer

Since I don't know about the use of timed chains with delay fuses or standard quickmatch chains, how long of a sequence is standard for a single firing sequence? What I am trying to understand is with this accident which took over 30 seconds to fire all of the fireworks and all the sequences were triggered to start at once, how long of a chain can be set for a single trigger? How do these sequences get their commands in a system like this? Does it send one command to a single electronic match which in turn triggers additional matches (or equivalent) or are they set up like an effect sequence where you have a start command for the effect, but then there are individual steps in that effect which are individual commands? 

I disagree that they only needed to have the last paragraph in their explanation of how events occurred. I think that it was very upstanding of them to disclose everything that they did. I don't think that we can come to begin to understand everything that goes in to putting on a show like this. By only putting in "it was human error" is like saying that everything that occurred last summer in Indiana was that there was a wind storm. We belittle ourselves to say that we can boil down a situation to something so simplistic and thus perpetuate to the public that what we do is simple as well. Sure, it was an avoidable error. I believe that this company will probably help set the standard to make sure that this error is not repeated, especially on this caliber.


----------



## SanTai

Good to hear that there is nothing wrong with the hardware.

Comparing this incident with a stage falling over and killing and injuring people is quite unfair. The safety measures worked, no one got injured or killed. The safety are there to protect the audience not the show.
This is a human error and it is bad for business, but all the necessary safety measures were in place. It was a bit clumsy and it makes the company look bad, but it was not unsafe.(Based on what I have been able to find out)

This can not in the future be avoided by another standard. Perhaps for this company can have a new internal way of working that will avoid this happening again.

Asking how long a delay fuse you can have is like asking how long an extension cord you can have. Cut it shorter or longer. How long they normalay are depends on tradition. If you use a lot of Italian product such as roman candles it would make sense that they are at the longest point approxiamtly as long(in time) as the candle. Usually between 20 to 30s.


----------



## DuckJordan

actually, a standard of checking your control program (which in this case fired both the backup and the main file) would be needing to be in place. they checked the main file, and they checked the backup, but failed to check their launch program. it can, so when you tell us no it can't. I claim bull honky. 

As for safety measures, the show didn't stop as soon as they knew something was wrong. Hence safety wasn't enacted. They also fired 5 mins early. So it may not have been all clear. Safety was breached although it was fortunate no one got hurt. This could have ended very differently.


----------



## Les

DuckJordan said:


> but failed to check their launch program.



From what little I know and have read, this seems to be the case. 


DuckJordan said:


> As for safety measures, the show didn't stop as soon as they knew something was wrong. Hence safety wasn't enacted. They also fired 5 mins early. So it may not have been all clear. Safety was breached although it was fortunate no one got hurt. This could have ended very differently.



The show _couldn't_ stop at this point. The cues fired at the start of pre-roll instead of the usual test sequence happening. I'm new to this end of the business, but what I do know is that everyone is to be all clear once pre-roll is started (for this very reason). The press release states this, as it is also common practice. Once the system is armed [which has to happen before pre-roll] everyone is to be all-clear.


----------



## ruinexplorer

SanTai said:


> Good to hear that there is nothing wrong with the hardware.
> 
> Comparing this incident with a stage falling over and killing and injuring people is quite unfair. The safety measures worked, no one got injured or killed. The safety are there to protect the audience not the show.
> This is a human error and it is bad for business, but all the necessary safety measures were in place. It was a bit clumsy and it makes the company look bad, but it was not unsafe.(Based on what I have been able to find out)



I am quite thankful that all the safety measures in place kept everyone from harm. I think you may have misunderstood some of the comparisons I was attempting to make between the two large scale failures. One, human error is often involved. This is why pilots are forced to manually go over a pre-flight check list even if they have thousands of hours of flight time. Humans make mistakes. Two, with every large scale failure, after the investigation, we learn how to prevent this type of failure in the future. Sometimes we have to write new standards. The safety measures put in place for outdoor stages are also to protect the audience/crew, not the show. If a show is a flop because of bad weather or something else out of control, then so be it; just as long as everyone goes home in one piece.


