Under Reporting of Incidents in the Rope Access World.

Another year, another Work and Safety Analysis (WASA) Report from IRATA International, and yet again …. It has been noted that companies are under reporting.

If you didn’t know, Member Companies of IRATA International (the worlds leading authority on industrial rope access), are required to report any serious accident, incident, or a ‘dangerous occurrence’ within 7 days. It’s been a long-standing requirement of IRATA, and over the years … it would seem that the vast majority of Member Companies still struggle with this requirement.

During my time on the IRATA International Health & Safety Committee I spoke about it during multiple RAC meetings and challenged our region to do better. We did – for a period of time. But there is still a lag in accident and incident reporting.

2011 WASA Report – “The increasing trend to report dangerous occurrences should be encourages, particularly when relevant to rope access.”

2014 WASA Report – “Members should be reminded of the requirement to report all accidents and incidents, however trivial.”

2017 WASA Report – “The low level of reported events, particularly ‘dangerous occurrences’, in relation to the over employment level and hours worked, continues to be of concern.”

2024 WASA Report – “Of the 267 accidents and incidents analysed, 124 reports (46.4%) were linked to 7 companies. These 7 companies account for just 4.78% of all hours worked. It seems likely that this is due to the lack of reporting by the majority as opposed to poor performance by the few.”

IRATA have identified under-reporting as an issue for the Association, again and again. To the point where they published two Topic Sheets, one on Accident and Incident Reporting (No. 23) and another on Near Miss and Under Reporting (No. 27) in 2022.

Despite each region having its own legal requirements, the principles of reportable incidents remain the same.

In broad terms, a “reportable accident” is:

  • The death of a person.
  • A serious injury, e.g. a fracture, loss of consciousness, etc.
  • Incapacitation, e.g. injured and away from work for over 7 days.
  • Some occupational diseases, e.g. hand arm vibration syndrome, or.
  • Certain dangerous occurrences.

So why is under reporting still occurring?

Companies and individuals may underreport incidents for several reasons:

One of the most common reasons is fear of negative consequences.

Companies may fear that reporting incidents could lead to financial penalties, increased insurance premiums, or scrutiny from regulatory bodies. This fear sometimes motivates companies to avoid reporting to minimize perceived negative outcomes.

For individuals, the fear may be loss of job, or other penalties or restrictions applied to the worker, impacting their income or standing at work.

Reporting incidents provides IRATA with valuable data; data that can be evaluated and resources created to increase awareness and help prevent accidents from occurring again in the future. Lessons can be learned from accidents. Reporting them ensures a business doesn’t become complacent or dismissive of its personnel. Reporting promotes a positive safety culture within the organisation. The more people who report incidents, more serious accidents – and fatalities – can be prevented.

Companies and individuals may also have a concern for their reputation.

A company’s public image and reputation are vital in competitive industries. It is perceived that by reporting incidents, especially serious ones, it can affect how clients, stakeholders, and the public view the company’s commitment to safety. Likewise, how a person is perceived at work, their reputation in a niche industry, and how there are treated may impact their decision to report incidents or safety concerns.

IRATA do not disclose names or company details. The data that is reported is reviewed by the Health & Safety Committee – who all bound to a code of conduct and a non-disclosure agreement. The data is anonymised when it is reported in the WASA or stripped back to a case study for Topic Sheets and Safety Bulletins.

Another deterrent of incident reporting is a ‘Blame Culture’. Why report it if the company blames someone for it occurring in the first place? As noted in the IRATA International Work and Safety Analysis report of 2024, some companies may operate within a “blame culture” where incidents are seen as failures that should be hidden rather than learning opportunities. This culture discourages open reporting and reduces transparency around safety.

There is also the educational piece: people simply may not know they are to report incidents or safety concerns (and loop back to being afraid of reporting something if they are new to the business). Lack of awareness of reporting requirements should be an easy one to tackle for Member Companies – every induction should cover off on the importance of incident reporting. But in some organizations, there may be limited understanding of the value of thorough incident reporting as part of a safety management system. Without robust training on incident reporting’s role in improving safety, workers and management may not prioritize it.

There may also be an inadequate reporting system in place. Companies without streamlined, accessible reporting systems may find that employees and supervisors overlook reporting requirements, especially if reporting is seen as complex or time-consuming.

So how can a company (and individuals) improve on incident reporting?

