Advertisement
I previously posted this statement, and didn't get any response. It may have gotten buried in inter-personal stuff going on in that thread. But I think this is an extremely important topic (Thanks Roger, for bringing it up in your original thread) so I'm reposting.
Please respond to these *issues*:
Before we get into specifics, evaluating each individual practice and tool, I want to look at the general framework.
I think that acknowledging the reality that there are widely differing levels of safety precautions being taken now is an excellent place to start.
I agree with Roger, that there are varying levels that are appropriate to different situations. Fire codes already acknowledge this, to some degree. They make a big distinction between indoor and outdoor venues/spaces.
I agree with Temple about the point system idea - I think its too complicated to be practical in day-to-day use. Something simpler may do the job.
Grouping practices according to environment seems to be the best reflection of what we actually do, and I think its a sound approach that could be compatible with existing fire codes.
I see four possible classes of safety precautions. In descending order:
1) performing with audience - indoor venue
2) performing with audience - outdoor venue
3) practicing/jamming with no audience but fellow pyros & other qualified safety crew - ie fire family
4) practicing/testing in "safe zone" - no vegetation/burnable materials of any kind within 6 meters/20 feet - beach/salt flat/asphalt/qualified shop space.
- class one and two are basically the way most fire codes make their distinctions already.
- class four is pretty much anything goes - these are our opportunities to experiment with those new tools, partner routines, etc before we take them into higher safety zones.
It is the performer ’s responsibility to take into account -and predict - changing conditions. ie if you light up your tool or contraption in a safe zone, but it happens to be on a public beach and you know theres going to be an audience gathered around by the time you finish your burn (as is virtually unavoidable - people love fire!) the presence of an audience –paying or not - has bumped you up to class 2). Therefore, you can either observe class 2) practices to begin with, or if you want to be able to do class 4) stuff, get a half dozen of your friends to maintain that six-meter/twenty-foot radius perimeter, which keeps you in class 4).
We might even be able to simplify further, and combine class 2 and 3, which would make it all easier to remember, and perhaps an easier to sell to public safety officials.
what do you all think? four classes, three classes, or something different?
Please respond to these *issues*:
Before we get into specifics, evaluating each individual practice and tool, I want to look at the general framework.
I think that acknowledging the reality that there are widely differing levels of safety precautions being taken now is an excellent place to start.
I agree with Roger, that there are varying levels that are appropriate to different situations. Fire codes already acknowledge this, to some degree. They make a big distinction between indoor and outdoor venues/spaces.
I agree with Temple about the point system idea - I think its too complicated to be practical in day-to-day use. Something simpler may do the job.
Grouping practices according to environment seems to be the best reflection of what we actually do, and I think its a sound approach that could be compatible with existing fire codes.
I see four possible classes of safety precautions. In descending order:
1) performing with audience - indoor venue
2) performing with audience - outdoor venue
3) practicing/jamming with no audience but fellow pyros & other qualified safety crew - ie fire family
4) practicing/testing in "safe zone" - no vegetation/burnable materials of any kind within 6 meters/20 feet - beach/salt flat/asphalt/qualified shop space.
- class one and two are basically the way most fire codes make their distinctions already.
- class four is pretty much anything goes - these are our opportunities to experiment with those new tools, partner routines, etc before we take them into higher safety zones.
It is the performer ’s responsibility to take into account -and predict - changing conditions. ie if you light up your tool or contraption in a safe zone, but it happens to be on a public beach and you know theres going to be an audience gathered around by the time you finish your burn (as is virtually unavoidable - people love fire!) the presence of an audience –paying or not - has bumped you up to class 2). Therefore, you can either observe class 2) practices to begin with, or if you want to be able to do class 4) stuff, get a half dozen of your friends to maintain that six-meter/twenty-foot radius perimeter, which keeps you in class 4).
We might even be able to simplify further, and combine class 2 and 3, which would make it all easier to remember, and perhaps an easier to sell to public safety officials.
what do you all think? four classes, three classes, or something different?
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Different Standards II
Tue, December 16, 2003 - 11:39 PMJ V -
I think combining them into three classes is most practical. Easier to remember, and takes into account that people are like moths... Might as well plan for this.