> This can not in the future be avoided by another standard. Perhaps for this company can have a new internal way of working that will avoid this happening again.
> 
> Asking how long a delay fuse you can have is like asking how long an extension cord you can have. Cut it shorter or longer. How long they normalay are depends on tradition. If you use a lot of Italian product such as roman candles it would make sense that they are at the longest point approxiamtly as long(in time) as the candle. Usually between 20 to 30s.



This is where I don't understand. When you guys are talking about fuses, I don't know the difference between what you are using and that on common fireworks sold to the public. When the system is automated, is it a different type of ignition system? When there are multiple fireworks that are set off with one cue, is it just different length fuse or is there some sort of timer that is triggered in the computer sequence that says fire off A then B then C when cue one is started? 

A new standard could be written if the old one is broken. However, if it can safely fail as this did, there may not be cause to find a different way to do it. I would think that the industry would want to potentially save a part of their show if they could somehow stop a sequence from continuing when it was accidentally triggered. Really, I am not being a troll here, just trying to understand.


----------



## CreativeSPFX

Wow. Seriously guys, this is making my head hurt. You don't know enough to even have this discussion, but are making some wild claims. 

With that said, I will continue to try and explain things and answer questions. At the same time, you really do need to take 10 steps back and understand about how the fireworks function prior to making claims on how to improve them. As San Tai said, there is NO safety violation or practice that would have prevented this.

1) The technical part of the press release doesn't make sense to those who know the firing system they were using. That's just not how it works. Files aren't merged together and the software didn't screw it up. The firing system manufacturer said he didn't even understand what they were actually saying. They edited their own file on site and didn't look at it before loading into the panel. No backup file like this would have messed it up, either. The error really was as simple and dumb as it gets. Think of a sound guy playing the wrong mp3 for a big event. All he had to do was listen to it before playing. Should the government require that all sound people now double check before hitting "play"? I realize it's not a good analogy, but work with me here...

2) Fuses. Have you ever bought a string of firecrackers? There is one ignition and then a fuse runs along the middle. Each firecracker individually has a fuse that touches the main run. Thus, you light the string and can't stop it until it burns out. The finale shells in a show are often stringed together (called finale chains). The end of the chain is lit by an electric match (ematch or igniter), and the entire chain goes. Sometimes these have delay fuses to maximize the time of the chain and might last up to 10 seconds or so.

They also had what are called "cakes." These are like the preloaded boxes you could buy at a fireworks stand. Once again, you light the fuse and it shoots a sequence of tubes internally. Once started, you cannot stop it. These typically last 5 to 30 seconds, but I've seen them last for up to 60 seconds. As San Tai said, a fuse can be as long as you want it to be...



ruinexplorer said:


> Since I don't know about the use of timed chains with delay fuses or standard quickmatch chains, how long of a sequence is standard for a single firing sequence? What I am trying to understand is with this accident which took over 30 seconds to fire all of the fireworks and all the sequences were triggered to start at once, how long of a chain can be set for a single trigger? How do these sequences get their commands in a system like this? Does it send one command to a single electronic match which in turn triggers additional matches (or equivalent) or are they set up like an effect sequence where you have a start command for the effect, but then there are individual steps in that effect which are individual commands?



You're overthinking it. Read above on chains. One end is lit, and the the fireworks go. Although this doesn't sound safe because you don't have control, it's been this way forever. It's just how fireworks are made. Don't tell us that it needs to change because it won't. That would be like the government outlawing par cans. They're THAT common. 


ruinexplorer said:


> I disagree that they only needed to have the last paragraph in their explanation of how events occurred. I think that it was very upstanding of them to disclose everything that they did. I don't think that we can come to begin to understand everything that goes in to putting on a show like this. By only putting in "it was human error" is like saying that everything that occurred last summer in Indiana was that there was a wind storm. We belittle ourselves to say that we can boil down a situation to something so simplistic and thus perpetuate to the public that what we do is simple as well. Sure, it was an avoidable error. I believe that this company will probably help set the standard to make sure that this error is not repeated, especially on this caliber.