To improve incident reporting, you can take several practical steps:

1. Cultivate a Safety Culture: Encourage a “just culture” over a blame culture, where employees feel safe to report incidents without fear of blame or punishment. Emphasize that incidents and near-misses are learning opportunities, not failures. Management should lead by example, discussing safety openly and rewarding transparency.

2. Simplify Reporting Processes: Make the reporting process straightforward and accessible. Implement an easy-to-use digital platform or app for incident reporting, reducing the effort and time required. This increases the likelihood that employees will report incidents, particularly near-misses.

3. Train Employees on Reporting Importance: Educate all employees on the value of incident reporting for both individual and organizational safety. Training should highlight how reporting helps prevent future incidents and contributes to everyone’s well-being.

4. Use Leading and Lagging Indicators: Incorporate both lagging indicators (such as the number of reported incidents) and leading indicators (like safety observations, near-miss reporting, and training participation). Focusing on both types of data helps companies assess safety culture and make proactive improvements.

5. Conduct Safety Conversations and Observations: Regular “safety conversations” between supervisors and employees encourage ongoing dialogue about risks and safety practices. Routine observations also help supervisors identify unreported hazards and address them before they lead to incidents.

6. Provide Feedback and Recognition: Share feedback with employees on reported incidents, including actions taken to resolve issues and improve safety. Recognizing and rewarding those who report incidents, especially near-misses, reinforces the message that reporting is valued.

7. Benchmark and Set Reporting Goals: Benchmark incident reporting rates against industry standards to identify gaps. Set achievable goals for incident reporting and monitor progress over time. This encourages teams to view reporting as part of a larger safety objective rather than an isolated activity.

By focusing on these steps, companies can make incident reporting more consistent, transparent, and beneficial for improving workplace safety.

See it. Report it. Prevent it.

Yours in Safety,

Deborah Chick

CEO of Ascend QM

Key WHS Statistics – Australia 2024

Each year, Safe Work Australia produces national work health and safety statistics, providing important evidence on the state of work health and safety in Australia.

Key Work Health and Safety Statistics, Australia 2024 provides an overview of the latest national data on work-related fatalities and workers’ compensation claims. This includes trends, gender and age comparisons, and industry and occupation breakdowns.

Understanding the causes of injury and the industries most affected can help reduce work-related fatalities, injuries and disease. Work-related fatalities, injuries and illnesses have a devastating impact on workers, their families and the community.

Tragically, 200 workers died in 2023 – of which 29 were killed due to a fall from height.

Source: SafeWork Australia 

The mechanism of incident refers to the overall action, exposure or event that describes the circumstances that resulted in a worker fatality.

The number of deaths due to Falls from a height increased in 2023 and was the second highest contributor of worker fatalities overall. 29 worker fatalities (15%) were attributable to the mechanism of incident Falls from a height in 2023. This is 32% higher than the 5-year average of 22 worker fatalities per year (2019 to 2023). 45% (13) of Falls from a height worker deaths in 2023 occurred within the Construction industry. This was followed by worker deaths in the Arts and recreation services, Mining, and Transport, postal and warehousing industries, with 10% (3) worker fatalities occurring in each of those industries in 2023. Nearly 80% of workers who died due to Falls from a height were Labourers (41%, 12), Technician and trades workers (21%, 6) or Machinery operator and drivers (17%, 5) in 2023.

For the last 6 years straight, falls from height remains one of the leading causes of workplace fatalities in Australia. 

2017-18
28 falls from height (15%)
15 being hit by falling objects (8%)

2018-19
18 falls from height (13%)
15 being hit by falling objects (10%)

2019-20
21 falls from height (11%)
21 being hit by falling objects (11%)

2020-21
22 falls from height (11%)
17 being hit by falling objects (9%)

2021-22
19 falls from height (11%)
16 being hit by falling objects (9%)

2022-23
17 falls from height (9%)
17 being hit by falling objects (9%)

2023-24
29 falls from height (15%)
12 being hit by falling objects (6%)

In 2023, 62% of worker fatalities occurred in 3 industries. Transport, postal and warehousing fatalities accounted for 26% (51 fatalities), followed by fatalities in the Construction industry (23%; 45 fatalities) and Agriculture, forestry and fishing industry (14%; 27 fatalities). There were also some differences from the long-term average:

  • the number of fatalities in the Construction industry in 2023 (45) was 36% higher than the 5-year average for this industry (33), and
  • the number of fatalities in the Agriculture, forestry and fishing industry in 2023 (27) was 25% lower than the 5-year average (36).

