Return-Path: X-Scanned-By: RAE MPP/Clamd http://raeinternet.com/mpp X-Scanned-By: This message was scanned by MPP Lite Edition (www.messagepartners.com)! X-Real-To: stagecraftlist [at] theatrical.net Received: by prxy.net (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 4.2.10) with PIPE id 25717484; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 03:01:08 -0800 X-ListServer: CommuniGate Pro LIST 4.2.10 List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Message-ID: From: "Stagecraft" Sender: "Stagecraft" To: "Stagecraft" Precedence: list Subject: Stagecraft Digest #599 Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 03:00:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on prxy.net X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.0.4 X-Spam-Level: X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.4f2 X-prxy-Spam-Filter: Scanned For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see --------------------------------------------------- Stagecraft Digest, Issue #599 1. Re: Rigging Certification by "Peter Scheu" 2. Re: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware by "Peter Scheu" 3. Re: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware by "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" 4. Re: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware by Bill Sapsis 5. Re: 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware by Stephen Litterst 6. Re: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware by "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" 7. Re: 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware by Bill Sapsis 8. Liability (was "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware) by "Peter Scheu" 9. Re: Rigging Certification by Jim Hyslop 10. Re: Rigging Certification by "Peter Scheu" 11. Re: 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware by "Peter Scheu" 12. Re: Rigging Certification by Jim Hyslop 13. Re: Rigging Certification by "Peter Scheu" 14. Re: 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware by Jim Hyslop 15. Rigging loads (was 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware) by "Peter Scheu" 16. Re: Rigging loads (was 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware) by Jim Hyslop 17. Re: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 18. Re: Walt Disney World Audio Visual Dept by Jason Tollefson 19. Re: Rigging Certification by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 20. Re: Walt Disney World Audio Visual Dept by Bill Sapsis 21. Re: Walt Disney World Audio Visual Dept by "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" 22. Re: 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 23. Re: Rigging Certification by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 24. Re: 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 25. Pardon my French - OT (was 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware) by "Peter Scheu" 26. Re: Walt Disney World Audio Visual Dept by Bill Sapsis 27. Re: Certification expanded by CB 28. Re: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware by CB 29. Re: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware by CB 30. Re: Got your 6 - Whole Nine Yards by CB 31. Re: Pardon my French - OT (was 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware) by "Steve B." 32. Re: Pardon my French - OT by "Peter Scheu" 33. Re: Controlling a Dove Dissolve Unit with something modern? by "Jon Lagerquist" 34. Re: Pardon my French - OT (was 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware) by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 35. Re: Pardon my French - OT (was 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware) by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com 36. Re: In reference to Rigging Certification. by Scott Parker 37. Re: buss/bus by "Bill Nelson" 38. Re: Finally colored bubbles..can fog be far behind? by StevevETTrn [at] aol.com 39. Re: Rigging Certification by StevevETTrn [at] aol.com *** Please update the subject line of your reply to use the subject *** line of the message you are replying to! Please only reply to *** one message subject in each reply. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: From: "Peter Scheu" Subject: RE: Rigging Certification Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 08:42:12 -0500 Organization: Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. Message-ID: In-reply-to: June Abernathy wrote: >Maybe modifying the qualifications to a more >generic "X number of years working as a stagehand" >might be better. Because proving anything else is >problematic.=20 June, I feel your pain. I really do. It must be extremely frustrating to feel like something you had no control over is now forcing itself upon = you. It's just that that horse left the barn almost 2 years ago back when = ETCP polled the industry and asked folks just like you what they thought = relevant rigging experience and knowledge should be. The responses (which were = many) led to the pre-testing qualifications as is now codified in the program. And I don't mean to use you as an example as I am sure your are a highly skilled, extremely dedicated, overworked and underpaid technician. But = there have been winds blowing in this industry for decades now, from ESTA, = USITT, IATSE, ASTC, IAAM, and many other of the alphabet soup groups out there, = to make our industry more "legit" (for the immediate lack of a better word, sorry). As Unkle Bill said (with a nod to the Beat Generation), you're either on the bus or off the bus... (would that be "buss" for the electricians?). So here's an object lesson to everyone else... This is real stuff that effects real people, like you. As David Byrne said, "This ain't no = foolin' around". Get involved. Now. Make your voice heard. Take ETCP's = Entertainment Electrician certification survey. Help make this industry a better place = to work and play. Go to http://etcp.esta.org/survey.php Peter Scheu Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. www.scheuconsulting.com Tel: 315.422.9984 fax: 413.513.4966 ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Peter