I was agreeing with everything until the last sentence. It's like you guys want there to be more to the story than there is. Again, they made a very simple (and dumb) mistake. I was sure it wouldn't have been this simple, but I was wrong. Point is, there isn't going to be some new "standard" or ensuring this won't ever happen again. People will always accidentally push a wrong button or make a dumb mistake.


DuckJordan said:


> actually, a standard of checking your control program (which in this case fired both the backup and the main file) would be needing to be in place. they checked the main file, and they checked the backup, but failed to check their launch program. it can, so when you tell us no it can't. I claim bull honky.
> 
> As for safety measures, the show didn't stop as soon as they knew something was wrong. Hence safety wasn't enacted. They also fired 5 mins early. So it may not have been all clear. Safety was breached although it was fortunate no one got hurt. This could have ended very differently.



I agree, everyone should check their program before loading it. It goes without saying. There won't be a government standard enacted for that. Internally, yes, they need to figure something out. Not sure what you mean by "it can, so when you tell us no it can't. I claim bull honky." You can check the program. I don't think anyone said you can't?


ruinexplorer said:


> This is where I don't understand. When you guys are talking about fuses, I don't know the difference between what you are using and that on common fireworks sold to the public. When the system is automated, is it a different type of ignition system? When there are multiple fireworks that are set off with one cue, is it just different length fuse or is there some sort of timer that is triggered in the computer sequence that says fire off A then B then C when cue one is started?



It's different than what's sold to the public but same principle. On professional shells, the "fuse" is called quickmatch which burns approximately 70 feet/second. There are also fuses that can be inserted between pieces of quickmatch to make each shell last a little longer. These are called time delay chains. Although a chain of shells is lit, the entire sequence to shoot all shells may last 5-10 seconds. Very popular in Europe. When fireworks are lit electronically, it doesn't matter what type of system is being used. The underlying idea is the same to pop the electric match. At "0" every single e-match in the show fired at once. All effects then shot. Some lasted longer than others. It's that simple.


ruinexplorer said:


> A new standard could be written if the old one is broken. However, if it can safely fail as this did, there may not be cause to find a different way to do it. I would think that the industry would want to potentially save a part of their show if they could somehow stop a sequence from continuing when it was accidentally triggered. Really, I am not being a troll here, just trying to understand.



Yes, we all know a new standard COULD be written but nothing is broken. What would it say? Look at your firing script prior to loading into the panel. Everyone does this, someone forgot to. A new standard won't fix someone taking a shortcut and messing up their show.

Please ask questions, then make suggestions. It's hard to even discuss because you're making demands for more safety and better standards before you know how things work. Hopefully the above makes it easier to understand what happened. If not, I'm happy to keep answering questions


----------



## cpf

Since procedural mistakes happen, could the firmware in the firing system perform an integrity check on the timeline it is given, forcing the user to review flagged areas with unusual cue density, duplicated cues, etc? 

Or would that produce too many false positives that operators would just skip through it...


----------



## CreativeSPFX

cpf said:


> Since procedural mistakes happen, could the firmware in the firing system perform an integrity check on the timeline it is given, forcing the user to review flagged areas with unusual cue density, duplicated cues, etc?
> 
> Or would that produce too many false positives that operators would just skip through it...



Good thoughts. It's been discussed and would be completely up to the firing system manufacturer. It's one of those cases that most don't see the need for a "fix." It was an honest mistake on the user. There's only so much you can do to help that. Sometimes you do intend to shoot all cues at once for particular effects. It would be hard for the computer to know the human intention.