Over the 10 years to 2022-23p, the proportion of claims for Mental health conditions has increased from 6.4% in 2012-
13 to 10.5% in 2022‑23p. Over this period the number of serious claims for Mental health conditions has increased by 7,200 (97.3%).

  • This represents the second largest growth in the number of serious claims for a nature of injury/illness major group observed over the period (just behind the growth of 8,000 Infectious diseases serious claims, driven by COVID-19).

Mental health conditions are one of the costliest forms of workplace injury. They lead to significantly more time off work and higher compensation paid when compared to physical injuries and diseases.

  • The median time lost from Mental health condition serious claims in 2021-22 (37.0 working weeks) was more than 5 times the median time lost across all serious claims (7.2).
  • The median compensation paid for Mental health condition serious claims in 2021‑22 ($65,400) was more than 4 times the median compensation paid across all serious claims ($14,400).

Guide to Equipment Inspection for Working at Heights

Article written for the Working at Height Association.

Working at heights presents unique challenges, particularly in safety management, making regular equipment inspection vital to ensuring a safe and compliant work environment. Without proper oversight of equipment like harnesses, ropes, carabiners, and anchor points, workers are exposed to increased risks of accidents and injuries. Organizations like the Working at Heights Association (WAHA) emphasize the importance of strict equipment inspection protocols to uphold safety standards.

In this article, we explore the critical aspects of equipment inspection, focusing on best practices and guidelines that align with industry standards. You can learn more about these standards and regulations by exploring WAHA’s website.

Why is Equipment Inspection Important?

In any work environment that involves heights, faulty or worn-out equipment can lead to severe consequences, including falls and other potentially fatal incidents. Inspections ensure that all equipment used in working at heights is safe, reliable, and compliant with the relevant standards. Regular equipment checks not only protect workers but also help organizations avoid legal repercussions from non-compliance with safety regulations.

Some key reasons why equipment inspections are essential include:

  • Preventing equipment failure: Regular checks identify wear and tear before it becomes a hazard.
  • Ensuring compliance: Inspections are often required to comply with national and international safety standards.
  • Minimizing liability: Ensuring all equipment is up to date reduces legal and financial risks.
  • Worker confidence: Employees feel safer knowing the equipment they are using is regularly inspected and maintained.

Types of Equipment Requiring Inspection

When working at heights, there are several key pieces of equipment that must undergo regular inspections. Each type has specific wear indicators and usage thresholds, making it vital to be familiar with the warning signs for each.

  1. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
    Harnesses: Inspections should look for frayed webbing, damage to buckles, and signs of excessive wear. Ensure labels with weight limits and manufacturing dates are legible.
    Lanyards and Shock Absorbers: Check for cuts, burns, or chemical exposure, and test shock absorbers for signs of activation.
    Helmets: Helmets should be inspected for cracks, internal padding wear, and damage to chin straps.
  2. Anchors and Connectors
    Anchor Points: Ensure that the fixed or portable anchor points used for rope access or fall arrest systems are securely installed, undamaged, and tested for required load capacity.
    Carabiners and Hooks: Examine for wear on gate mechanisms, corrosion, and deformation, ensuring they lock and unlock smoothly.
  3. Ropes and Cables
    Lifelines and Safety Ropes: Inspect for abrasions, cuts, and signs of UV degradation. Ropes should be checked for any contamination from chemicals or moisture, which could compromise strength.
    Fall Arrest Blocks: Ensure the casing is intact, the retraction mechanism is functioning properly, and check for internal damage, particularly after a fall arrest.

Frequency of Inspections

According to guidelines provided by WAHA and other safety organizations, inspections must occur at regular intervals, varying based on usage frequency and environmental conditions.

Pre-Use Inspections – Workers shall perform an inspection of each item of personal and common use equipment before and after each use per ASNZS 1891.4 section 9.2. This simple step can detect obvious issues, such as broken or missing components. 

Formal Periodic Inspections – For high-use or critical equipment, formal inspections should be carried out at least every 6-12 months by a competent person. These inspections are more thorough, often involving disassembly and testing.

Post-Incident Inspections – Any equipment involved in a fall or other significant incident must be inspected before being put back into service. In some cases, the equipment may need to be retired if its integrity has been compromised.

How to Conduct an Effective Inspection

1. Create a Checklist – Use a standardised checklist to ensure all components are reviewed during inspections. WAHA provides templates for our Members that can be customized for specific equipment types.