Scheu" Subject: RE: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:03:46 -0500 Organization: Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. Message-ID: In-reply-to: Stuart Wheaton wrote: >If you use a chain (or whatever) within it's rated WLL, but >ignore the "Not for lifting" on the package, In the event of >failure, where does liability fall? Seems like the 'Not >for lifting' disclaimer might be trump card here. At the risk of sounding redundant, I refer back to my previous post: Different hardware manufacturers define "Not or lifting" or "Not for overhead use" differently. You need to verify the definition with the manufacturer, preferably in writing. According to one manufacturer I talked to years ago, the "Not for lifting" disclaimer on grade 30 proof coil chain meant it was not to be used through a chain hoist or over a sheave. The grade of steel used steel used won't take the wear. But such chain is perfectly fine for trim chains (as we commonly know them). We got that statement in writing. >Keeping as much distance between you and the liability >judgment sounds like the best reason to get and pay for the >stuff rated for overhead lifting. It won't keep you out of court. Nothing can prevent that. If you think you might sleep better at night if you do this, go for it. But it might be a serious waste of money for your client with no additional insurance that it will keep anyone out of the witness box. Bottom line is, design for the specific application, assume nothing, question everything, and keep detailed records. Oh, and stay current with your insurance premiums. Peter Scheu Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. www.scheuconsulting.com Tel: 315.422.9984 fax: 413.513.4966 ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" Cc: peter [at] scheuconsulting.com Subject: RE: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:07:45 -0500 Message-ID: <008401c5f1c9$9f3db8b0$6601a8c0 [at] Dell> In-Reply-To: > It won't keep you out of court. Nothing can prevent that. If > you think you might sleep better at night if you do this, go > for it. But it might be a serious waste of money for your > client with no additional insurance that it will keep anyone > out of the witness box. ...But might it not keep one from losing the suit? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:24:43 -0500 Subject: Re: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware From: Bill Sapsis Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On 11/25/05 9:07 AM, "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" wrote: > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see > --------------------------------------------------- > >> It won't keep you out of court. Nothing can prevent that. If >> you think you might sleep better at night if you do this, go >> for it. But it might be a serious waste of money for your >> client with no additional insurance that it will keep anyone >> out of the witness box. > > ...But might it not keep one from losing the suit? > It might, then again, it might not. Once you get into court all bets are off. Anything can, and probably will, happen. I have the same response that Peter does. The proof coil chain is part of a lifting system but it is not doing the lifting itself. The wire rope going around the loft blocks and headblock are doing that part. The chain merely connects the lift lines to the batten. And consider the alternative. The links on grade 80- alloy chain are so thick that you can't use an internal link. Nothing of substance will fit. So now you are back to using only the end links. That's fine but it negates using the chain as a true "Trim chain" because there's no adjustability if you are simply using the two end links of the chain. You might as well forget the trim chain entirely (saving yourself $8 or $9 in the process) and connect the lift line directly to the batten via a batten clamp. Zat help? Bill S. www.sapsis-rigging.com 800.727.7471 800.292.3851 fax 267.278.4561 mobile Join the Long Reach Long Riders on their 3rd annual cross country charity motorcycle ride. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:36:04 -0500 (EST) From: Stephen Litterst Subject: Re: 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware In-reply-to: Message-id: <1832.172.171.46.13.1132929364.squirrel [at] 172.171.46.13> References:

>> --------------------------------------------------- You might as well > forget the trim chain entirely (saving yourself $8 or $9 in the process) > and > connect the lift line directly to the batten via a batten clamp. But doesn't the batten clamp have a significantly lower rating? Steve Litterst ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" Subject: RE: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:36:24 -0500 Message-ID: <008701c5f1cd$9f932ee0$6601a8c0 [at] Dell> In-Reply-To: > > ...But might it not keep one from losing the suit? > > > > > It might, then again, it might not. Once you get into court > all bets are off. Anything can, and probably will, happen. I understand that, but tha analogy that comes to mind is: My wearing a seat belt won't keep me from getting into an accident (I live in the NYC area; what *could* keep me from getting into an accident?). It won't even guarantee that I'll survive an accident. ...But it makes my survival much more likely. I can imagine a lawyer asking, "So, Mr. Salzberg, if you ignored the manufacturer's recommendation concerning what you refer to as the 'trim chain', what else did you ignore?" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:00:51 -0500 Subject: Re: 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware From: Bill Sapsis Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On 11/25/05 9:36 AM, "Stephen Litterst" wrote: > But doesn't the batten clamp have a significantly lower rating? Clancy lists a recommended working load limit (RWL) for these clamps at 750 pounds. We have tested them at considerably higher than that. However, the 750 pound RWL is on a par with the wire rope when used with cable clips and, more importantly, it is higher than the RWL of the loft block. Ya gotta look at the entire system. Making judgments about individual elements is akin to taking a sentence in a paragraph out of context. Zat help? Bill S. www.sapsis-rigging.com 800.727.7471 800.292.3851 fax 267.278.4561 mobile Join the Long Reach Long Riders on their 3rd annual cross country charity motorcycle ride. ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Peter Scheu" Subject: Liability (was "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:06:37 -0500 Organization: Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. Message-ID: In-reply-to: >> ...But might it not keep one from losing the suit? >It might, then again, it might not. Once you get into court=20 >all bets are off. Anything can, and probably will, happen. Get intimately familiar with the concept of "shared liability regardless = of fault". First of all, you'll pay oodles to have your lawyer advocate for you = (notice I didn't use the word "defend'). Then you'll probably end up stuck with = a settlement negotiated between insurance companies based purely upon = _their_ willingness and ability to pay, not yours. These things rarely, if ever, = get to court. If they do, chances are the bill for your lawyers and expert witnesses could exceed the amount of your part of the judgment. And most = of the time, legal fees aren't covered by insurance. Back when I was ***** and stupid, I carried no E&O insurance whatsoever. = I actually had a lawyer agree that if I carried no insurance, and got = named in a suit, and the "fault" was clearly not mine, I'd be left relatively unscathed. No money (deep pocket) to offer. Now if the occurrence was my fault, I'd be out of business, but then, I'd deserve to be out of = business. Now I carry E&O, mostly because it's a contractual requirement in = agreements with architects and contractors. I guess you have to bring your own life preserver to the Titanic. My best insurance policy (which costs me = nothing) is knowing my own limitations. Peter Scheu Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. www.scheuconsulting.com Tel: 315.422.9984 fax: 413.513.4966 ------------------------------ Message-ID: <438729B7.1000206 [at] dreampossible.ca> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:11:51 -0500 From: Jim Hyslop Organization: Dreampossible Inc. Subject: Re: Rigging Certification References: In-Reply-To: Peter Scheu wrote: > June, I feel your pain. I really do. It must be extremely frustrating to > feel like something you had no control over is now forcing itself upon you. > It's just that that horse left the barn almost 2 years ago back when ETCP > polled the industry and asked folks just like you what they thought relevant > rigging experience and knowledge should be. The responses (which were many) > led to the pre-testing qualifications as is now codified in the program. Does the ESTA see this qualification as cast in stone? I'm not suggesting it should be changed frequently, or on a whim, but if it clearly needs fine-tuning then it should be fine tuned. > And I don't mean to use you as an example as I am sure your are a highly > skilled, extremely dedicated, overworked and underpaid technician. But there > have been winds blowing in this industry for decades now, from ESTA, USITT, > IATSE, ASTC, IAAM, and many other of the alphabet soup groups out there, to > make our industry more "legit" (for the immediate lack of a better word, > sorry). I applaud the efforts of ESTA. I have seen some questionable practises (not necessarily related to either rigging or safety) being taught at community colleges because the course was taught by someone with many years of experience - most or all of it on-the-job. Some kind of standardization is necessary. > As Unkle Bill said (with a nod to the Beat Generation), you're > either on the bus or off the bus... (would that be "buss" for the > electricians?). Nope - even electricians should talk about "a bus". "A buss" means "a kiss". The term bus, as applied to electricity and electronics, comes from the concept that a group of people travelling together travels on a bus; similarly, a group of electrical wires (or traces on a circuit board) "travelling" together is an electrical bus. And, BTW, the plural of "bus" is "buses", whether you're talking vehicular or electrical bus. > So here's an object lesson to everyone else... This is real stuff that > effects real people, like you. As David Byrne said, "This ain't no foolin' > around". Get involved. Now. Make your voice heard. Take ETCP's Entertainment > Electrician certification survey. Help make this industry a better place to > work and play. Go to http://etcp.esta.org/survey.php Is this survey open to professionals only, or would experienced non-professionals (e.g. community theatre) be allowed/invited to participate? -- Jim Hyslop ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Peter Scheu" Subject: RE: Rigging Certification Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:19:23 -0500 Organization: Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. Message-ID: In-reply-to: Jim Hyslop wrote: >Does the ESTA see this qualification as cast in stone? I'm not=20 >suggesting it should be changed frequently, or on a whim, but=20 >if it clearly needs fine-tuning then it should be fine tuned. Like everything, the program will be evaluated on a regular basis, I'm = sure. Making your voice heard directly to ETCP cannot hurt. >Nope - even electricians should talk about "a bus". "A buss"=20 >means "a kiss". My bad. Buss fuses, maybe? :-) >Is this survey open to professionals only, or would=20 >experienced non-professionals (e.g. community theatre) be=20 >allowed/invited to participate? It's open to everybody. Peter Scheu Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. www.scheuconsulting.com Tel: 315.422.9984 fax: 413.513.4966 ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Peter Scheu" Subject: RE: 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:26:52 -0500 Organization: Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. Message-ID: In-reply-to: Bill Sapsis wrote: >Ya gotta look at the entire system. Making judgments about=20 >individual elements is akin to taking a sentence in a=20 >paragraph out of context. Bill's spot on.