Can all work-at-height accidents ever completely be eliminated? Neil Tomlinson believes so, as he updates practitioners on some of the recent work undertaken by the working-at-height community to achieve what is being described as the holy grail.
One word has resonated among the health and safety community throughout 2012 – Löfstedt. The government-sponsored report has provided the basis for a thorough review of swathes of health and safety legislation, the Work at Height Regulations 2005 included, and early next year the HSE is expected to issue a response to the specific review of these regulations on what changes may or may not be required.
As you would expect, the work-at-height industry bodies have been in close consultation with the HSE on how the 2005 regulations can be improved to help continue, and hopefully expedite, the decline in falls from height that have been evident since the regulations entered onto the statute books. We’ve also fed back to the Executive the strong views and opinions from kindred trade bodies – including, among others, the UK Contractors’ Group (UKCG), the Federation of Master Builders, the National Federation of Roofing Contractors and the Association for Project Safety – to ensure that the voices of representatives of those who use and work with the equipment in different sectors are also heard as part of the regulatory review.
Influencing change
Nevertheless, legislation on its own, whether new or existing, will not achieve the ‘holy grail’ of no more work-at-height accidents. Regardless of what any new Work at Height Regulations may or may not stipulate, there is much that those working in, or affected by, the construction sector can do right now to ensure that when an operative or user is tasked with working at height, they can do so in as risk-free a manner as possible.
Construction work-at-height activity has embraced – and sometimes pioneered – change in the last decade. New legislation, improved guidance, advanced equipment engineering, technological innovation and competence schemes across virtually every conceivable work-at-height specialism now provide main contractors with the means to validate the competence of those undertaking the tasks. This year has also witnessed advances in equipment use with new innovations in height-safety techniques, including the introduction of easier ways to comply with best practice.
For example, the International Powered Access Federation (IPAF) has helped educate users of mobile elevated work platforms, via the introduction of its ‘Ready Reckoner’ – a tool that allows you to calculate the correct spreader-plate sizes when using outriggers. As a direct response to feedback from the construction industry, IPAF has also introduced its PAL+ training course, which is specifically designed for advanced use and will become a UKCG mandatory requirement for certain relevant trades from the start of next year.
The industry body for mobile access towers, PASMA, has drafted and published a Publicly Available Specification (PAS 250) in collaboration with the British Standards Institution (BSI). This sets the minimum safety and performance requirements for low-level mobile work platforms (also known as podiums), and provides definitive guidance for those selecting, using and supervising the use of these types of equipment.
Incidents resulting from falls from ladders may have dropped more than 11 per cent year on year, but the Ladder Association is not resting on its laurels and has issued new best-practice guidance to help educate users on how to competently inspect and maintain ladder equipment. Meanwhile, ATLAS – the trade body for steeplejacks and lightning conductor engineers – is currently working closely with the HSE on introducing new guidance, expected by the end of 2012, for users of specialist steeplejack ladder equipment.
Communications breakthrough
Developing and embracing modern communication methods is also critical for the work-at-height industry bodies as they seek to speed up and simplify the provision of useful, practical information. One example of the work being done in this area is the free online video guidance produced by AIF members, which has, to date, attracted more than 50,000 views.
Strong social-media interaction, via channels such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, are now common among a number of the work-at-height industry bodies, and the inaugural Work at Height Twitter Symposium – likely to take place early next year – should take the optimisation of this media for those in the sector to a whole new level.
This year also saw the introduction of the first mobile App for a work-at-height specialism – mobile access towers – and, as we move into 2013, reports from industry bodies that tap directly into SME and micro-construction firms show that techniques for effective communication at this level of the sector must take a different form to those used when talking to larger corporations.
Reducing bad practice
While thinking innovatively and having an eye on the future, it is also important to remember that construction work still brings with it some obvious risk-challenges. For example, despite continuous reminders on the danger of using suspended access equipment, also known as building maintenance units, designed solely (as the name suggests) for the post-construction maintenance of a building, evidence from the Specialist Access Engineering and Maintenance Association suggests that some construction contractors are still using this equipment during the building phase, accelerating the safe-working life of this type of equipment. The risk is often amplified when the final project is handed over to the client, as the maintenance contractors may have no knowledge that this particular type of equipment has already been used extensively.
The construction industry can quickly overcome this risk by instigating rigorous control measures, such as ‘early use’ agreements with the provider, to avoid misuse of this type of equipment. Such agreements ensure the equipment, if it is to be used in the construction phase, is properly serviced, maintained, and audited by competent individuals and inspected in compliance with LOLER 1998.
Increasing evidence of rogue CE certificates for fall-restraint equipment may also be a risk if the construction industry fails to ensure clear compliance measures, says the British Safety Industry Federation. Similarly, inspection of fall-restraint equipment, such as lanyards, is a continuing concern for the Work at Height Safety Association – the industry body representing manufacturers of fall-restraint equipment – where incidents of unqualified, incompetent personnel carrying out equipment inspections are frequently reported.
Inspection regimes are also a concern for the Edge Protection Federation (EPF); while scaffolding requires an essential ‘seven-day’ inspection, edge protection is not recognised in the same way, and it’s highly likely that there is a lack of qualified competence to do so on many sites. To help address this shortcoming, the EPF is developing a standard checklist format and a tag system, which should be available early in 2013, to enable contractors to carry out such inspections effectively.
