It takes much more than just harnesses to keep workers safe at height

Too many people still have the misconception that the dangers associated with working at height can be removed simply by wearing a fall-restraint harness. But that’s completely wrong, as two height-safety subject matter experts point out. In this article, they show that there is much more than just harnesses to take into consideration in keeping workers safe at height.

“For far too long we have allowed the use of fall-restraint harnesses as a ‘quick fix’ against falls from height!” laments height safety expert Peter Ferguson, after years of studying reports of workplace injuries and deaths resulting from falls from height.

Sobering words, indeed.

Ferguson is no stranger to height safety issues. He has been involved in height safety as a consultant for many years. In fact, he was awarded the 2010 WorkSafe Outstanding Contribution to Health and Safety Award earlier this year. And several years earlier, he founded the Industrial Rope Access Association - now known as the Australian Rope Access Association (ARAA) - as a means to contribute to improved safety for people working at height.

So what is it that gets Ferguson so wound up about harnesses?

“Too many people rely on fall-restraint harnesses as some kind of ‘magic protection’ that allows them to work at heights in total safety. They’re kidding themselves if they believe that is the case.

“Even though there is often a better method of doing a job at height than relying on a harness, people still opt for the supposedly ‘simple fix’ of a harness.”

Ferguson invites readers to reflect on the realities of a fall: “Assuming the job is right for harness use, consider putting a harness on and then think about what will happen to you if you jumped down a vertical distance of, say, two or three metres on purpose. It is going to hurt, regardless of where you do this. But it’s particularly hazardous if you are on a site where there is structure or framework nearby that you could hit on the way down. There is also a high likelihood that you would spend some time in hospital as a consequence.”

Commenting on the fall-restraint products currently available, Ferguson observes: “The range of harness-based equipment that is presently on the market is excellent and does its best to cover the inadvertent actions of idiots - but the gear is not idiot-proof. As an industry, we have spent a lot of time and resources trying to build a better ‘mouse trap’. But I think it’s time we came up with some better mice - training is imperative to ensuring workers know how to keep themselves safe while working at height.

“The equipment now on the market needs to be used properly to assist people to work better at heights and have a secondary function of arresting a fall, should one occur, as well as keeping the length and consequences of the fall to a minimum, if it is used properly.”

The National Category Manager for height safety at Beaver Brands, Stephen Radecki, agrees with Ferguson’s concerns, noting: “All our B-Safe fall-restraint products are labelled according to regulatory requirements and supplied with the necessary instructions for their correct use. These manuals cover all necessary safe-use requirements and are regarded as the ‘manufacturer instructions for use’ to which height safety standards refer.

“But it is just as important that, when any height safety equipment is used, product awareness and training be undertaken prior to the equipment being put into use.”

Ferguson contends that the ARAA has shown that a properly systemised approach covering operator competencies, good equipment, techniques and proper supervision can ensure workers using harnesses can do so successfully.

“First, of course, there needs to be an assessment as to whether a harness is even necessary,” he adds. “There are some excellent means of access out there; and good design can eliminate a lot of the need for workers to be exposed to the hazards of working at heights.

“But if working in a harness is a must, then proper training, supervision and use of adjustable equipment will allow the workers - the ‘mice’ - to have better control over their own safety and working methods and, hopefully, a clear understanding of the consequences of getting it wrong.”

A few years ago, ARAA sought to put in place a set of competencies and an operating system similar to rope access, but sitting just below this level and above those using harness-based systems for fall arrest. The qualification and system would be for non-suspended works, to eliminate possible confusion or watering down of rope access requirements.

“The system, as with rope access, would be predominantly about access, but with a secondary task and ability, to arrest a fall, should something malfunction,” Ferguson explains. “As such, it would sit significantly higher in the hierarchy of controls than fall arrest.

“We believed this system would generate a culture of the equipment being user friendly, such that users see it as assisting them in their works rather than hampering them, as is the case with many existing harness-based uses. The users would be encouraged to take responsibility for their own safety, but at the ‘cost’ of working within a defined system of operations. And we still believe that to be the case.

“We point out to the industry that, while the introduction of a suitable set of competencies and training was extremely important, there was another very important component that must also exist, this being a ‘system of operation’. We saw the joint development of training information and the system into which this training should feed was necessary to be developed together.

“Looking forward, this system should include methods to ensure that users are properly supervised, that rescue capability is in place, that hazards are identified and properly mitigated and that equipment is suited to the task.

“Eventually, we saw this system as becoming the ‘basic training’ for rope access operators and that other components could then be added to the basic training for specific tasks such as tower rescue.

“The ‘target audience’ who would be able to use this system would include anyone that uses harness-based protection during the course of their works. This would include, but is definitely not restricted to, riggers, roof workers, tower workers, painters, cleaners and other construction-related trades, as well as in mining, power stations, various inspection and geotechnical works, the installation and maintenance of communications services, some emergency services such as SES and rescue operations for those not requiring full rope access capability.”

Radecki points out that his company has various forms of testing and demonstration equipment that is designed to do just that - to highlight and simulate the real-life applications and industry use of its fall restraint products.

“This equipment can be utilised by workers in demonstrating or testing various pieces of height safety apparatus,” he says. “We run two product awareness and user training programs. The first is a two-hour session that covers things like fitting a harness, selecting equipment, conducting user inspections and a rescue demonstration. The other is a four-hour session that adds a number of items to the two-hour session, including a theory section on height safety legislation, codes of practice and standards, as well as a practical assessment for certification.

“Let’s take the function of risk assessment as an example. A risk assessment should be conducted prior to any work being carried out to identify the hazards that exist and the risks that they pose. Working at height introduces the obvious hazards such as the consequences of the fall, but workers should also take other factors into account, such as the nature of the work, surface materials, fragile roofing material, personal training levels, competency, weather conditions, surface conditions, etc.

“Pre-work risk assessment for working at height should include inspecting all equipment to be used on the job. The equipment inspection is recorded on a register, and with the work method statement discussed in a toolbox talk. Reference should be made to AS/NZS 1891.4 for the correct use, selection and maintenance criteria for height safety systems. We recommend that, wherever possible, a ‘restraint technique’ system is used.

“There are other important height safety aspects to address in pre-work risk assessment as well. For instance, if it is assessed that the occurrence of a fall would endanger the user, then other alternatives of fall-protection systems must be considered. This may include the use of shorter shock-absorbing lanyards, retracting lanyards or adjustable lanyards. In each case, the fall clearance must be identified and the hazards associated with fall clearance eliminated.

“If the free fall distance is reduced, then the load on the system and the person could be reduced; also the recovery method and time may be significantly reduced if the user’s fall distance is kept to a minimum.

“Wherever possible, the attachment point for a fall-arrest system should be located above the user’s attachment point on the harness. When this is not possible, the shock-absorbing lanyard length must be reduced to ensure that the maximum fall distance of the user is limited to 2 m. A user should never climb above the attachment point using a fall-arrest shock-absorbing lanyard, as this only adds to the free fall distance and consequently adds to the overall shock load on the system and the person.”

Ferguson concludes: “It is long overdue that we start looking at better training, supervision and a systemised approach to harness use. Even though current fall-restraint equipment is excellent, its proper use is nowhere near as simple as it may look.”

Radecki adds: “Take the appropriate amount of time to learn how to use it properly - it might just save your life or the life of a coworker.”