=20 For example... In Clancy's catalog, a particular style of 8" loftblock = has an RWL of 700 lb. Assume I have a 7 line system. So I want a headblock = with an RWL of 3,500 lb (5 x 700, right?). But their standard 8 line 12" = upright headblock only has an RWL of 3000 lb. But my arbor only holds 1,500 lb. = Gee, guess that headblock's, OK, isn't it?=20 Qelle dilemma, n'est pas? Ya gotta think "system" and then make sure all = the parts of that system support the system requirements. Peter Scheu Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. www.scheuconsulting.com Tel: 315.422.9984 fax: 413.513.4966 ------------------------------ Message-ID: <43872E6A.7080505 [at] dreampossible.ca> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:31:54 -0500 From: Jim Hyslop Organization: Dreampossible Inc. Subject: Re: Rigging Certification References: In-Reply-To: Peter Scheu wrote: > Jim Hyslop wrote: >>Nope - even electricians should talk about "a bus". "A buss" >>means "a kiss". > > > My bad. It's become so common I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes the _de facto_ correct spelling. > Buss fuses, maybe? :-) Er, well, I can think of other things (and electricians) I'd rather buss... ;=) >>Is this survey open to professionals only, or would >>experienced non-professionals (e.g. community theatre) be >>allowed/invited to participate? > > > It's open to everybody. Oh, sorry, one other question - everybody everywhere, or everybody in the U.S.? -- Jim Hyslop ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Peter Scheu" Subject: RE: Rigging Certification Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:41:55 -0500 Organization: Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. Message-ID: In-reply-to: Jim Hyslop wrote: >Oh, sorry, one other question - everybody everywhere, or=20 >everybody in the U.S.? From the ETCP website: "The SMEs' first task is to develop a job task analysis survey which = will be sent to hundreds of entertainment electricians in the US and Canada." So, certainly from Canada as well, yes. But I'm pretty sure the survey = is open to anyone with a valid first and last name and e-mail address. = Obvious pranksters will be summarily ignored. ETCP certifications cover the US & Canada. So while anyone outside of = those countries can take the survey, I would think it would be of little (immediate) consequence to them. Peter Scheu Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. www.scheuconsulting.com Tel: 315.422.9984 fax: 413.513.4966 ------------------------------ Message-ID: <438737E3.6070605 [at] dreampossible.ca> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:12:19 -0500 From: Jim Hyslop Organization: Dreampossible Inc. Subject: Re: 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware References: In-Reply-To: Peter Scheu wrote: > Bill's spot on. > > For example... In Clancy's catalog, a particular style of 8" > loftblock has an RWL of 700 lb. Assume I have a 7 line system. So I > want a headblock with an RWL of 3,500 lb (5 x 700, right?). But > their standard 8 line 12" upright headblock only has an RWL of 3000 > lb. But my arbor only holds 1,500 lb. Gee, guess that headblock's, > OK, isn't it? I don't have any formal rigging training, so I want to make sure I understand you correctly (I _think_ I'm detecting some sarcasm there :-). Assuming you have a load of 1500 pounds, thereby filling the arbor to its capacity of 1500 pounds, it seems to me the headblock is not quite sufficient for the task, since we have to factor in the weight of the arbor and other hardware as well, making the total load well over 3000 pounds. Even if the 1500 pounds you mentioned includes the weight of the arbor, bringing the total weight to exactly 3000 pounds, I wouldn't feel comfortable constantly running a system at its rated maximum. So am I right in thinking this system needs a stronger headblock? In any case, I don't think you want me doing your rigging unless I get a lot more experience and training ;=) On the other hand, (as you hinted at in another message), I would not accept a position as a rigger, since I know that I don't know the correct answer to this. -- Jim Hyslop ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Peter Scheu" Subject: Rigging loads (was 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:54:47 -0500 Organization: Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. Message-ID: In-reply-to: Jim Hyslop wrote: >Assuming you have a load of 1500 pounds, thereby filling the=20 >arbor to its capacity of 1500 pounds, it seems to me the=20 >headblock is not quite sufficient for the task, since we have=20 >to factor in the weight of the arbor and other hardware as=20 >well, making the total load well over 3000 pounds.=20 Your underlying assumption about adding the load + counterload together = is what is flawed. Fortunately, in the right direction :-). Again, this = adds fuel to my argument about verifying directly with manufacturers about = what their RWL's, WLL's, etc., (and "not for lifting" statements) really = mean. I know that, having spoken to the folks at Clancy (and having been a designer there for many years in another life) and others, that = published RWL's on headblocks are based on typical, balanced systems. So assuming = that you need to add the 1,500 lb on the arbor side to the 1,500 lb on the = batten side to get the "total" load is incorrect. Again, one needs to go to the manufacturer to verify assumptions. Clancy, SECOA, & H&H have tried to = make it easy for us (and them). If you want a system with up to 3,000 lb of lifting capacity (in a "typical" system), simply use a headblock with a 3,000 lb RWL. But you might not have known that if you didn't ask them. So the 1,500 lb "capacity" system load on the headblock is well below = it's published 3,000 lb RWL. If you're using it in any other "non-typical" = way, another phone call is needed... Make sense? Peter Scheu Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. www.scheuconsulting.com Tel: 315.422.9984 fax: 