Near-miss reporting remains an age-old moan, and although the construction industry has attempted to improve matters, there is still more progress to be made in this important area. For example, instances where a fall occurs into a piece of fall-arrest equipment, such as a safety net, often go unreported. According to the industry body responsible for safety nets, FASET, this not only results in a lack of information into the cause of the fall but also, potentially, a net that may require re-inspection following a stressful impact.
Everyone has a part to play
Education and guidance for work-at-height activity does not stop with the equipment users. Eliminating falls from height needs joined-up thinking from all those engaged directly, or indirectly, in the work-at-height operation, or those who can influence the severity of the risk – and this has been a dedicated commitment for some years.
The new BS8560 ‘Designing for Work at Height’, for example, is aimed directly at architects and designers and has been produced to inform these individuals on how they, too, can play a positive role in ensuring the solutions to safe work-at-height activity have been considered, prior to a project ‘breaking ground’. AIF constituent bodies have worked with representatives from several organisations – including Royal Institute of British Architects, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Association for Project Safety and Designers’ Initiative on Health & Safety – to ensure the standard is up to date on work-at-height equipment types, how to verify competency, examples of good practice, and guidance on how to eliminate poor design that might present a risk of a fall.
Most construction sites will have an individual responsible for the planning, selection, supervision and control of work-at-height disciplines, yet, until the selection has been made, there is, to date, no industry standard to determine that individual’s competence. This is an obvious oversight when you consider the Work at Height Regulations state that all “people engaged in any work-at-height activity” must be competent – a principle further endorsed by the CDM Regulations 2007.
Realising that this role plays a significant part in ensuring safe height activity (poor planning and management is often the overriding citation when a fall from height offence reaches court), the work-at-height industry bodies are working towards the introduction of a pan-industry qualification that will enable this particular role to be validated objectively according to an industry-recognised standard, providing individuals with the skills to carry out this role to a competent standard.
The greater good
Of course, main contractors undertake many initiatives themselves to reduce falls from height in the construction industry, as well as other sectors where working at height can’t be avoided. However, sharing this good practice for the greater good may be the largest challenge the industry faces to accelerate the continued decline in accidents.
Good-quality data is fundamental to future developments. Almost all of the work-at-height bodies, including ATLAS, FASET, IPAF and the Industrial Rope Access Trade Association (IRATA), already source incident statistics for their own particular specialisms and use this data to evaluate and develop improvements.
This year, the AIF contacted a number of main contractors to gain a better understanding of their in-house reporting systems (specifically, in relation to falls-from-height incidents), to try and pinpoint what trends are evident in respect of falls from height within their own operations. Despite more than 40 contracting companies supplying detailed information relating to work-at-height incidents, the data the AIF received was nothing more than anecdotal. Why? Because, most of the key performance indicators, safety benchmarks and protocols were different for each organisation that responded. Ultimately, this resulted in interesting intelligence but nothing that could stand up to any rigorous analysis of trends or gaps in practice.
RIDDOR, with its emphasis on headline statistics, provides no practical solution to the issue of how much detailed information the industry really needs to chart future improvements. Thus, if we are all to acknowledge that falls from height must stop, the construction sector and other industries must now take up this initiative collaboratively and work to standardise methods of reporting falls from height in a detailed, meaningful fashion.
Since May, the AIF has been working with IOSH and other professional health and safety bodies to establish a pan-industry method of reporting falls from height that will indeed deliver the information we require to reach the holy grail of no more work-at-height accidents. This initiative was agreed during the AIF Knowledge Base at Safety & Health Expo in May this year – see www.accessindustryforum.org.uk/kb_she12_d3_5.htm – with all major safety bodies accepting that the fastest way to achieve this and retrieve the necessary data is by sharing resources, knowledge, and expertise. It is unlikely government will ever enforce such an approach, so we must rely on industry to show commitment and see this as a moral requirement.
Conclusion
Falls from height can only be eradicated via a holistic approach involving all those engaged in the process that leads to a task required to be performed at height. This approach is crucial to help achieve our ultimate goal. Already, groups in other world regions are entering into dialogue with the AIF, showing a desire to engage in the collaborative process of learning and sharing wherever possible. Despite what the tabloid media might have you believe, the UK has a safety system that remains one to which many corners of the world aspire.
Realistically, do I think we will ever achieve the holy grail of no more work at height accidents? Quite simply, yes. Do we have all the answers to get us there? Not yet, but the moment you say there isn’t a solution is the moment you stop looking.
Neil Tomlinson is director of the Access Industry Forum.
The Safety Conversation with SHP (previously the Safety and Health Podcast) aims to bring you the latest news, insights and legislation updates in the form of interviews, discussions and panel debates from leading figures within the profession.
Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts, subscribe and join the conversation today!
What have we done to prevent objects falling at height? Is it a legal requirement to tether all tools whilst working at height? or is it subject to Risk Assessments?
What is Industry’s policy regarding this issue?
Most construction sites will have an individual responsible for the planning, selection, supervision and control of work-at-height disciplines.
Who exactly employs this person?
I have never been introduced to one, either at pre start or induction, never even been made aware of him or her?
Why have none of them ever been prosecuted for failing to observe WAH requirement?
Obviously CARRILION do not, otherwise the Scaffolder may not dead?
Who would accept the responsibility? £££££££
Eliminate all WAH accidents, in your dreams. True WAH on construction sites and maintenance activities, theoretically. The worker at the edge of a grass bank who slips and falls, or the one man band painting a house using a ladder.
Yes, we all agree we need to work hard to minimise these incidents, but let’s all live in the real world and accept that if we can stop killing and seriously injuring people, we are succeeding. Oh, and until we employ robots and not people, behaviour is the key!