2. Document the Inspection – Documentation is critical to tracking the lifecycle and maintenance history of each piece of equipment. Record the inspection date, the condition of the equipment, any issues found, and the actions taken.

3. Involve a Competent Person – A competent person should carry out inspections, which means a person who has, through a combination of training, qualification and experience, acquired knowledge and skills enabling that person to correctly perform a specified task.

4. Take Equipment Out of Service if Necessary – If any issues are identified that compromise safety, the equipment must be removed from service immediately and either repaired or replaced.

Regular equipment inspections are not just about ticking off a regulatory requirement—they are about ensuring the safety and wellbeing of every worker operating at heights. By adopting a proactive approach to equipment inspection and maintenance, you not only comply with WAHA and other industry regulations but also foster a culture of safety that can prevent life-threatening accidents.

For more information on best practices and inspection standards, you can subscribe to the Small Business Set of Australian Standards and review ASNZS 1891.4 Industrial fall-arrest systems and devices – Selection, Use & Maintenance, or review our Technical Bulletin on Equipment Inspection and Maintenance.

Duty of Care & Rope Access

Recently there’s been some healthy conversation online around workplace environments; including work and safety cultures. There was a particular thread that came up around a recent article published in New Zealand, titled “‘Someone could die’: Fears over safety and bullying“, and being a close nit rope access community in NZ, there’s not a lot that happens nationally, without people within the community hearing about it. Thankfully, the group that this news article was posted in, bore fruit some interesting perspectives on safety culture and how we can improve things. 

Keeping in mind that a lot of people enjoy the negative rants over constructive thought or finding solutions – I asked the group as to what steps people think need to be implemented to reduce incidents occurring in rope access? It is well known that key stakeholders (WorkSafe NZ, IRAANZ, IRATA etc …) have prepared and published many documents containing thousands of words related to the risk of working at height and rope access to amplify the message to those at risk. Gravity has no bias, nor does it GAF what you’ve read. So despite these ‘actions’ by industry, we still do not see significant improvements in the statistics: injury and death rates remaining stubbornly constant (I’m referring to “falls from height” not just those within the rope access sector) with an average of 22.5 falls per month in NZ

The real costs of a fall, are not just the financial impact: the emotional and psychological impacts that these incidents place on all those involved have to be taken into account. Combined with financial impacts on lost time, production delays in work output and the pressures and scrutiny placed on management, these effects continue to increase exponentially every year. So if every rope tech is able to admit “human error” plays into incidents occurring or nearly happening … what steps can be taken to slow down? Shitty businesses and bosses will always exist. What WE do makes the difference in a workplace’s attitude to safety: and a supportive environment given the constant heightened awareness for safe processes is vital.

So after readying this thread online, hearing Ben’s disappointment in the news article at how he was misquoted, the discussions around workplaces with a ‘bad rep’, changes in law that don’t seem to be helping and a lingering feeling of helplessness in the situation …. I kinda just wanted to elaborate on the perception of safety in a workplace, where it might feel like you can’t make positive change without putting your job at risk. I would have placed this post directly in the thread, but it got … a little long. 

So; TLDR on this one. It’s a bit of a read, and I’m delving a little deep around the question…

“why is it important to manage safety?”

Ultimately – we all want to go home at the end of the day. So, if we consider the possible effects of an incident occurring, if we think about who might be affected and how they might be affected we can look at it from two perspectives: personal and company. 

From a personal point of view, well, I’d like to hope we all care enough about our colleagues, to want to have safety managed safely. There’s potentially a reputational cost to you. There’s a personal cost if an incident occurs: mentally, physically, emotionally, and yes, potentially financial impact, from down time off work to recover, medical costs, but it even goes over to possible jail time or fines depending on the incident. There’s also a huge moral compass in play – the why we manage safety should accompany this moral compass. There’s a hell of a lot going on from a personal perspective when it comes to the importance of safety on site. 

From a company …. It’s a bit more streamlined. Reputation, costs of time, lost projects, legal fees, fines, financial implications etc. Financial tends to be the motivator for companies to place an importance on safety.

If we simplify it, it really is three things for both personal and company perspectives: Moral, Legal and Financial.

We all have a duty of care under the WHS Act: responsibilities to the health and safety of those you work with, supervise, manage, or employ. There is also a responsibility to the health and safety of anyone else who may be affected by your work too.

So … it’s important to manage work safely because businesses, and supervisors and employees have a legal responsibilityto do so. There is a personal (moral) expectation to look after others and yourself. There are financial implications to individuals and the business. 