It should be noted that this firing system is arguably the most widely used in the word. Shooting several shows a night, year round. This was a small, but dumb, mistake but happened to be on a big show. Just because it was on a big show doesn't mean things have to change. In fact, the firing system performed as it should (and pretty well being able to shoot so many cues at once). I'm sure this has happened before, but nobody knows because it wasn't a large public show. If this was happening regularly, the industry would cry out for a fix.


----------



## DuckJordan

okay, now that we are understanding it a bit more, What about the electronic fuses? I've seen quite a bit of them. Sure they are a bit more expensive, but seem to have much more control. I was more saying a standard could be written for the above. I wasn't expecting a government mandate standard, but rather an industry wide. Similar to my area when anyone is working overhead, its not mandated that we lay down carpet under the work area (on the grid) but we do it because it helps prevent pins, shackels, and other hardware and tools from falling down below the grate.


----------



## CreativeSPFX

I'm not sure what you mean by electronic fuse? An ematch (electric match or igniter) creates a small spark when it receives electricity from the firing system. They were using these...It's the only option when firing electronically and they are the standard...


----------



## DuckJordan

couldn't you place those directly in the charge, or shell? I know there is at least one manufacturer placing an wirelessly controlled e match in their shells to time the explosion right at the set time instead of relying on a "analog" fuse.


----------



## CreativeSPFX

They were placed on the shells. For some items one ematch is used (chains and cakes). I'll use the firecracker example again. If I wanted to light firecrackers electronically (and I have), I use one ematch for a roll of 16k. You're suggesting the equivillant of placing an ematch on EVERY single 16,000 firecrackers. Not gonna happen 

A finale chain consists of multiple shells fused together. You light the single fuse and all others are fired at that point. For example, you might only fire off 80 ematches in a finale, but light 900 shells at once. Those chains might have time delay fuses which will take each chain 2-10 seconds to finish.

Couple things about the timed shells...

You wouldn't control each individual shell in a finale, only the main body.

Yes, there is a manufacturer who had been working on a remote burst charge. That's another technology in itself. No standard firing system can control that. BUT, think of what that means...shell goes up, shell must receive a wireless command to burst. What if it doesn't get the command, what if it is delayed (and comes back down, then bursts). Way more issues with that.

There's nothing wrong with the pyrotechnic fuse that connects chains. That's just how finales and other items are fired and always have been.


----------



## CreativeSPFX

I really didn't want to post this video, but this probably shows it better than anything. This is not me, my company, or my video. Safety is a little lax in my opinion. They were doing a demonstration for employees. Not using this as a safety video, so don't address that. Just showing you what chains look like.

Here's what you'll see:

Guy manually lights string of quickmatch (fuse) and it hits the chain (see how fast that quicmatch goes!). The firing of the chain takes a lot longer than normal. Typically, as soon as the chain lights, the shells start to launch. 

Long Quickmatch to Fireworks Finale Chain - YouTube


----------



## ruinexplorer

Again, I did not make myself quite clear enough. When I was mentioning that Garden State would help set the standard, that was not to be meant that they would help write the government standard, but set precedent in the industry. Similarly we have precedents which are "standard" in practice as a good thing to do to make sure things go right.

Based on what you are saying in how the controller works, no amount of additional ematches would have changed a thing except possibly making the whole thing fire even faster. Since the ematch is triggered by timecode and all timecode was set to fire the same time, then having more ematches in replacement of chained fuses would have resulted in a shorter show. The only way to prevent that, with the addition of ematches and shorter chains, would be to have the time code trigger some other series of commands (call it a sub-timecode) where that would take the place of the series of fuses. 

I'm not trying to change your industry. That is up to you and others with your expertise if you see the need. I don't believe that just because something has always been done some way that it is necessarily the best way that it can be done. I also don't think the remotely detonated burst is a good idea either (I would be sweating bullets using that one). 

