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

London Work at Height Seminar

2023 saw the fifth LWAHS return to the London Guildhall. It was a great success providing an opportunity for industry counterparts to come together to further their professional knowledge and safety awareness of the wider work at height industry. Deborah Chick attended, representing the Working at Height Association of Australia. 

The LWAHS welcomed Joanna Carrington, Jonathan Cooper and Jamie Ruxton from the City of London Corporation, who offered valuable insights into the impact of safety culture within the City. 

Principal Designer and CDM Adviser at Baily Garner (Health & Safety) Ltd, Adam Smith, complemented these insights with a discussion on the practical implementation of the ‘hierarchy of controls’ and how this helps to reduce risk throughout the design and construction process in the City.

Stephen Green from the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE), presented the impact of workplace culture on safe working practices and Simon Richmond, Senior Technical Officer at the Arboricultural Association, informed the audience of arboreal industries’ continuous progression to safer working practices. Peter Bennet OBE represented the Access Industry Forum (AIF) and provided statistical data, and updates from the APPG on working at height.

IRATA International was represented by Dr Sheila Kondaveeti and Jonathan Capper, IRATA’s CEO and Executive Chair. Dr Kondaveeti expressed the benefits of using IRATA members for industrial rope access needs, stating that “the cost of unsafe working practices will far outweigh any savings in the short term. Jonathan spoke about the IRATA safe system of work.

Thank you to the City of London Corporation for hosting the event and for their continued support.

View the event video: https://irata.org/media/videos/london-work-at-height-seminar-2023-video

Vale Rodney Magare 1969 – 2022

Rodney; thank you for being the pioneer of positive change within IRATA.

We first met in 2016, and since then – I honestly cannot thank you enough for your mentoring; for imparting your values onto me. Working with you over the years has been a true highlight of my professional career. Your contributions, innovation, unwavering commitment and high work ethics will be felt for years to come across the rope access industry.

My condolences to your family, and to the team at IRATA Head Office. 

Deborah Chick, CEO Eve Consulting


From IRATA International:

It is with a heavy heart that we inform you that Rodney Marage, our General Manager and Company Secretary, passed away on the 2nd February 2022 following a battle with cancer. This announcement has been delayed until now to allow Rodney’s family time to share this tragic news.

Rodney’s significant contribution, innovative approach and unwavering dedication to the progression of IRATA were immeasurable. Rodney was unquestionably a prominent figure in the association’s global growth and advancement, which the industry will benefit from for many years to come. Rodney encouraged a collaborative approach, and undoubtedly, this news will be a cause of great sadness for all those he inspired. We offer our sincere condolences to his family and to all those affected by his passing. 

For anyone wishing to share their sympathies, IRATA has set up an online book of remembrance HERE and for those wishing to donate to the family’s chosen charity, Ellenor Hospice, who cared for Rodney in his final days, may do so HERE. We encourage those who would like to pay their respects, to do so in these forums.

Rodney was a truly remarkable man who was widely respected by the IRATA community. In his memory, we shall use our best endeavours to fulfil his ambitious vision for IRATA and emulate the association’s achievements during his time as General Manager.

Jonathan Capper
IRATA International Chairman
For and on behalf of the IRATA Executive Committee

New IRATA Membership Requirements

It is official!

The new IRATA Membership Requirements have come into full effect!

All exisiting Member Companies shall be audited against these new requirements; rather than a checklist, the document follows a format and structure more aligned with other established International standards and industry practices.

This new structure will facilitate the implementation of an integrated management system, for example, if the company also complies with ISO9001, the document control requirements are very similar.

Q: What are the new requirements?

A: IRATA Membership Requirements [QP-300] is essentially the standard (or rules) that companies are required to meet to gain or maintain IRATA membership.

Q: What does this mean for exisiting member companies? 

A: Current Members shall be audited against the new standards at their next scheduled audit in order to maintain membership.

Q: Can I still use the Audit Checklist FM-039 or FM-059?

A: No. ‘Membership Audit Checklist [FM-039ENG]’ has been phased out for audit purposes. It has been replaced by the new IRATA Membership Requirements Checklist [FM-312ENG].

Q: What does this mean for companies who want to apply for membership?

A: IRATA are still heavily impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, and regrettably, membership application services are severely impacted and in some cases rejected in cases where it is not feasible to process an application. This is due to the limitations around travel restrictions for Auditors: here in Australia, we are lucky that we have a select few Auditors in country, but we still face border restrictions for travel. You can still apply for membership direct with IRATA. 

Q: How can I prepare for being audited to the new standards?

A: We recommend that your company performs a gap analysis between the old and new standards.

Q: Can Eve Consulting assist in a gap analysis?

A: Yes, we definitely can. A gap analysis is where we review your existing management system and evaluate its compliance against requirements of an external certifying body, such as IRATA International. As a first step to upgrade management systems, a gap analysis will help you confirm the direction and success of work already completed, and also to identify systems, processes or documentation which may need to be developed or improved.

Get in touch today to discuss your organisations ongoing compliance objectives and needs.

E: info@eve-consulting.com.au

Important Changes to the IRATA TACS Announced.