As a manager or supervisor … your responsibilities are to look after the health and safety of those you manage and anyone else that may be affected by your work. You’re the company representative, and responsible for safety decisions. 

It’s important to understand legal implications and our duty of care. The WHS Act is the law (i.e. legal duty of care) and Regulations provide guidance on how to meet the requirements of a law (i.e. you must). That’s why you might commonly hear “Acts and Regulations” in the same sentence. 

For workers, what does the law require you to do? 

There are two types of statutory duty in Health and Safety law:

:- Absolute -: this means that under any circumstances these duties must be complied with.
:- Qualified -: two terms are used to qualify a duty: 

  • “practicable’ which means that if something is technically feasible it should be done; and, 
  • “reasonably practicable” that allows for a balance of risk vs cost.

The principles of law are fairness and justice, and this is reflected in the significance given to the use of the words ‘reasonable and practicably’ within the law. The minimum you need to do is comply with the law, as the law sets the boundaries within which companies must operate. Our managers and supervisors need to assess ‘reasonably practicable’ risks and put in place control measure to reduce the risks so far as is ‘reasonably practicable’.

The WHS Act places a duty of care upon employers, employees, the self-employed and those on control of ‘premises’ to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of themselves and of other persons who may be affected by their acts or omissions at work. As I mentioned earlier, the Act is then support by a series of Regulations that place specific duties of requirements upon those in charge of and carrying out work. 

And fuuuuu …. The words ’reasonably practicable’ both make me happy and make me hate everything. Why? well … ‘reasonably practicable’ allows for a business to balance risk vs cost. 

What are some examples of that balance? Well, we have our job descriptions, which provide guidance on the roles and responsibilities we have to an organisation. We have systems in place to increase worker safety – through training and qualifications (to ensure a worker is competent to perform a task), we have all the glorious paperwork around a job, SWMS, toolbox talks, safety briefings, codes of practice, standards that give guidance on minimum requirements, we also have equipment that meets the requirements of the job and has been tested / manufactured to a standard appropriate for the task it is designed to perform, and as long as the user is competent to use the equipment, it further supports the balance of risk and cost. 

An example? Well if you invest in equipment, invest in training, you reduce the risk of misuse of equipment. 

We have a duty of care to refuse to use equipment supplied by an employer if it does not meet the requirements of the job or meet standards in place (such as ASNZ or EN standards). 

We have a duty of care to ensure training is undertaken in the use of equipment or access methodologies: and if you don’t know how something works – you have every right to get that training.

We have a duty of care to read and understand all the contents of a SWMS, and if you do not agree with the measures put in place to control a hazard, you, and your supervisors, have a duty of care to discuss this, to understand how it may be improved, and to agree and implement a solution that is fit for purpose and meets that glorious catch phrase of ‘reasonably practicable’.

And I completely understand it can feel hella awkward asking someone to stop a job to train or teach you in how something is used, or to ask why something is being done in a certain way that you’ve not seen before or is unsafe. 

But I revert to the question “why is it important to manage safety?”. 

And my answer is because I have a duty of care to ensure work is undertaken safely. And that means I can say no, I won’t put myself at risk by doing what the SWMS says. Let’s discuss it again and come up with a safer way of doing it. And this is why I mentioned earlier in the comments on the thread, that workers can and should care about safety – and that our actions can and do play into making a workplace culture of safety, actually safer.

What WE do makes the difference in a workplace’s attitude to safety: and a supportive environment given the constant heightened awareness for safe processes is vital. Because we all have a duty of care to GAF.

The ‘responsibilities’ might change from being a level 1, or new to the business, through to a Level 3 supervisor or a rope access manager – but the duty of care you have to your colleagues and the business and yourself still exists.

Which means that you can, and should speak up if you see unsafe work practices at any level within an organisation because it is important to continue to promote, encourage and manage safety.

If it’s all a bit too daunting to speak up, there are other ways of ensuring your employer is looking out for you: when a company has invested in attaining external accreditation to certifying bodies such as ISO and IRATA International – these external audits are extensive, and delve deep to ensure the company has the right systems in place to ensure access methodologies, quality management systems, health, safety and environmental standards are maintained. They provide an unbiased check on the business to ensure they comply with local legislative requirements as well as international best practice standards. So always keep an eye out for rope access companies that have these external accreditations; they can mean a bit more effort is made to ensure worker safety.