413.513.4966 ------------------------------ Message-ID: <43874D5B.4020006 [at] dreampossible.ca> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:43:55 -0500 From: Jim Hyslop Organization: Dreampossible Inc. Subject: Re: Rigging loads (was 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware) References: In-Reply-To: Peter Scheu wrote: > Jim Hyslop wrote: > > >> Assuming you have a load of 1500 pounds, thereby filling the arbor >> to its capacity of 1500 pounds, it seems to me the headblock is not >> quite sufficient for the task, since we have to factor in the >> weight of the arbor and other hardware as well, making the total >> load well over 3000 pounds. > > > Your underlying assumption about adding the load + counterload > together is what is flawed. Fortunately, in the right direction :-). Yeh, I wasn't sure about that. On thinking about this further, it makes sense though. Thanks for the clarification and explanation. And as I said, I wouldn't take on a job like this precisely because there's so much I don't know. -- Jim Hyslop ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <288.705f14.30b8a7c2 [at] aol.com> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:45:38 EST Subject: Re: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware In a message dated 25/11/05 05:54:47 GMT Standard Time, sdwheaton [at] fuse.net writes: > If you use a chain (or whatever) within it's rated WLL, but > ignore the "Not for lifting" on the package, In the event of > failure, where does liability fall? Seems like the 'Not > for lifting' disclaimer might be trump card here. Curiosity has driven me into this thread. If not for lifting, or hanging, that what do you want chain for? Ignoring anchor chains, I can think of few other applications. Does "Not for lifting" mean that it's OK for straight suspension, but not for the dynamic act of lifting a load? Frank Wood ------------------------------ Message-ID: <20051125175623.6070.qmail [at] web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:56:23 -0800 (PST) From: Jason Tollefson Reply-To: jason [at] tollefsondesigns.com Subject: Re: Walt Disney World Audio Visual Dept In-Reply-To: Openings for the parks are posted on Disney's website and at the casting office. The entertainment travels to USITT and, I think, a few other trade shows for recruiting purposes. They don't do any heavy duty recruiting because, and this is purely personal opinion and speculation, Technicians are currently grouped in with other non-skilled employees as a member of the service trades council. As to why other locals aren't told of the openings, I have no idea. They may be. I've never been terribly impressed with our representation, a feeling which many other Disney Techs apparently share. There is a petition being made available right now to break off from 631 and form a separate union for just employees of Walt Disney World. Where that will end up is anybody's guess. I personally like my job. Others may have different opinions. I know it's not perfect but it's steady and interesting and pays enough so that my wife and I can pay our bills, have some fun and put a bit away for the future. That's pretty good if you ask me. Jason Tollefson > Where do they post their openings? > > If techs can be IA members, why aren't Business Agents of other locals told > of the openings? > > Or are the openings because of poor working conditions? > > Kristi ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <276.63e83b.30b8ab2b [at] aol.com> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:00:11 EST Subject: Re: Rigging Certification In a message dated 25/11/05 15:13:29 GMT Standard Time, theatre [at] dreampossible.ca writes: > The term bus, as applied to electricity and electronics, comes from the > concept that a group of people travelling together travels on a bus; > similarly, a group of electrical wires (or traces on a circuit board) > "travelling" together is an electrical bus. Strictly speaking, 'bus' is an abbreviated form of the Latin word, 'omnibus', which means 'for all'. The big things that clutter up cities were originally called a motor omnibus. The elctrical term is a shortened form of 'bus-bar', and usually means a solid piece of copper used in distribution systems for multiple connections at high currents. The derivation is the same. Frank Wood ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:12:55 -0500 Subject: Re: Walt Disney World Audio Visual Dept From: Bill Sapsis Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On 11/25/05 12:56 PM, "Jason Tollefson" wrote: > I know it's not perfect but it's > steady and interesting and pays enough so that my wife and I can pay our > bills, have some fun and > put a bit away for the future. That's pretty good if you ask me. Where do I sign up? Bill S. www.sapsis-rigging.com 800.727.7471 800.292.3851 fax 267.278.4561 mobile Join the Long Reach Long Riders on their 3rd annual cross country charity motorcycle ride. ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" Subject: RE: Walt Disney World Audio Visual Dept Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:17:50 -0500 Message-ID: <000e01c5f1ec$8ebb69b0$6601a8c0 [at] Dell> In-Reply-To: > On 11/25/05 12:56 PM, "Jason Tollefson" > wrote: > > > I know it's not perfect but it's > > steady and interesting and pays enough so that my wife and > I can pay > > our bills, have some fun and put a bit away for the future. That's > > pretty good if you ask me. > > Where do I sign up? You wanna pay Jason's bills? ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <296.2b445c.30b8af82 [at] aol.com> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:18:42 EST Subject: Re: 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware In a message dated 25/11/05 15:28:40 GMT Standard Time, peter [at] scheuconsulting.com writes: > Qelle dilemma, n'est pas? Ya gotta think "system" and then make sure all the > parts of that system support the system requirements. That's right, apart from the French bit, which should read "Quelle dilemme, n'est-ce pas". As with electricity, you have to consider the whole chain (sorry), from the anchor to the bar through all the wires, chains, shackles, blocks and so on right back to the final anchor point. In many ways electricity is easier, since you can and should fit fuses or circuit breakers to deal with overloads. Sometimes, it's harder. Picking the ratings for these so that only the right fuse blows is not an easy task, and is not always well done. I remember bench testing a 2KW HMI, which had been miswired, so as to put on a full live-to-neutral short in the second phase of the start sequence. I should say that we were in a temporary workshop at the time, during rebuilding. It took out the 15A fuse in the power supply, left four 13A BS 1362 fuses intact, on the four-way blocks wer were using, took out the 40A breaker which fed the workshop, and the 60A breaker behind that. Not a very good design, but few appreciate the problems. Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <271.890d2c.30b8b18e [at] aol.com> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:27:26 EST Subject: Re: Rigging Certification In a message dated 25/11/05 15:43:43 GMT Standard Time, peter [at] scheuconsulting.com writes: > ETCP certifications cover the US & Canada. So while anyone outside of those > countries can take the survey, I would think it would be of little > (immediate) consequence to them. I'm glad you put in the 'immediate'. The UK seems to be going down the road of increasing regulation, which you, in the US, have trodden before us. I think that this will shortly become academic for me. At 66+, it think it's about time I stopped being an active lighting rigger. But, I shall still design lighting, and focus it, and do safety inspections. Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <292.4bedbe.30b8b4e8 [at] aol.com> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:41:44 EST Subject: Re: 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware In a message dated 25/11/05 16:13:58 GMT Standard Time, theatre [at] dreampossible.ca writes: > Assuming you have a load of 1500 pounds, thereby filling the arbor to > its capacity of 1500 pounds, it seems to me the headblock is not quite > sufficient for the task, since we have to factor in the weight of the > arbor and other hardware as well, making the total load well over 3000 > pounds. Even if the 1500 pounds you mentioned includes the weight of the > arbor, bringing the total weight to exactly 3000 pounds, I wouldn't feel > comfortable constantly running a system at its rated maximum. So am I > right in thinking this system needs a stronger headblock? Factors of safety are better described as factors of ignorance. Doing an exact calculation of all the stresses in a structure is extremely difficult. So, you apply a fctor of safety/ignorance. This is why engineers have such a reputation for designing clunky structures. I do it myself, in electronics, sometimes. My defence is that they are safe, that they work first time, and that they are reliable. I ask no more. If you want to push the boundaries of technology, fine. I'll follow along when I know that it works. Frank Wood ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Peter Scheu" Subject: Pardon my French - OT (was 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:13:14 -0500 Organization: Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. Message-ID: In-reply-to: Frank Wood wrote: >> Qelle dilemma, n'est pas? Ya gotta think "system" and then make sure=20 >> all the parts of that system support the system requirements. > >That's right, apart from the French bit, which should read=20 >"Quelle dilemme,=20 >n'est-ce pas". Frank, I have to recognize when you are dead right about something. You = get so much grief from everyone about other stuff. You are of course spot on = the French. My high school foreign language skills are showing, and badly at that. You know, my late Dad was Swiss and spoke a least 4 languages fluently (German, Swiss-German, French & English) and was conversant in Spanish, Portuguese, with a smattering of Swahili (he worked for Nestle and often traveled to Africa to inspect cocoa plantations). My Mum was British = (now a naturalized US citizen), she spoke fluent French so she could work for Nestle in Switzerland in the 50's. As a US born and bred lad, I never = truly mastered French (at least the written part). Even my Swiss Grossmutti learned to be fluent in English when she was in her 50's. Hell, I've = barely mastered English! At least it's entertaining for the locals when I visit Paris or Geneva. Our foreign language skills here in the US are abysmal. And we are the = worse for it IMHO. My apologies for massacring a truly beautiful language. Peter Scheu Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. www.scheuconsulting.com Tel: 315.422.9984 fax: 413.513.4966 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:15:11 -0500 Subject: Re: Walt Disney World Audio Visual Dept From: Bill Sapsis Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On 11/25/05 1:17 PM, "Jeffrey E. Salzberg" wrote: > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see > --------------------------------------------------- > > >> On 11/25/05 12:56 PM, "Jason Tollefson" >> wrote: >> >>> I know it's not perfect but it's >>> steady and interesting and pays enough so that my wife and >> I can pay >>> our bills, have some fun and put a bit away for the future. That's >>> pretty good if you ask me. >> >> Where do I sign up? > > You wanna pay Jason's bills? > > Only if he'll pay mine. ------------------------------ Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20051125135426.00cec3c8 [at] pop.west.cox.net> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:54:26 From: CB Subject: Re: Certification expanded >Guess you didn't read your yellow card? *sigh* Yeah, I did, but what it says on paper and what happens in the real world (wherever that is) aren't always the same thing, and for them to be close we need someone at the table who has our back. Rumour was that that wasn't happening. Chris "Chris" Babbie Location Sound MON AZ Delete key training and post trimming done by appointment. Rates negotiable, will trade for typing lessons/ADD