Working at height method selection

Working at height is an unavoidable reality across countless industries worldwide, presenting significant risks to workers every day. According to the World Health Organisation, falls account for approximately 684,000 fatalities each year, making them the second leading cause of unintentional injury-related deaths, surpassed only by road traffic accidents. The danger is just as prevalent in the UK, where the Health and Safety Executive’s Work-Related Fatal Injuries in Great Britain 2024 report highlights that falls from height remain the leading cause of workplace fatalities. With 50 deaths recorded – an alarming rise from the previous five-year average of 37 – these statistics reinforce the urgent need for stringent safety measures and proactive risk management in all industries where working at height is a factor.

What is the definition of working at height in the U.K?

In the UK, working at height is defined under the Work at Height Regulations 2005 (WAHR) as:

“Work in any place, including a place at or below ground level, where a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury.”

This definition includes work:

Above ground level – Any task performed on a roof, ladder, scaffolding, MEWP, platform, bridge etc.
At ground level with fall risks – Work near unprotected edges, open excavations, or pits where a fall is possible.
Below ground level – Tasks performed in tunnels, shafts, or confined spaces where there is a risk of falling further.

The Work at Height Regulations 2005 place a legal duty on employers, site managers, and contractors to ensure that work at height is properly planned, risk-assessed, and carried out safely using appropriate equipment and fall protection measures.

Why are the figures so high for fatal injuries caused by falls from working at height?

Human error is the driving force behind the majority of workplace falls. Whether it’s using equipment incorrectly, relying on an unsuitable work method due to lack of alternatives, or underestimating a hazard simply because it “doesn’t seem high enough” to count as working at height – these choices can have devastating consequences. If you or someone on your team is injured due to one of these oversights, the reality is clear: the accident happened because of a decision you made.

This is why, if you’re tasked with a project that involves working at height and lack the necessary expertise, the safest course of action is to stop and seek guidance. Consulting a specialist or hiring a third-party company experienced in height safety can make all the difference in ensuring the job is carried out safely and in compliance with regulations.

For those in leadership positions; employers, site managers, facility managers, building owners, and architects, it’s essential to recognise your legal responsibilities. Undertaking training, such as the IOSH Managing Working at Height course, can provide valuable knowledge to help identify risks and implement proper safety measures. Should an accident occur under your supervision; whether on your property, job site, or within your company, you could be held legally and financially accountable. In any investigation, you’ll need to prove that you took every reasonable step to prevent the incident. If you can’t, the consequences could be severe. Don’t leave safety to chance – make informed decisions before it’s too late.

To support both workers and those responsible for workplace safety, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has developed clear, structured hierarchies for managing various hazardous environments, including; working at height, and confined spaces. These guidelines serve as a crucial framework, helping you choose the safest and most appropriate work method for your project while ensuring compliance with industry regulations.

Listed below in the bullet points is a brief overview of the Hierarchy of Control for Working at Height:

Avoid Working at Height Whenever Possible – The safest option is to eliminate the need for height work altogether. For example, use drones for visual surveys or reach-and-wash pole systems for window cleaning where practicable.
Prevent a fall by using an Existing Safe Place of Work – If working at height is unavoidable, prioritise using a location that is already secure, such as a non-fragile roof with a permanent perimeter guardrail.
Utilise Equipment to Prevent Falls – Where a safe workspace isn’t available, implement engineered controls like scaffolding, Mobile Elevated Work Platforms (MEWPs), or collective fall protection systems to minimise risk.

If none of these measures are feasible, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) should only be used as a last resort-and even then, it must follow a strict, systematic approach to ensure maximum safety.

