Standards for height safety training

Falls cost employers millions of dollars each year in lost time, compensation and third-party liability suits. For the period 2003-04 to 2008-09, there have been 180 fatalities as a result of falls from height, 10.67% of total fatalities recorded during this period, according to Safe Work Australia statistics. More specifically, in 2008-09, 33 deaths occurred as a result of falls from height (39% being from the ‘Construction’ industry). ‘Fall from a height’ is the third largest killer of people in the workplace behind ‘vehicle incidents’ and ‘being hit by moving objects’. Of the 33 ‘fall from a height’ fatalities recorded in 2008-09, nine were from buildings and structures; six from ladders; four from trucks, semitrailers and lorries; and three from scaffolds.

Australian and New Zealand Standards are an important component of the safety outcomes of all products, working practices, services and procedures in industry. Australian Standard AS/NZS 1891.4:2009 ‘Industrial fall-arrest systems and devices; Part 4 Selection, Use and Maintenance; Appendix E, Guidance for the provision of training and competency’ identifies five broad target groups for training for those working at height:

a) Height safety theory - Basic height safety theory for all people associated with harness-based work at heights. At the basic level it is pitched to operators up to and including supervisor level to height safety technologists and to equipment inspectors.

b) Height safety operator - Training in the skills needed to perform harness-based work at heights under direct supervision of a height safety supervisor.

c) Height safety supervisor - Training and assessment in skills needed to perform harness-based work at heights unsupervised, to supervise entry level and other operators, and to participate in first responses rescue.

d) Height safety equipment inspector- Training in the skills needed to detect faults in equipment and to determine remedial action.

e) Height safety manager - Training for people involved in the selection, design, manufacture or installation of height safety systems or equipment, or the development of control measures or work practices, in the technical skills appropriate to their tasks together with, as appropriate, training in risk management and systems management.

Appendix E provides the recommended Core Training Elements and Performance Criteria, which are much the same as any Industry Training Package ‘Unit of Competency’. However, these recommendations/guidelines have not been broadly adopted by the Australian VET sector. Given that these recommendations/guidelines meet the requirements of the vast diversity of industry, a key question is why not?

Part of the reason is that there are but a handful of units of competency which cater for those working at height, excluding those units of competency directed at the recreational ‘climber’. Individual units of competency focus on specific industry sectors, such as restricted height scaffold; working on roofs; working at height in the stevedoring industry; and work safely at height (construction and mining).

These competencies vary in content depth ranging from basic introduction to what may be considered the Height Safety Operator level identified above, but in general, industry and the VET sector do not appear to have embraced the need to train personnel at the varying levels according to need, which industry has recommended in the development of the Standard. While some registered training organisations (RTOs) have endeavoured to develop specialised ‘Accredited Courses’ using the Standard’s recommendations, industry acceptance and recognition of the ‘Accredited Course’ has not been forthcoming.

Where Standards are developed by industry recognising the need for specific training and legislation, in particular the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (which places a requirement on training), why is it that industry and the VET sector do not embrace the guidelines? Is it because we are so ‘over-educated’ that we want a quick and simple solution or is it all about the cost of providing safety? For example, the recommendation within the Victorian Purchasing Guide that the unit of competency RIIOHS204A Work Safely at Heights should be delivered over 20 hours of training time, yet the industry standard across Australia is for delivery within eight hours, with industry requesting that the time for delivery be shortened even still.

We encourage industry, regulators and the VET sector to recognise the high-risk nature of working at height and its link to educational outcomes. Barring the probability of accidents in general, if we are to reduce the incidence of injury and/or fatality due to falls from height, we need the VET sector to develop specific content which embraces the diversity of industry requirements, using the guidelines such as these Standards. Likewise, we call on industry to look beyond a simple ‘certificate’ claiming competence for working at height and examine whether they are prepared to invest in a relevant/stepped training program to deliver the safety required at their site in line with the recommendations of the Standard.

*By Peter Lamond, Training Manager, Capital Safety. With a background in the air conditioning and refrigeration industry as an apprentice, supervisor, business owner and TAFE teacher, Lamond holds a degree in adult education (VET major) and is highly experienced in the establishment and administration of private RTOs. He joined Capital Safety in 2010.