I'm glad that we can discuss this now and not think that there are ill intentions. The sad part of the written word is that it is difficult to understand the true meaning without body language and verbal tone. I might try to use more emoticons when I am being sarcastic and it isn't evident.


----------



## CreativeSPFX

ruinexplorer said:


> Again, I did not make myself quite clear enough. When I was mentioning that Garden State would help set the standard, that was not to be meant that they would help write the government standard, but set precedent in the industry. Similarly we have precedents which are "standard" in practice as a good thing to do to make sure things go right.



No worries. Garden State followed all industry practices and procedures. They just made a dumb errror in the process. Difficult to prevent the type of mistake they made. It's more of a company by company procedure. Think of it as more of a typo. Sometimes people will make mistakes.


ruinexplorer said:


> Based on what you are saying in how the controller works, no amount of additional ematches would have changed a thing except possibly making the whole thing fire even faster. Since the ematch is triggered by timecode and all timecode was set to fire the same time, then having more ematches in replacement of chained fuses would have resulted in a shorter show.



Yes. Almost correct. Timecode is just a time base. It's used to sync multiple computers to a precise frame in time. The computer then was told at "0" to fire everything. The computer sends firing commands and sends the electricity to pop the ematch. The timecode just keeps it all in sync.


ruinexplorer said:


> The only way to prevent that, with the addition of ematches and shorter chains, would be to have the time code trigger some other series of commands (call it a sub-timecode) where that would take the place of the series of fuses.



You lost me...


ruinexplorer said:


> I'm not trying to change your industry. That is up to you and others with your expertise if you see the need. I don't believe that just because something has always been done some way that it is necessarily the best way that it can be done. I also don't think the remotely detonated burst is a good idea either (I would be sweating bullets using that one).



Oh I'm 100% with you on not doing things because they've always been done that way. In fact, that's a main principle that I founded my company on. I've witnessed too many dumb things. However, some things are likely to never change such as how effects are constructed.


ruinexplorer said:


> I'm glad that we can discuss this now and not think that there are ill intentions. The sad part of the written word is that it is difficult to understand the true meaning without body language and verbal tone. I might try to use more emoticons when I am being sarcastic and it isn't evident.



I'm with you and I can see you're catching on. I'm sure you have good ideas, but you needed to know how it works before making suggestions on what needs to be fixed.


----------



## ruinexplorer

Sorry I lost you. What I meant is that a possible solution to a potential uncontrolled long chain (more than say a 10 second chain) would be a different way of controlling a long sequence. Let me put it in a lighting term. We have a cue stack for an entire show. Granted, this is usually a manual cue to cue, but sometimes there is a timecode which drives them. However, we also have things like effects (think chase sequence) which is essentially often built like another cue stack within the main cue stack, which is independent of the main cue stack. An effect could potentially be stopped even when the rest of the cues continue to progress (in case of some need like a bad moving light). I guess I don't totally understand how you are using timecode to build the sequences/fire effects. To me it sounds as if it is being used only to trigger a cue stack (i.e. when you get to X time, fire A, B, and C matches which are fused to fireworks 1-25).


----------



## CreativeSPFX

Still not getting the comparison. It's just so difficult to compare burning fuse and lights that use cables. 

Timecode is just audio beeps and clicks that a computer can read to get a time from. It's totally independent from the firing commands.

A firing system has script installed that says fire X at Y time. If the firing system is being fed timecode via audio cable it will listen for timecode and use that for it's time base. The alternative is just to hit "fire" and start the show using an internal timer.

If it was a single barge out in the water, they wouldn't need timecode. They would just hit "fire" and start the show. Since multiple barges were used, they had one timecode track that was broadcasted via radio and each firing system picked up on it. That's how you can ensure multiple systems are firing simultaneously to 1/100th of a second. It would be impossible to have 5 operators all hit "fire" at the same time.

What is it that you specifically think should be changed?


----------



## ruinexplorer

OK, so you are using timecode the same way a lighting console would. So, ignore that. I understand that there's a difference between a fuse and a light with a cable, but what I am driving at is how the command to light/turn on is initiated.