When using PPE for working at height, the first priority should be work restraint – a method that completely eliminates the risk of reaching a fall hazard. Properly implemented, work restraint ensures that the worker cannot physically access the edge, preventing any possibility of a fall. To be effective, the system must be designed so that a fall in suspension is never an option – the worker should always remain securely positioned within a safe area.
If work restraint isn’t possible – such as when accessing a work area below the fall hazard – then work positioning (rope access) must be considered. This method allows workers to be safely suspended in a controlled manner, ensuring stability and security while carrying out tasks at height.
Finally, if a worker must operate above a fall hazard and ascend beyond their anchor points, fall arrest becomes necessary. This is the least preferred PPE-based access method, as it inherently carries the risk of a fall. When using fall arrest, ground clearance must be carefully assessed to ensure there is enough space to absorb the impact safely. However, in situations where a fall factor greater than 1 is unavoidable, fall arrest is essential – allowing work to continue while mitigating the consequences of a potential fall. Notably, while the maximum allowable fall factor in height safety is a fall factor 2, fall arrest is the only system designed to manage this level of risk.

Nets and airbags are a form of protection although on their own are not considered a safe system of work however, when used collectively alongside an edge perimeter handrail etc. they can be used to complete a collective fall protection system.

Lastly, ladders can be utilised as a method for working at height however, should the scope of work exceed 30-minutes then an alternative work method should be considered.

Below are some of these work methods written in a little more detail followed by Pro’s and Con’s for each work method.

What is rope access?

Method of working at height where the worker works in suspension.
Allows the worker to access the most arduous work locations.
Developed in the early 80’s by mountaineers, cavers & climbers, and has since been provided with recognised Industrial Standards, in the U.K. for the work method the standard is BS7985 and the International Standard is ISO 22846
It began in the North Sea.
Since then, organisations have been set up and developed around the world offering rope access in an industrial environment such as; IRATA, Sprat, & Soft.
It allows the worker to be capable of carrying out any work activity that would usually be carried out on the ground, a scaffold, or in a MEWP.
As rope access involves utilising climbing equipment that can; raise, lower, or pull a worker / casualty in suspension to different locations the equipment is considered as lifting equipment (due to its mechanical capabilities), therefore, in the U.K. as well as predominantly being covered by the working at height regulations 2005 it also falls under the Lifting Operation Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 or LOLER for short.

Due to rope access being governed by the LOLER Regulations, Regulation 5 covers utilising lifting equipment for lifting of persons, and under that regulation it specifies that:

Regulation 5(1)(c)

150 Where practicable, other carriers should be fitted with suitable devices or other effective measures should be taken to prevent the carrier falling in the event of failure of the primary means of support. For example:

(a) Multiple ropes (with independent anchorages)

The information in this bullet point was obtained from page 30 of the LOLER ACOP available on the HSE.gov.uk website.

As outlined above, rope access systems must always incorporate an independent secondary backup system to comply with safety regulations. To meet this requirement, rope access technicians must be suspended from at least two independent systems at all times.

At Hightech Industrial Access, we uphold the highest safety standards as an IRATA Operator and Training Member Company. IRATA has taken additional steps to enhance safety by reducing the risks of pendulum swings and falls. Their International Code of Practice (ICOP) mandates that any anchored system wider than 1.5m apart must also be doubled up. This means that when performing rope manoeuvres such as a rope transfer or Y-hang rigging, there must be four separate anchorage systems, each with a minimum anchor strength of 15kN. Additionally, during rope transfers or cross-hauls, both the worker and any casualty must remain secured with four points of attachment at all times.

How Rope Access Compares to Other Work-at-Height Methods

When you compare this level of redundancy and safety to other access techniques like Work Restraint or Fall Arrest, which are primarily governed by the Working at Height Regulations, rope access stands out as one of the safest methods when managed correctly by competent technicians. Unlike rope access, work restraint and fall arrest systems allow workers to rely on just one point of attachment, which inherently carries greater risk.

However, when implemented correctly, work restraint is just as safe as rope access because it eliminates the edge hazard entirely. Likewise, fall arrest plays a critical role in situations where suspension is not possible, and fall factors are unavoidable.

The Key to Safe Work at Height: Competence & Correct Selection

Each of these three access techniques – Rope Access, Work Restraint, and Fall Arrest – are essential in different scenarios. When used correctly and in full compliance with safety regulations, they all provide safe and effective means of working at height.

