Rope access work is performed in occupations such as window washing, bridge inspection and wind turbine maintenance. The new ANSI/ASSP Z459.1-2021, Safety Requirements for Rope Access Systems, sets forth accepted practices for rope access work. Loui McCurley, Z459.1 subcommittee chair, explains what makes this method of fall protection unique.

⋅

PSJ: When we use the term “rope access,” what does that mean?

Loui: Sometimes people assume that anything with a rope must be rope access, but that would be like saying anything with a fall must be fall protection, which is just not true. Rope access is a method of fall protection that also involves providing access to a location. There are two separate systems: an access system and a backup system, and they’re both ropes. That’s what constitutes a rope access system and why it’s not just fall protection; it’s also the method of getting to the workplace.

The first rope access in the U.S. that we can find was in the construction of dams, such as the ones built by the Bureau of Reclamation in the 1940s and 1950s, where they used rope access methods to get down the slopes on the sides of the dams to perform work.

⋅

PSJ: Describe the history of the new Z459 standard, what’s included and how it can help keep workers safe when doing rope access work.

Loui: The Z359 committee is focused on fall protection as a whole, but one of the gaps that Z359 has had since its inception is acknowledgment of rope access. Z359 has focused on fall arrest, positioning and restraint, and people who are doing rope access have tried to squeeze themselves into one of those definitions. However, they don’t really fit because there are specific requirements with fall arrest. When using a rope system, it was assumed that you needed to have conventional fall arrest, which involves 6-ft lanyards and long fall potentials, dorsal attachments and things that just don’t really work when using a rope as the main line. Z359 recognized this about 20 years ago, but creating a definition of how to address it really kind of escaped us until after the publication of ISO/TC 94, which is the fall protection standard in the ISO ecosystem. They developed a document called ISO 22846, a standard on rope access, and that was the first time the Z359 committee agreed that this was how rope access can integrate and not necessarily bump heads with conventional fall protection.

In typical fall protection, there’s a mindset of wanting to engineer out hazards and not requiring extra training for people to protect themselves when there’s a fall hazard. With rope access, it’s exactly the opposite because they’re using the rope to get to and from where they’re going, which isn’t going to be done without practice or training. You can walk on a beam and use fall arrest without a whole lot of training, but you can’t use a rope for access and backup without training. So that in a nutshell is why the standard is under a different number, Z459 instead of Z359. The Z459 numerical designator was established to differentiate between this type of fall protection that requires additional training versus the conventional mindset of engineering out hazards.

That said, there are two kinds of equipment involved in rope access. There’s the equipment on the main line, which is the progress line, and that would be in place of your feet. That’s the equipment that’s getting you to and from where you want to go. There is a descender, an ascending system with rope grabs or ascenders, and various lanyards and combinations of those that allow the worker to move up, down and sideways on ropes.

The second kind are the backup systems—rope access backup. This is the secondary protection so that if the primary system should fail for whatever reason, that backup system would catch you. The backup system is arranged in such a way that it limits the potential fall distance, thereby limiting the amount of potential force on the system. So, we don’t need the extreme capabilities that a typical fall arrest system might have. In typical fall arrest, there is a 6-ft—and sometimes even more—distance of free fall before the system even starts to grab the worker. The distances and the forces are higher than in rope access, where that secondary system is closer to the worker, no more than a couple of feet away at any given time, and generally above the attachment point. So the potential for a significant fall is mitigated.

PSJ: The types of sites where rope access might be used can be divided into two classifications: simple and complex. What is the difference and what planning is needed for each type?

Loui: This is a great thing to touch on because, historically, people who have practiced or been involved in rope access would have extensive training. Their skills are outstanding on rope. There’s not much that a certified rope access technician at a Level 2 or 3 can’t do in the traditional sense. But what we have found over the decades since the certification processes were originally developed is that when people go to work, they actually don’t use many of those skills at all. They mostly go up and down. In fact, many workers in building or wind turbine maintenance, for example, will often ride the elevator to the top, jump on a rope and come down to do their work and let gravity help them, then get off the rope at the bottom and use the elevator again to go back up and move over a couple of feet and start all over again. So, the extensive skill sets that were trained in the original models of certification for rope access have been found to be unnecessary for probably 80% of the work sites. By training these people in the more advanced techniques, it became a barrier to entry for some, an additional or unnecessary cost for others, and actually confused some because they knew all these advanced techniques but ended up just sticking to the basics. In developing the standard, we tried to write it for most people out there. We want to help as many people as possible keep themselves safe.

By writing a standard for a simple system that encompasses the majority of what everybody does, it creates a shorter training course and an easier certification, and it covers the vast majority of what happens. Simple rope access is defined as a rope access site or location where there is both top and bottom egress and access to the rope, so the technician can get on and off rope at both locations. In a simple system, there is not extensive sideways deviation of the rope. For example, when a bridge engineer is doing a bridge inspection, typically they will descend to a certain point, but then their next anchor might be 20 ft over to one side and the rope will actually go down and have a belly in it and come back up and be re-anchored at that location 20 ft off to the side. There are ways to safely negotiate that without creating a swing fall hazard, but that’s a more advanced skill. We call that complex rope access. For complex rope access, the technicians need a little additional training, a few additional skills and a little bit of additional proven capability of techniques so that they can negotiate that safely.

⋅

PSJ: What do you hope to be the takeaways for end users who are using the standard?

Loui: My greatest hope is that this standard will make rope access more accessible to a broader range of people. Right now, the people using rope access tend to be highly advanced and skilled specialists, and it’s used less than it should be. As I mentioned, the systems for rope access don’t allow as great a fall as conventional fall arrest. They allow workers to access locations where there may not even be facilities, anchors or the ability to implement traditional rope access methods. By opening rope access to a broader spectrum of workers and work types, we can improve safety for people just by giving them a way to do their work.

This standard has everything in it: program management for supervisors and employers, equipment selection and rigging for the qualified person, inspection of rigging and techniques for the competent person, including rescue, and methods or methodologies for the authorized person. So, there’s a little bit for everybody in this standard. The fact that the standard covers so many different aspects of rope access, from employer responsibilities to qualified person responsibilities, to competent person and authorized person responsibilities and requirements for those, it might seem like a lot to dig through. But by understanding each other’s limitations, roles and responsibilities, it helps others do their respective jobs more effectively. Having it rolled into one standard is a benefit, especially as the industry is just catching on to rope access and learning what it’s all about.

PSJ: Anything else you’d like to add about the Z459 standard or rope access work?

Loui: I’m excited about the potential for just about every industry out there. Rope access is not a job, it’s the bus you take to work. Becoming a rope access technician is a great skill set for any kind of trade to have, even for professional careers, including engineers, painters and building maintenance workers. The spectrum of work that can be performed using rope access techniques is virtually unlimited.

I also want to emphasize that there are some trade associations that offer rope access training and certification in accordance with their own internal guidelines. We have tried to mesh the new standard with what is happening in industry best practice right now. So, the Z459 standard is not instead of or in addition to any particular trade association, it’s complementary to them. If you’re a certified technician through one of these trade organizations, if you’re using team members who are certified, or if you’re an employer using team members who are certified through one of those organizations, you don’t need to start over from scratch. You are already doing what’s in the Z459 standard, as long as you are compliant with the regulatory requirements that come from OSHA and the fall protection community.

 

The following article has been reprinted from the February 2022 issue of Professional Safety, a publication of the American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP), with permission from ASSP.