What I would like to understand then is the firing sequence. Let's go by a single barge with a single operator. If this show was a single barge, would there still have just been one fire command for the entire show or would an operator send a command at the start of each song or how does that work? Say I am lighting a dance piece (multiple lighting cues based on music). Since the music is a set time and I know that the lights should always look the same, night to night, I could easily link all of my cues together so that the lights will all change throughout the number. On some beats of music I might have a bunch of lights flash, on another could be a rapid chase, and at the end of the piece is a complex movement of moving light cues. This is done by building cues and effects (triggered by a cue) which are sequenced by a follow (waits and delays) and different things happen due to different commands.

So, if I have this same set-up with fireworks, as I understand it, you have a computer which is preset with an individual timeline (not timecode) for a song where at a certain time from initiation, a match is lit which the fuse may go to one firework (mortar, cake, or whatever) or that fuse may be a sequence of fireworks (one match for multiple charges). The second one is essentially what I am calling an effect on the lighting console except that you cannot stop that effect once it has begun. 

What I don't understand is if you can have a sub-set of cues instead of using a long fused effect? Up until this failure, there definitely hasn't been a need, and there may not be a need, I'm not going there. Maybe you could direct me to an online manual for this type of firing system and I could get my answer that way, or at least better phrase it for you to answer my question.


----------



## CreativeSPFX

ruinexplorer said:


> OK, so you are using timecode the same way a lighting console would. So, ignore that. I understand that there's a difference between a fuse and a light with a cable, but what I am driving at is how the command to light/turn on is initiated.
> 
> What I would like to understand then is the firing sequence. Let's go by a single barge with a single operator. If this show was a single barge, would there still have just been one fire command for the entire show or would an operator send a command at the start of each song or how does that work? Say I am lighting a dance piece (multiple lighting cues based on music). Since the music is a set time and I know that the lights should always look the same, night to night, I could easily link all of my cues together so that the lights will all change throughout the number. On some beats of music I might have a bunch of lights flash, on another could be a rapid chase, and at the end of the piece is a complex movement of moving light cues. This is done by building cues and effects (triggered by a cue) which are sequenced by a follow (waits and delays) and different things happen due to different commands.



No waits or delays. The computer doesn't care what it shoots. Through complex scripting programs, you design a show and it exports a file that is then imported into the firing console/firing system. So the script might look like:

FireTime....Module....Pin
02:15.231...1..........23
02:15.231...2..........23
02:17.108...1..........28
02:19.000...9..........29
03:15.125...4..........03
Etc. for hundreds or thousands of cues potentially

Module is a grouping of individual terminals. Multiple ematches can be fired on a single pin/output. The operator is just monitoring the sequence that is preprogrammed on a computer-fired show.

I'm told the issue was that all of those fire times were at 00:00.000


ruinexplorer said:


> So, if I have this same set-up with fireworks, as I understand it, you have a computer which is preset with an individual timeline (not timecode) for a song where at a certain time from initiation, a match is lit which the fuse may go to one firework (mortar, cake, or whatever) or that fuse may be a sequence of fireworks (one match for multiple charges). The second one is essentially what I am calling an effect on the lighting console except that you cannot stop that effect once it has begun.



I think we're on the same page. A match lights a pyrotechnic fuse. That fuse burns instantly on a single shell or longer to light multiple effects.

Details but while we're talking terminology, mortar= the HDPE (not PVC!) tube and the shell is the actual firework that is lit. The shell launches from the mortar.


ruinexplorer said:


> What I don't understand is if you can have a sub-set of cues instead of using a long fused effect? Up until this failure, there definitely hasn't been a need, and there may not be a need, I'm not going there. Maybe you could direct me to an online manual for this type of firing system and I could get my answer that way, or at least better phrase it for you to answer my question.