Ultimately, accidents at height are almost always a result of human error – whether due to incorrect selection of access techniques, a lack of understanding of alternative methods, or insufficient competence. By following the standards set by local and international regulations and ensuring that only trained professionals carry out height-related work, workers can significantly reduce risks and maintain a safe working environment.

Why chose Rope Access?

Rope access allows workers to climb or lower themselves directly to their work location, making it significantly faster and more efficient than traditional access methods like scaffolding. This increased speed translates to cost savings, making rope access a practical, cost-effective alternative for many projects.

Additionally, because rope access technicians ascend and descend independently, fewer workers are exposed to height-related risks compared to scaffolding, where multiple teams are involved. To illustrate this, let’s compare two scenarios – one using traditional access techniques and another utilising rope access.

Comparing Traditional Methods vs. Rope Access

Imagine a project requiring the installation of a pipeline.

Traditional Method (Scaffolding & Rigging)

A team of scaffolders (at least two workers) erects the scaffold.
A team of riggers (two or more workers) lifts the pipework/spools into position.
A team of pipefitters (two or more workers) assembles the spool flanges.

Total workers affected by the risk rating: At least 6 (not including additional roles such as slingers or labourers).

Rope Access Method

One IRATA Level 3 technician supervises the operation.
One rope access rigger lifts the pipework.
One rope access pipefitter assists with lifting and assembles the flanges.

Total workers affected by the risk rating: Just 3

By reducing the number of workers exposed to height-related risks, the likelihood of incidents decreases, and overall efficiency improves.

Other Advantages of Rope Access

1. Minimised disruptions of Business & Public Spaces

Unlike scaffolding, which can obstruct pathways and remain in place for extended periods, rope access can be deployed and dismantled within minutes.
Work can be scheduled at night or during off-hours, allowing facilities to operate without interruption.
This is especially beneficial in high-traffic areas where scaffolding might block access or pose an emergency hazard.

2. No Heavy Equipment Constraints

MEWPs (Mobile Elevated Work Platforms) are often a viable alternative, but they come with challenges:
They can damage flooring (e.g., cracking tiles or sinking on soft ground).
Their size and weight may prevent access to certain areas (e.g., fitting through doorways).
They require a flat, stable surface, limiting their usability on uneven terrain.

When to Choose Traditional Methods

While rope access offers clear advantages, it is not always the best solution. As detailed above there is a Hierarchy of Control that must be followed when selecting an access method. Scaffolding and MEWPs still play a crucial role in certain scenarios:

Long-term projects where workers need continuous access to a specific area.
Heavy lifting tasks that require mechanical support rather than manual rigging.
Sites where rope access is impractical, such as environments with no suitable anchorage points.

Choosing the Right Work Method

The key takeaway is not to default to the method you’re most familiar with but rather to select the safest and most efficient approach for the job. As a principal contractor or project planner, considering all options – rope access, scaffolding, MEWPs, and others – ensures that work is completed safely, efficiently, and cost-effectively.

Scaffolding: The Time-Tested Work-at-Height Solution

Scaffolding is one of the most widely used and enduring work-at-height methods in the world. In fact, it’s likely the oldest – having been used for thousands of years in construction. From bamboo scaffolds in Asia to wooden framework structures in ancient Europe, civilisations have relied on scaffolding to provide safe and stable access for workers.

While these early structures differ from the modern standardised scaffolding we see today, the fundamental concept remains the same. The scaffolding systems we now recognise were revolutionised in the early 1900s by Daniel Palmer Jones, whose innovations led to the global standardisation of scaffold design. Since then, scaffolding has become an essential feature of major projects across the world; from painting the Forth Rail Bridge in Edinburgh to constructing high-rise buildings and maintaining offshore oil rigs.

Why Scaffolding Remains the Gold Standard

When practical and feasible, scaffolding should always be considered as an access method.

The greatest advantage?

It allows workers to stand securely on a stable platform, keeping their focus entirely on the job rather than balancing at height in an uncomfortable harness. If a scaffold can be safely erected, it often provides the safest and most efficient solution.