treatment... ------------------------------ Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20051125142056.00d79cc0 [at] pop.west.cox.net> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:20:56 From: CB Subject: Re: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware >I have purchased all kinds of fabrics for 4 decades >and have never been limited by 9 yard bolts. Chris "Chris" Babbie Location Sound MON AZ Delete key training and post trimming done by appointment. Rates negotiable, will trade for typing lessons/ADD treatment... ------------------------------ Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20051125142109.00cec3c8 [at] pop.west.cox.net> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:21:09 From: CB Subject: Re: "Not for Lifting" ratings on hardware >To keep your head >down and run away is a learned response. You have to practice it. I try to practice this very thing at least once a week. I have a tee tiome to go practice it again at ten tomorrow! Chris "Chris" Babbie Location Sound MON AZ Delete key training and post trimming done by appointment. Rates negotiable, will trade for typing lessons/ADD treatment... ------------------------------ Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20051125142319.00cec3c8 [at] pop.west.cox.net> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:23:19 From: CB Subject: Re: Got your 6 - Whole Nine Yards >I have purchased all kinds of fabrics for 4 decades >and have never been limited by 9 yard bolts. Belay my last, with my apologies. I don't know where the idea came up that the bolt was only nine yards. The legend has it that a great kilt is nine yards, and cheapskates will go with less. Only those committed to the cause will go the 'whole nine yards'... Chris "Chris" Babbie Location Sound MON AZ Delete key training and post trimming done by appointment. Rates negotiable, will trade for typing lessons/ADD treatment... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:16:31 -0500 From: "Steve B." Subject: Re: Pardon my French - OT (was 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware) Cc: peter [at] scheuconsulting.com Message-id: <002d01c5f20d$e379e3c0$6401a8c0 [at] SBFF> References: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Scheu" > Our foreign language skills here in the US are abysmal. And we are the > worse > for it IMHO. Nonsense I for one, am fairly fluent in "Brooklyn-ese". Example; "FUHGEDABOUTIT". Translates into: "Forget about it" For a perfect example of the various uses of this phrase, rent the movie Donnie Brasco Or "Tearder". Translates into "Theater". Or for FW - "Theatre". Then there's the Brooklyn Alphabet - "F _ _ _ _ N' A", F _ _ _ _ N' B", etc... Steve Bailey Brooklyn College ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: "Peter Scheu" Cc: sbmtbike [at] optonline.net ('Steve B.') Subject: RE: Pardon my French - OT Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:38:15 -0500 Organization: Scheu Consulting Services, Inc Message-ID: <000201c5f210$ed700ff0$ecfea8c0 [at] TOSHIBA> In-Reply-To: <002d01c5f20d$e379e3c0$6401a8c0 [at] SBFF> LOL!!! Touche! I lived in Brooklyn for a few years back in the late 70's. = Having lived in Queens (Forest Hills) until I was 7, I learned a different = dialect. Had to "relearn" the lingo for Brooklyn. Now, about those schmos in the Bronx... You know, the one who live "just = off the 'Kahn-Kass'" (Concourse) ;-) Peter Scheu www.scheuconsulting.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve B." Date: Friday, November 25, 2005 5:16 pm Subject: Re: Pardon my French - OT (was 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware) >=20 > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: "Peter Scheu" >=20 > > Our foreign language skills here in the US are abysmal. And we=20 > are the=20 > > worse > > for it IMHO. >=20 > Nonsense >=20 > I for one, am fairly fluent in "Brooklyn-ese". >=20 > Example; "FUHGEDABOUTIT". >=20 > Translates into: "Forget about it" >=20 > For a perfect example of the various uses of this phrase, rent the=20 > movie=20 > Donnie Brasco >=20 > Or "Tearder". >=20 > Translates into "Theater". Or for FW - "Theatre". >=20 > Then there's the Brooklyn Alphabet - "F _ _ _ _ N' A", F _ _ _ _=20 > N' B",=20 > etc... >=20 > Steve Bailey > Brooklyn College Peter Scheu Scheu Consulting Services, Inc. www.scheuconsulting.com=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve B. [mailto:sbmtbike [at] optonline.net]=20 > Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 5:17 PM > To: Stagecraft; peter [at] scheuconsulting.com > Subject: Re: Pardon my French - OT (was 'Not for Lifting'=20 > ratings on hardware) >=20 >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: "Peter Scheu" >=20 > > Our foreign language skills here in the US are abysmal. And=20 > we are the > > worse > > for it IMHO. >=20 > Nonsense >=20 > I for one, am fairly fluent in "Brooklyn-ese". >=20 > Example; "FUHGEDABOUTIT". >=20 > Translates into: "Forget about it" >=20 > For a perfect example of the various uses of this phrase,=20 > rent the movie=20 > Donnie Brasco >=20 > Or "Tearder". >=20 > Translates into "Theater". Or for FW - "Theatre". >=20 > Then there's the Brooklyn Alphabet - "F _ _ _ _ N' A", F _ _=20 > _ _ N' B",=20 > etc... >=20 > Steve Bailey > Brooklyn College >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 ------------------------------ From: "Jon Lagerquist" Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:16:08 -0800 Subject: Re: Controlling a Dove Dissolve Unit with something modern? Reply-to: jon [at] lagerquist.com Message-ID: <43872AB8.18834.2515ACDC [at] localhost> In-reply-to: References: <43859B9A.16193.1EFE888A [at] localhost> I posted the information I have for Gregg, and in case anyone else would like it, it is at http://lagerquist.com/avl > Now I am able to control the unit, do dissolves, > etc. The only thing I would like to get is either a manual for the Jon Lagerquist Technical Director [at] South Coast Repertory Costa Mesa, CA ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <226.277193b.30b8f795 [at] aol.com> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:26:13 