I have no idea how many cues, but our average July 4th shows had around 576 cues in the 20 minute show. Most had a different time base, some were meant to fire simultaneously. I would have had the same issue if all of my 576 cues were programmed to shoot at 00:00.000. While the manual isn't posted online, you can read more at Welcome to FireOne™ - The Photoshop(r) of the Fireworks Industry!

Chains, cakes, candles, and a slew of other effects have internal fuses that cannot be stopped once fired by the one and only fuse on them. That's just how they're made and come that way from the Chinese (or other) manufacturers. It's just not seen as a safety issue in the industry.

Putting ematches on EVERY single effect or shell would be like saying, you now need to run straight runs of DMX cable to each lighting fixture instead of being able to daisy chain them. Consoles would need hundreds of DMX outputs and all lighting installs would need a LOT more cable. Talk about a nightmare (financially and logistically).

I will say that none of these effects are used indoors or in theater applications. It's just outdoor aerial displays. Much different set of rules for indoor.


----------



## ruinexplorer

> I will say that none of these effects are used indoors or in theater applications. It's just outdoor aerial displays. Much different set of rules for indoor.


I understand this which is why I am trying to grasp at what you do. 
I also understand about the effects with internal fuses. That's kind of like the consumer grade fountains, one fuse, many effects.

I'm sure that I'll come back with more questions after I have time to digest the website you posted.


----------



## CreativeSPFX

Ask away. I do indoor and outdoor shows. I'm happy to help and answer questions. You'll be an expert by the end of this thread!


----------



## ruinexplorer

So, this is much more of a simplistic system than I imagined. It essentially is a computerized pinboard.

OK, so a lot of my previous thoughts couldn't help without a major redesign. It almost seems archaic when I think about the complexity of the events. Then again, when I'm thinking timelines, I am thinking non-linear video editing. This is more like cutting and splicing film (linear editing) like we did back in the day. 

So, what do you use for indoor shows? How does it compare to this type of firing controller?


----------



## CreativeSPFX

Glad you took a look. They really don't need to be complex. Simple = better. Less to go wrong. You can pop an ematch with a 9v battery. Most poeple have the theory of, only use a computer when it's necessary. To some degree, in our business, it's a selling point to say your system has been out X years and hasn't changed much. Firmware updates, and constant improvements aren't really seen as a great thing most of the time. Most want a system that's been out there, not messed with, and field tested/used for years.

Also, keep in mind this is one of dozens of different firing systems out there, but they all do the same thing at the end- just provide power to the specific output pin at a given time.

The issue in San Diego was on the same level as someone pushing the wrong button. You're just not going to prevent something like that. (Maybe a static shock to the user? Just kidding). This is professional equipment for professionals. They should just know how to use it.

Indoor or outdoor, it doesn't matter. You're still just providing current. Not all outdoor shows need a computer system, and not all indoor shows do. Just depends on the needs of the show. There are a lot of wireless options available, as well. If it's electronically fired, you need a firing system. In the end, it doesn't matter which one you want to use as long as it gets the job done. I know people who use FireOne even if they want to shoot just one effect for something. Is it overkill to use such a big/expensive system for one cue, probably, but that's the system they like the most and feel most comfortable with.


----------



## Les

CreativeSPFX said:


> I will say that none of these effects are used indoors or in theater applications. It's just outdoor aerial displays. Much different set of rules for indoor.






ruinexplorer said:


> So, what do you use for indoor shows? How does it compare to this type of firing controller?



Sorry to dredge this thread back up, but I thought I'd answer the question that ruinexplorer asked.

When CreativeSPFX mentioned a different set of rules, it was in relation to the products used; the controllers are the same. On an outdoor aerial show, things can be chained together and often are. On an indoor show, both the product is different (rated for indoor, proximate use) and every individual effect is e-matched. This would allow you to stop firing at any time. Sure, a command could still be set to "fire all effects at once", but you wouldn't have the "runaway" situation that happened on the San Diego show.


----------