When to Consider Alternatives to Scaffolding

Despite its many benefits, scaffolding isn’t always the best choice. In certain scenarios, alternative access methods such as rope access, MEWPs (Mobile Elevated Work Platforms), or work restraint systems may be more practical, cost-effective, and time-efficient. Here are some key situations where scaffolding may not be ideal:

a. Short-Duration Tasks – If a job only takes a few hours or a couple of days, the time and cost required to erect and dismantle scaffolding may outweigh its benefits.

b. Scaffold Contact Points Obstruct the Work Area – When applying coatings, scaffolding may have multiple contact points with the structure, blocking access to certain areas and requiring additional rework.

c. Limited Access to the Work Area – In locations such as high-rise rooftops, transporting long scaffold tubes or ladder beams may be difficult. In some cases, a third-party crane company may be required to lift materials onto the site, making scaffolding logistically challenging or financially unfeasible.

d. Structural Load Concerns – If the building or structure isn’t designed to bear additional weight, the added load of scaffolding could pose a serious structural risk.

e. Operational Downtime on Live Sites – On active sites, scaffolding erection and dismantling can cause major disruptions. If a project requires three weeks to install and three weeks to remove scaffolding, that’s six weeks of lost operational time, something that may be avoidable with alternative work-at-height methods.

Finally, Scaffolding is a trusted and effective solution for many work-at-height tasks, but it’s not always the most practical option. Each project should be assessed individually, considering safety, feasibility, efficiency and cost before selecting an access method. By understanding when to use scaffolding and when alternatives may be better suited, project managers can minimise risks, optimise workflows, and reduce costs while ensuring worker safety remains the top priority.

Mobile Elevated Work Platforms

Mobile Elevated Work Platforms (MEWPs) are incredibly versatile machines, essentially providing the benefits of scaffolding without the need for a team to assemble and dismantle structures. In fact, at Hightech Industrial Access, MEWPs play a crucial role in many of our projects – whether it’s gaining access to hard-to-reach areas, constructing buildings, or performing cleaning tasks. That’s why we hold a fleet of various machines, including scissor lifts, boom lifts, spider lifts, and towable lifts, to ensure we have the right equipment for any job.

However, as efficient and convenient as MEWPs can be, they also introduce significant hazards to the workplace. Understanding these risks is critical for safe operation and effective project planning.

Key MEWP Hazards and Considerations

Electrical Hazards – The Danger of Overhead Cables
MEWPs are constructed from metal – typically steel or aluminium – both of which are highly conductive. If there are overhead power lines near the worksite, operating a MEWP may not be safe, and alternative access methods may be required.
Machine Sway and Stability
One of the most overlooked dangers when working at height utilising a MEWP is pendulum sway, particularly when operating near maximum lift height. Factors that can contribute to excessive movement include:

• Heavy-handed control operation – Sudden or aggressive movements can cause the platform to rock.

• Manual tasks – Activities such as hammering, drilling, or pulling cables can amplify platform movement.

• Articulated boom lifts & spider lifts – These machines are especially prone to sway, requiring an experienced operator to handle them safely-especially near buildings or fragile structures like glass facades.
Imagine working beside a glass building – If you’re inexperienced with MEWPs, a single miscalculation could shatter a window or collide with the structure, leading to costly damages and potential injuries. This is why selecting experienced and competent operators is just as important as choosing the right machine for the job.
Ground Conditions & Machine Suitability
The stability of a MEWP heavily depends on ground conditions. Key factors to assess include:

• Slope gradients – If a scissor lift is on a surface with a gradient greater than 1.5 degrees, the machine will not lift.

• Soft or boggy ground – Heavy machines may sink, creating a serious tipping hazard.

• Underground services – Hidden cables, pipes, or fragile underground structures could be damaged under the weight of a MEWP. Ground surveys using CAT scans, radar scans, and reviewing historical safety records are essential before beginning work.

• In situations where the ground is unstable, a spider lift may be the ideal solution. Spider lifts are uniquely designed with stabilising legs, significantly increasing their footprint while remaining lightweight, highly manoeuvrable, and capable of reaching extreme heights with impressive outreach.

