Rope access or fall protection - what difference does it make?

Through increasingly close contact with the authorities and other stakeholders, we as an industry body are learning more and more. At the same time, we see changes in regulations, which in turn provides a basis for reflection. NS 9600 is currently being revised with the aim of making it easier to use and better complementing/clarifying regulations. In addition, a standardization project on fall protection is in progress. SOFT is actively involved in both these projects by having management responsibility for the committees working on these projects.

The committees have a broad composition. Authorities, trade unions, industry bodies, training companies, users and buyers of the services are represented.

A regulation is a decision that applies to the rights or obligations of an indefinite number or circle of persons. These are often enshrined in a law. These are amended from time to time. Regulations are formulated through cooperation between a directorate, employers and employees (tripartite cooperation). These regulations largely describe what is to be achieved (functional requirements). One example is the requirement: "The employer shall ensure that the employee receives the necessary training". Another functional requirement is: "When planning and carrying out work at height, the employer shall assess the risk so that the work is carried out in a safe manner" (Chapter 17 Work at height) and finally the Working Environment Act:

"Section 4-1 General requirements for the working environment

(1) The working environment in the undertaking shall be fully acceptable on the basis of an individual and overall assessment of factors in the working environment that may affect the physical and mental health and welfare of the employees. The standard for safety, health and working environment shall at all times be developed and improved in accordance with developments in society."

Through our work in collaboration with the Norwegian Labor Inspection Authority and the Petroleum Safety Authority, we pick up important signals. They are concerned with the highest possible protection for employees at all times. This puts the "Fall Protection" and "rope access" systems in an interesting light. Probably everyone who is familiar with these systems agrees that access technology offers a higher level of protection than fall protection. But at the same time, fall protection is widely used as an effective access system. Does this mean that a system with a lower level of protection is chosen for reasons of efficiency?

Some would say that this is fine because the expertise in the team is so high. But recent signals from the Norwegian Labor Inspection Authority, among others, are that you should primarily work with fall prevention systems before fall detection. This is a logical principle. You want collective barriers - including fall prevention. If you want to choose fall arrest, the risk assessment should include this. You don't want falls! This is understandable, as you can easily injure yourself, even if you do not hit a lower level that you are protecting yourself from.

In general, risk assessment has become more focused on by the authorities. The latest amendment to Chapter 17 of the Regulations on the Performance of Work has a new section dealing with risk assessment. It has not been there before. This can only be understood as an increased focus on risk assessment when working at height.

Based on the above, SOFT recommends working with fall prevention rather than fall arrest. This means that TT should be prioritized over fall protection where there is a choice. The choice of fall protection should be the result of a risk assessment, as required by the regulations.