It was necessary for IRATA International to amend and add additional clauses in their Training, Assessment and Certification Scheme (TACS). These changes relate to unsuccessful candidate assessments and the required timeframe for candidate training, assessment and reassessment. Full details are below. Also, at the bottom of this article are answers to the most frequently asked questions about the changes made to IRATA’s TACS.

Changes to TACS clauses 9.4.3 and 9.4.4
9.4.3 Where a candidate fails a revalidation assessment, the candidate’s existing certification shall not remain valid (see 9.4.5 and 9.4.6).However, depending on the candidate’s performance, the Assessor may continue the assessment to allow the candidate to attempt revalidation at a lower level.

9.4.4 Where a candidate fails an upgrade assessment, the candidate’s existing certification should remain valid until expiry (see 9.4.5) and 9.4.6). However, depending on the candidate’s performance, the Assessor may continue the assessment to allow the candidate to attempt revalidation at their current level.

Addition of clauses 9.4.5 and 9.4.6
9.4.5 Revalidation and upgrade assessments resulting in a fail, due to a major discrepancy on any syllabus item, cannot be continued for the purpose of revalidating the technician to a lower level. In such cases the technician is permitted to be reassessed at the same level, or lower level, within 60 days of the failed assessment attempt without the requirement for further training.

9.4.6 Level 2 and 3 revalidation and upgrade assessments resulting in a fail due to a third minor discrepancy can continue for the purpose of revalidating the technician to a lower level, providing all the required syllabus items of the lower level are passed with a maximum of two minor discrepancies, subject to the following:

  1. All syllabus items performed during an unsuccessful revalidation assessment shall be carried over to the downgraded assessment unless the syllabus item is not performed at the lower level.
  2. All minor discrepancies identified during an unsuccessful revalidation assessment shall be carried over to the downgraded assessment unless the syllabus item is not performed at the lower level.
  3. All minor discrepancies for syllabus items that only require awareness (A) shall not be carried over to the downgraded assessment and shall be reassessed at the downgraded level.

Change to clause 7.3.2
7.3.2 Training programmes shall comprise at least 30 hours training over a minimum of 4 days. This time is specific to the level of course and will not normally include any refresher time for lower-level requirements. Training member companies shall ensure that training programmes are suitable for the trainee’s ability and be aware that the minimum requirements may not be sufficient. The IRATA Assessment shall be conducted on a calendar date which is separate from the calendar dates of the training provided and shall be independent of training activities.

Your Questions Answered

Q – “Can Assessors still recommend further training to be completed by a failed candidate within 60 days of a re-assessment?”
A – Currently, as per clause 9.4.2 of the TACS, where appropriate, the Assessor should recommend further training (1-4 days) and/or experience before re-assessment.

Q – “If a candidate fails an assessment and continues their assessment at a lower level, should a second (new) Technician Assessment Form [FM-025] be completed?”
A – A new Technician Assessment Form [FM-025] must be created for each assessment. The Assessor is required to write an explanation in the comments box on the new FM-025 to inform IRATA that the candidate undertook an assessment at a lower level, following a failed revalidation assessment.

Q – “If a candidate fails a revalidation assessment, is their current certification still valid?”
A – No. If a candidate fails a revalidation assessment, their existing certification shall not remain valid. This has been a requirement since TACS edition 2 which was published in March 2015.

Q – “If a candidate fails an upgrade assessment, is their current certification still valid?”
A – Yes. If a candidate fails an upgrade assessment, their existing certification remains unaffected.

Q – “If a candidate fails an upgrade or revalidation assessment by committing a major discrepancy, can they continue their assessment at a lower level?”
A – No. Revalidation and upgrade assessments resulting in a fail due to a major discrepancy on any syllabus item, cannot be continued for the purpose of revalidating the technician to a lower level. In such cases the technician is permitted to be reassessed at the same level, or lower level, within 60 days of the failed assessment attempt without the requirement for further training.

Q – “If a candidate fails a revalidation assessment by committing 3 minor discrepancies, can they continue their assessment at a lower level?”
A – Yes. Providing no more than 2 of the syllabus items the minor discrepancies were applied to are performed at the “lower level”.

Q – “Can a candidate have more than 1 downgrade assessment attempt after a failed revalidation?”
A – No. A revalidation candidate can only have 1 additional attempt to revalidate their certification to a lower level, on the same day. Therefore, no certification can be awarded to the candidate on that day. The candidate is permitted to be reassessed at the same level, or lower level, within 60 days of the failed assessment attempt without the requirement for further training.

Q – “9.4.6 a. states that all syllabus items performed during an unsuccessful revalidation assessment shall be carried over to the downgraded assessment unless the syllabus item is not performed at the lower level, does this include upgrade assessments?”
A – No. If a candidate fails an upgrade assessment, the candidate’s existing certification remains unaffected. The candidate is permitted to be reassessed at the same level, or lower level, within 60 days of the failed assessment attempt without the requirement for further training.

Q – “Providing a minimum of 30 hours training has been completed over a minimum of 4 days, can the candidate be assessed on the last day of training?”
A – No. The IRATA assessment shall be independent of training activities and shall be conducted on a calendar date which is separate from the calendar dates of the training provided. For example, if the IRATA training started on Monday 24th May and finished on Thursday 27th May, the earliest date the IRATA assessment can take place is Friday 28th May.

An updated copy of the TACS can be downloaded direct from IRATA: https://irata.org/downloads/2059