EST Subject: Re: Pardon my French - OT (was 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware) In a message dated 25/11/05 19:14:57 GMT Standard Time, peter [at] scheuconsulting.com writes: > Our foreign language skills here in the US are abysmal. And we are the worse > for it IMHO. > > My apologies for massacring a truly beautiful language. Don't apologise, please. I happen to own a house in France, and need to be reasonably fluent in the language. Written as well as spoken, for arguing with contractors, and reading their estimates. Apart from Canada and Mexico, most of the US is a very long way from non-English speaking communitities. In the UK, they are rather nearer. I am disappointed that you didn't reply to the meat of my post, though. Perhaps you just agreed with all of it. Frank Wood ------------------------------ From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com Message-ID: <291.51ab0d.30b8faa5 [at] aol.com> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:39:17 EST Subject: Re: Pardon my French - OT (was 'Not for Lifting' ratings on hardware) In a message dated 25/11/05 22:18:53 GMT Standard Time, sbmtbike [at] optonline.net writes: > I for one, am fairly fluent in "Brooklyn-ese". > > Example; "FUHGEDABOUTIT". > > Translates into: "Forget about it" Dialects are difficult. Even more so when you try to write them down. The English alphabet doesn't lend itself to this. Take this example:- "Whisht, lads, haud yer gabs I'll tell ye aal an awfu' story. Whisht, lads, haud yer gabs I'll yell ye 'bout the wurm." This is as near as I can come to reproducing the Geordie dialect in print. It's a verse from a song of the region. At least I know the song. Interpreting their daily speech is far harder. Frank Wood ------------------------------ Message-ID: <90d9c9980511251751n67a65021la0f810eaad314e0 [at] mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:51:12 -0500 From: Scott Parker Subject: Re: In reference to Rigging Certification. In-Reply-To: References: Great list Chris... Question though: where does the person who figures all that Log. dB. and watts stuff fit in? Scott On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:09:40, CB wrote: > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see > --------------------------------------------------- > > >The "training program" for riggers at the building, I work most often, > >differentiates between "Riggers" and "Climbers." > > In sound it goes: > Sound Engineer > Sound Guy > Slider Rider > Girlfriend > Guitartist > Drummer > Mime > -- Take care, Scott =09Scott C. Parker =09Professor/Technical Director =09Dept. of Performing Arts =09Dyson College of Arts and Sciences [at] Pace University =09Office/shipping: 41 Park Row, 1205F =09Mailing: 1 Pace Plaza =09New York, NY 10038 =09212-346-1423 Fax: 914-989-8425 ------------------------------ Message-ID: <1208.208.51.52.91.1132977671.squirrel [at] webmail.peak.org> In-Reply-To: References:

Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:01:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: buss/bus From: "Bill Nelson" Regardless of the dictionary definitions - you will find that regulatory organizations use both "bus" and "buss", when talking about a common collector conductor, such as a "buss/bus bar". My copies of the NFPA/NEC codes are not handy at the moment, so I cannot check those sources. Bill ------------------------------ From: StevevETTrn [at] aol.com Message-ID: <68.62026f36.30b936f8 [at] aol.com> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:56:40 EST Subject: Re: Finally colored bubbles..can fog be far behind? Herrick writes: >But they can now make cool colored bubbles. Very fun. Also a feature article on this in the December 2005 issue of Popular Science. Could have a number of uses in entertainment. SteveV Orl, FL ------------------------------ From: StevevETTrn [at] aol.com Message-ID: <7d.75b498a1.30b94449 [at] aol.com> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:53:29 EST Subject: Re: Rigging Certification Jean writes: >And part of my .02 to the electrical certification >committee will DEFINATELY be that they should consider >different levels of certification, and consider >carefully what those are called. It just so happens that we DID definitely consider different levels. In rigging it ended up being two separate tests: one for "arena" and one for "theatrical" style riggers. By the way, a choice was made very early in our discussions to avoid dealing with job titles. These are just too varied from area to area (geographic, discipline, union, employer, historical, you name it). For electricians, we are leaning toward a tiered approach. Perhaps a basic knowledge section followed by up to three separate branches. One possibility would be to distinguish between the skills required to be a power distribution electrician and those needed to be a signal / data distribution electrician. One of the things we look at is the language in the NEC that specifies that certain tasks must be done by a "qualified person" and/or a "competent person." Our first mission is to create a certification to meet this requirement to the satisfaction of your local Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). The working group, of around 20 people, has created a rather comprehensive list of skills that someone needs to master. What we need now is the input of lots of people who actually do the work to gauge how important each skill may be out there in day to day practice. While your written comments to ESTA will be welcomed, your response to the survey will be more directly beneficial. Not only that, we welcome participation in the Essential Skills development process which will be a key component of the overall effort to raise the skill levels in the coming generation of stagehands / entertainment technicians / educators / volunteers / et.al. who come after us. Steve Vanciel ETCP Electric Skills Working Group member (& Rigging Group also) ESTA Essential Skills Working Group member Orlando, FL ------------------------------ End of Stagecraft Digest #599 *****************************