Great work, BTW. Thanks for taking the time and effort to do this! I thank you, and my firemates thanks you.
+kenrom-
-
Re: Different Standards II
Mon, December 29, 2003 - 10:07 AMI think classes for what we do is to confusing.But I do agree two classes would work but name them
class 1 doing fire safely
class 2 getting turned into an ember
Your are correct about being inside or outside being different
as far as we handle our fuels check our gear have knowagleable
safety people that shouldnt change weither we are inside or out.
You are going to take the same precautions about your burn area
(stage) weither your in side or not checking to make sure nothing under,over,right ,left ,front,back will or could catch fire.
Now practice Jams at a beach are a whole different story for one you have a bunch of people doing things their way mostly unsafe(incluing me at times) and if your in a public place what right do you have to tell them to leave ? or who wants to be the asshole who runs them off?Most if shown the safe way will come around sooner or later. You also have very little or no crowd control.The great thing about spins jams is there are alot of expericaned fire people there who will know ( not needing to be told ) that something has gone wrong with a burn. It has taken me two years just to get our beach group to light up away from the fuel dump and to not smoke when dipping wicks.
I enjoy the beach cause the sand and nearby water affords me to get a little more loose with out worry of burning something or my self up.Prob just like any other group that spins in a place like that we get big crowds of people who have no idea the person in the middle of the fire cant see them.
The NPA 160 manual already has sugessted guide lines for what we are discussing here guide set by fire fighters ,pyro techs,
fire prevention ex-spurts.I know these people know a hell more about fire than me.Plus just about every fire law written for open flame acts in front of an audiance was taken from that manual.I know this manual can be downloaded on line some were for free.
I am a very black and white person either it is or it isnt my views have very little room for anything inbetwen at times this outlook make me a real ass to deal with.but im working on seeing gray
before any group or person trys to set guide lines I feel they also should think about the peoples outlook who they are offering these guides too.I dont know about the rest of you but I find fire people kind of live life to the beat of thier own drum.We just arent main stream people who dont likie to conform to any set guidelines and will work twice as hard to bend or break thoose guide lines myself included. but that is just my never humble opinon
-
-
Re: Different Standards II
Fri, February 6, 2004 - 5:21 PMThanks Kenrom - and Riz too!
Both kinds of feedback you've given are important here. this is what doing the hard work of consensus-building looks like.
Riz, you're right - there is lots of anarchistic energy flowing thru the fire scene - as it should be! But that doesn't mean we can't make a difference.
If a continent-wide guild has done the work to earn the respect and consensus of the community, then its words will hold weight, and then it won't take two years just get your peeps to light up away from the fuel. One person convincing 20 people of something is an uphill climb. but if even five are all saying the same stuff, same message - especially if they are the five most experienced, amazing dancers - chances are that most if not all of the group will go in the right direction from the start. This is a big part of what a guild is for.
> The NPA 160 manual already has sugessted guide lines for what we are discussing here guide set by fire fighters ,pyro techs, fire prevention ex-spurts.I know these people know a hell more about fire than me.
They may know more about fire in general than you but they don't have anything like the hands-on experience with fire tools and situations that we as a group do. Even though this group is still just getting started, it already has assembled - perhaps for the first time - many of the most experienced leaders of our field from every major fire center in the US & Canada (and some distinguished observers from other continents).
There is a good reason for them to listen to us.
There is also a good reason for us to speak.
We in California recently received another reminder: if we do not speak from consensus, then someone else will speak for us without it.
Kenrom, I agree - three classes is probably as much as people can remember, and as much as we may realistically get fire depts to acknowldege, and maintains the broadest freedom for fire dancers.
But we've only heard from three people here. can we get some other opinions? -
-
Re: Different Standards II
Sat, February 14, 2004 - 11:46 AMI think at the end of the day you have to decide what the Guild is about... if it's only for professional performers, then that's what the guidelines will reflect -- tight fire safety standards needed to get permits. But there are a lot of amateurs - including some that perform occasionally at parties - who will take one look at very strict standards and decide that they are inconsistent with their experiences. What I want is an overall assessment of risks involved in different practices found in different situations (including casual beach burns and backyard gathertings). The Guild, if it's meant to be for professionals, may or may not be the best forum for this. Does that make sense? -
-
Unsu...
