When a production calls for a flying effect, the question put to administration is usually whether it can be done. It can. The more useful question is what conditions must be satisfied first, because performer flying is not comparable to other stage effects in either its consequence profile or its regulatory treatment.
A flying effect suspends a person. That distinction governs the equipment, the personnel qualifications, the structural review, the emergency planning, and the lines of authority required, none of which are satisfied by the presence of a functioning house rigging system.
The governing standard
ANSI E1.43 is the entertainment industry standard for performer flying systems, addressing design, manufacture, use, and maintenance. Its scope covers manually driven, mechanized, automated, and statically hung systems, and it applies whether the flight path is over the stage, offstage, or above the audience.
One exclusion deserves attention: the standard specifically excludes fall protection. Schools must therefore address worker-at-height hazards for staff and contractors separately, typically under OSHA fall protection requirements and the ANSI/ASSP Z359 family. Installation and operation of a flying system routinely involve work at height that the performer flying standard does not cover.
Where powered equipment is used, ANSI E1.6-1, addressing powered hoist systems, becomes relevant as well.
Why house rigging capability does not transfer
A well-maintained counterweight system indicates that the venue can suspend scenery within rated limits. Performer flying introduces requirements that system was not designed to satisfy: design review for human suspension, verification of structural attachment adequacy for dynamic human loads, equipment under controlled inventory with documented inspection history, operator training specific to the flying system, performer training, and a rescue plan for a performer stopped in mid-air.
The exposure also extends beyond the performer in the harness. Operators, other performers on stage, the overhead structure, and (where the flight path crosses the house) the audience are all within the affected zone.
Evaluating a vendor
Schools frequently ask vendors to supply “all certifications.” That request produces documents without producing a basis for comparison, because no single credential establishes that a vendor is suitable for student flying. A more useful approach evaluates several independent indicators.
Alignment with ANSI E1.43. The vendor should be able to state how its system and procedures conform to the standard, and where powered hoists are used, to ANSI E1.6-1.
ETCP participation. The Entertainment Technician Certification Program certifies technicians in categories including Theater Rigger and Arena Rigger, and maintains a directory of recognized employers and contractors. ETCP certification is not vendor approval for student flying, but it is among the strongest available indicators that personnel and their employer participate in an established credentialing system.
Documented operational procedure. This is the category that distinguishes vendors, and it is assessed by asking specific questions: Who designs the system for this venue? Who supervises flying during rehearsal and performance? Who trains the performers, and who trains the operators? How are harnesses inspected, and on what interval? What does the daily pre-flight check consist of? What is the rescue plan if a performer stops mid-air, and who executes it?
A vendor who answers these readily is describing an existing practice. A vendor who improvises answers is describing one that does not yet exist.
Structural and code considerations
Any permanent structural modification or new suspension point should be assumed to raise building code and inspection questions. In many jurisdictions, school facilities are subject to specific oversight arrangements, and work affecting building structure may require review by a delegated inspector or state authority. This should be established during planning rather than discovered during installation.
The administrative position
The recurring failure mode in educational theater is not a decision to fly students unsafely. It is the assumption that existing capability, whether a competent theater teacher, a cooperative facilities department, or an experienced local stagehand, is sufficient to assemble something workable. Performer flying requires a level of design review, equipment control, and documented training that generally exists only in organizations that specialize in it.
The defensible path is a qualified vendor, a documented plan, and an administration that understands which questions establish whether both are genuine.
Venue assessment
StageRight Services assesses venue structure, existing rigging, and suspension points, and documents the conditions relevant to evaluating a proposed performer flying installation.
Call (800) 792-0711 or request a quote.
Extended discussion is available at Entertaining Safety.
References
- Entertainment Services and Technology Association. ANSI E1.43, Entertainment Technology: Performer Flying Systems.
- Entertainment Services and Technology Association. ANSI E1.6-1, Entertainment Technology: Powered Hoist Systems.
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 29 CFR 1910.28, Duty to Have Fall Protection and Falling Object Protection.
- American Society of Safety Professionals. ANSI/ASSP Z359 Fall Protection Code.