Hiring a Concert Rigger: Credentials, Load Plots and the Questions That Matter

Why a concert rigging contractor checklist needs four separate proofs

Promoters, venue managers and production buyers often want one reassuring document, such as a certificate, an insurance letter or a confident email, that proves the rig is safe. That shortcut is the core problem. A suspended concert installation depends on four different things. The first is the competence of the people doing the work. The second is the condition of the equipment. The third is the capacity of the structure being loaded. The fourth is a design that a qualified person has reviewed for this particular show.

These proofs do not substitute for one another. A very experienced rigger cannot make an undersized roof beam stronger. A freshly inspected hoist tells you nothing about whether the truss plan matches the venue drawings. A structural review of last year's design does not cover a video wall added this week. Treat each category as its own question, with its own evidence and its own responsible person.

• Personnel: who is doing the work, and does their credential fit it?
• Equipment: what records exist for the specific hoists, truss and hardware arriving?
• Structure: who has confirmed the building, roof or ground support can carry the loads?
• Design: which load plot is approved, and who approved it?

Arena versus theatre credentials: matching stage rigging qualifications to the work

The Entertainment Technician Certification Program (ETCP) describes separate arena and theatre rigger credentials. Its arena scope includes temporary suspension with chain hoists and truss [S1]. That distinction matters to buyers. A touring concert that hangs truss from motors in an arena or convention hall is a different job from operating a theatre's installed rigging system. If a contractor says the crew is ETCP certified, ask which credential each person holds and whether it matches the installation you are buying.

Keep the limits in mind. ETCP is an industry credential, not a blanket government license. A credential describes a person's demonstrated competence. It is not an engineering review of your design, so do not treat it as one. Some venues set their own rules for who may rig in their building. Ask the venue in writing what it requires, and compare that with the contractor's named personnel. Do not assume a credential satisfies a venue rule, insurer condition or local requirement unless the party that sets the rule confirms it.

• Request names and credential types for the lead rigger and key crew, not a general company claim.
• Verify credentials with ETCP directly instead of relying on a forwarded image.
• Ask the venue whether it requires a specific credential, house rigger supervision or both.

Rigging load plot approval and named structural responsibility

A load plot shows where each suspension point sits and what it is expected to carry. The usual danger is not the plot as first drawn. It is a plot that never caught up with reality. Lighting, audio, video and scenic vendors often send their weights separately, and banners or extra speaker hangs get added late. Ask for one coordinated plot that covers every department, and ask who keeps it current.

Then ask a separate question: who has reviewed the structure for these loads, and in what role? In one anecdotal Reddit thread, a venue worker asked how to assess a structure. Replies pointed toward qualified entertainment riggers and structural engineering rather than figures worked out online [R1]. That thread is not a standard, but the reasoning holds. Capacity is a structural question, and the person answering it should be named, qualified and accountable in writing.

• One plot that includes video walls, PA, lighting, scenic pieces and banners.
• A revision date and a named person who controls revisions.
• A named structural reviewer, with the scope of the review stated in writing.

Equipment records, method statements and lift plans

Ask for inspection and maintenance documentation for the actual lifting equipment coming to your show, such as chain hoists, controllers, truss sections and below-hook hardware. A generic company policy is not the same as records tied to specific units. The records should let you or the venue confirm that someone can identify the arriving gear and that it has been maintained. If you do not know which inspection interval or standard applies, ask the manufacturer or rental provider directly.

You should also request the contractor's method statement and any applicable lift plan. These are planning documents, and they are part of normal oversight. As a buyer, your role is not to judge or carry out the rigging technique yourself. Your role is to make sure the documents exist, match the approved plot, and are reviewed by qualified people, such as the venue's rigging representative or the structural reviewer. Gaps in these documents are a reason to pause and ask questions. They are not a cue to improvise.

Load-in control: exclusion zones, communication and change authority

OSHA, part of the US Department of Labor, publishes recommended practices for host employers, contractors and staffing agencies. These practices cover sharing hazard information, coordinating work and identifying responsible parties before contractors arrive [S2]. This is federal guidance. It does not replace venue rules or any state or city requirements where you work. It does give buyers a useful framework: decide in advance who controls what.

Before load-in, agree in writing on who supervises lifts, how exclusion zones under moving loads are set and enforced, how crews communicate during lifts, and who may authorize changes. That last point matters most. If a lighting crew chief, a video tech and a promoter representative can each approve an extra point, nobody really controls the rig. One named person, or a clearly defined chain, should hold change authority.

• A named lift supervisor and a backup.
• An agreed method for clearing and holding exclusion zones.
• A single change authority, documented before the trucks arrive.

When the site does not match the drawings

Set up an escalation route before anyone needs it. Common triggers include a supplied structure that differs from the drawings, a roof or ground-support system that is not what was submitted, and another vendor asking for an unplanned attachment. In another anecdotal Reddit thread, an outdoor video-wall setup led to disagreement about roof capacity, lifts and vendor timing. The discussion illustrated that opinions based on photos cannot verify structural safety [R2].

Your route should state three things. Work on the affected area pauses. The change goes to the named change authority. Anything that affects capacity goes back to the structural reviewer. Put this in the contract or production advance so nobody has to negotiate it under time pressure.

Hypothetical worked example: the late sponsor banner

This is a hypothetical example, not a real event. A mid-size outdoor festival hires a rigging contractor whose lead rigger holds an arena credential. The approved plot covers lighting truss and a PA hang on a rented roof system. Two days before the show, a sponsor asks for a large mesh banner, and the video vendor wants to move its wall closer to the downstage edge.

The production manager does not tell the rigger to just make it work. She sends both changes to the named change authority. The change authority updates the plot and forwards it to the contracted structural reviewer, who asks the vendors for banner dimensions and the wall's revised weight distribution. The banner is approved in a smaller size. The video move is declined. Both decisions and the plot revision are filed with the show documents.

Red flags, evasive answers and how to verify

Some answers should slow you down. 'We have always done it this way' describes habit, not a review of this venue and this design. A capacity figure with no source, such as 'that roof is good for plenty,' is an assertion, not evidence. Be wary of a contractor who offers a credential when you asked about structural approval. The same goes for an insurance certificate offered when you asked for equipment records, or reluctance to share a method statement.

Verification means tracing each claim to an accountable source. Confirm credentials with the issuing body. Ask the structural reviewer to confirm the scope of their review directly, not through the contractor. Ask the venue whether the plot matches what it has on file. Never accept a forum thread or photograph as validation of a rig. If you cannot get a traceable answer, escalate to the venue, the structural engineer or your insurer before load-in, not during it.

• 'Trust us' in place of a named reviewer.
• Capacity numbers with no stated source.
• Equipment records that cannot be matched to the arriving gear.
• Resistance to written change control or document review.