Re: Different Standards II
Sat, February 14, 2004 - 12:13 PMI agree with Roger!
We could debate back and forth on this one forever. We all live in different places and the standards are all different.
I've performed over 200 shows and it all comes down to this.
A. Have a trained spotter with you that you would trust not only your life- but the life of your audience with.
B. Know your fuels. When indoors act appropriately. Cut your fuels. Know how not to get a ton of smoke. Do not bring more than 1/8th of a cup of fuel on stage with you.
C. Know your venue. Know the owners of your venue. Work accordingly with them.
D. In indoor venues- less is more! Flaming hula hoops in a small club- fire breathing- even chains with kero I think are wayyyy tooo much in most indoor venues- save wherehouses. Indoor gear should be SPECIFICALLY designed for indoor venues! Gasses should be tweaked to produce less smoke!
I think all of this debate is actaully quite useless in the grand scheme of things right now- in LA at least. You can work and work with the LAFD all you want- but it still all comes down to a permit which costs hundreds of dollars. I've been permitted for larger scale events- and it is good to really know your equipment and safety techniques when this happens- which is rare. I can tell you that the LAFD is always very impressed that I have made all of my equipment and know it thoroughly as well as being a fuel expert- and that helps in the permit process.
If anything we need a friggin' union so that people can actually get paid what they are worth to do this stuff.
I have heard from more than one promoter about fire performers who are green and have undercut my price. The promoters usually always come back to me and pay up for the next show after dealing with a green performer who has made mistakes. The sad part is that sometimes a green or unsafe performer has made it impossible to do fire in certain venues ever again. This would be another thing a guild could help with.
Whenever someone asks me to teach them fire I let them know it is a solid commitment. That they will learn to put it out before lighting up, that they will learn how to make and maintain thier own equipment and that it is a real commitment.
That fire has gained so much popularity is great- and alot of people play with fire- but that does not make them professional performers.
A professional performer is someone who not only knows the basic fire safety- but is also prepared to deal with any kind of accident that could happen in a calm and professional manner.
xo-
Miss Satanica -
-
Re: Different Standards II
Thu, March 4, 2004 - 10:50 PMI like the idea of a fire performer's union, and I think that this guild is an extremely important step towards legitimizing a very new art form that is still viewed with suspicion by a wide segment of the general public.
I know that in SF you can't walk down the street without bumping into a fire performer and that all of those fire performers have different safety standards. As a venue I think that it must be very confusing when trying to book a fire performer--how do you know if the person you are getting is really safe and reliable?
Therefore, I think that the most important services that this guild can offer to members are 1) standardized fire safety regulations for performance settings, both indoor and outdoor, that comply with the fire marshall's standards and also include the accumulated wisdom represented by this experienced body of performers and 2) a certification process, by which a performer who is a guild member learns and agrees to comply with these regulations.
The guild would thereby be setting the bar for fire performers. It would give venues a light in the darkness when booking a fire act and perhaps, with time, performers could prove that fire performances can be professional and reliable and some of those ridiculous permit costs can go down a little bit.
Are there any written fire safety standards or guidelines out there that could be used as a starting point? They could be posted and debated. -
-
Re: Different Standards II
Fri, March 5, 2004 - 4:54 AMIf one of the roles of the guild is to assure a certain level of quality in performers, there should be a way for venues to complain about performers (a grievance process that includes both the performer and the venue) and a system through which members can be disciplined if they're found to have violated some rules? I mean what's to stop a performer from hurting the value of having the guild's stamp on a performance? -
-
Re: Different Standards II
Mon, March 8, 2004 - 7:42 PMGood point. There must be a model out there for this kind of thing that strikes that delicate balance between being a unifying factor for fire artists (an admittedly anarchic bunch) and being a policing force (horrible word, I know). This is going to require some infrastructure though, in order to investigate complaints in a fair way. Would guild members have to pay dues, as with actor's and musician's guilds? If so, what other benefits could they get. For instance, could there be some kind of group discount on insurance, should the performer want it. I know that insurance can cost a few pennies.
-
-
-
-
-
-
