FROM June 2006 to June 2007 28 people died involving falls from height in Australia.
This figure represents 17% of all workplace related fatalities, which is an increase of one from the previous 12 month period, and a more worrying rise of 10 (an additional 4%) from the period June 2004-June 2005. These figures are disappointingly high given the largely avoidable nature of this type of accident.
With that, forthcoming changes to Part 4 of AS/NZS 1891 — the standard that relates to industrial fall protection equipment – are being welcomed by the Fall Protection Manufacturers Association (FPMA).
The FPMA comprises of several leading Australian companies in the design and manufacture of fall protection equipment. This professional association has strongly supported the tightening of the standards surrounding the selection, use and maintenance of height safety equipment.
The changes proposed this year to AS/NZS 1891.4 relate specifically to the maintenance and usage of fall protection equipment, building on earlier amendments published to AS/NZS 1891.1 (2007) relating to the manufacturers’ design and testing standards for the equipment.
Users now need to be aware that the equipment previously rated for ‘restraint’ is no longer allowed under the standard. The restraint work method has now been divided into ‘total restraint’ and ‘restraint technique’.
The former will require the use of a fall arrest rated full or lower body harness with a fixed length lanyard, thereby physically preventing the user from reaching a point where a fall is possible. The latter allows only a fall arrest rated full body harness and an adjustable lanyard fitted with a personal energy absorber.
Gordon Cadzow from the FPMA, while expressing concern about the high risk of possible misapplication of lower body harnesses, welcomes these changes.
On a more positive note, the standard now mandates the requirement for differing levels of training for those involved in work at height. Training and assessment of competency is now required at five levels:
• Height safety theory
• Entry level operator
• Competent level operator
• Competent equipment inspector
• Height safety technologist
While appendix E of the standard clearly defines the core training elements and the performance criteria, this appendix has only been deemed informative — meaning that it is not mandatory under the standard. However, in practice, failure to comply with the recommendations would carry its own significant risk. The Association commends the full adoption of the appendix.
It should also be noted that the updated requirements for operator training and assessment goes into detail with regard to the Height Safety Technologist.This covers persons responsible for:
• Management and administration of people working at height
• Designing infrastructure from which people may be exposed to a fall
• Making decisions about equipment suitability when purchasing equipment where a risk of a fall from height may exist
• Developing safe work practices for people working at height
This places the requirement for a much higher level of assessed competency on a new group of people — especially those involved in the purchasing decision. Hopefully this places more emphasis on the correct selection of equipment: when it comes to safety, suitability should be seen as more important than purchase cost.
There has also been considerable clarification on the use of twin tailed lanyards, detailing the need to have the common end attached to the harness as well as using parking features for the unconnected tail. This all supports the changes made in the design and manufacturing standard late last year.
The requirement for all harnesses to have a frontal fall arrest attachment point — also introduced in the manufacturing standard – has now been highlighted to the user. This fall arrest rated attachment is designed to assist in rescue.
The Association has expressed concern that a 12kN anchor point has been introduced for limited free fall and restraint technique. As with lower body harnesses, it is felt this has introduced the possibility of a 12kN anchor being incorrectly used for fall arrest applications where strength of 15kN is required.
The extension of personal energy absorbers has been defined to lessen the theoretical fall clearance required. These figures are:
However, they do not mean that equipment users need to replace their equipment immediately as the above data has been derived from tests on current equipment. It is anticipated that these forthcoming changes to the standard 1891.4 will take effect from the middle of this year.
For further information regarding fall protectionand how the standard changes may impact on your business operations, as well as information on all FPMA members and their product ranges, visit www.fpma.com.au, or contact Gordon Cadzowat gcadzow@fpma.com.au.