Additional MEWP Hazards to Consider

In addition to ground stability and operational risks, project managers, SHEQ officers, site managers, and supervisors must be aware of the following hazards when using MEWPs on-site:

Crush Injuries – Operators must be aware of surrounding structures to prevent being trapped.
Falls from Height – Proper fall protection measures must be in place.
Weather Conditions – Strong winds or adverse weather can compromise stability.
Blind Spots & Poor Visibility – Operators need clear sightlines to manoeuvre safely.
Human Error – Inexperienced or careless operation increases risk.
Machine Failure – Regular maintenance and pre-use checks are crucial.
Poor Lighting – Visibility must be adequate for safe operation.
Electrical Risks – Working with live electricity while standing on a metal platform is extremely dangerous.
Chemical Hazards – Fuel spills, battery maintenance, and hydraulic leaks can pose environmental and safety risks.
Spatial Awareness – Operators must be mindful of their surroundings to avoid collisions.
Dropped Objects – Tools, materials, or debris falling from height can pose a significant danger to workers below.

The Hidden Costs and Logistical Challenges of MEWPs

As well as introducing hazards to the worksite, they can also introduce significant logistical challenges – particularly when projects span multiple locations. Unlike static scaffolding or rope access, MEWPs often need to be relocated frequently, which comes with costly and complex transportation requirements.

Most MEWPs are heavy machines, often weighing 2,700kg or more, due to their batteries, electric motors, hydraulic pumps, and oil systems. This means that moving them legally requires specialised transport, such as a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) or outsourced haulage services, both of which can place a financial strain on a business.

The Cost of Owning an HGV for MEWP Transport

At first glance, owning an HGV may seem like a cost-saving solution, but in reality, it comes with its own set of challenges. Here’s why:

Staffing Costs
• To operate an HGV, you may need to hire a qualified driver and potentially a transport manager, adding two additional salaries to your payroll.
• If your MEWP transport needs are infrequent, these costs can quickly become unjustified overheads.
Strict Maintenance & Compliance Requirements
• In the UK, HGVs must undergo rigorous inspection regimes, including 6 to 12-week checks and an annual MOT, all adding to operational costs.
Operator Licensing (O-License) Requirements
• If you’re moving MEWPs for hire, you’ll likely need an O-License, which introduces extra administrative work and expenses.
High Maintenance Costs
• HGV repairs and maintenance can be expensive, especially if the vehicle is only used occasionally.
Tax & Fuel Expenses
• HGV fuel consumption is significant, and with the rising cost of fuel, running an HGV can substantially impact your bottom line.

Is Outsourcing Haulage a Better Alternative?

For businesses that don’t frequently move heavy equipment, outsourcing to a haulage company may be the more practical option. However, this too comes at a cost:

Premium pricing – Haulage companies charge per trip, which can become expensive over time.
Project cost implications – These expenses must be factored into your job pricing, as failing to do so could mean:
- Losing bids to competitors who can move their own equipment at lower costs.
- Unexpected losses, particularly on smaller projects where margins are tight.

Breakdowns and LOLER Inspections of MEWP’s

Like rope access equipment, MEWPs are classified as lifting equipment since they transport people from one location to another. As a result, they fall under Regulation 5 of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER). More importantly, Regulation 9 of LOLER stipulates that:

“Every employer shall ensure that lifting equipment which is exposed to conditions causing deterioration, which is liable to result in dangerous situations, is thoroughly examined— in the case of lifting equipment for lifting persons or an accessory for lifting, at least every six months.”

This means that MEWPs must undergo a thorough LOLER inspection upon initial purchase and every six months thereafter. However, unlike rope access equipment, where an employer can train staff to conduct PPE inspections, MEWP owners usually must hire certified third-party MEWP engineers to perform these mandatory LOLER inspections. This adds significant operating costs, especially for companies managing a fleet of machines, where inspection fees quickly accumulate.

Beyond compliance costs, MEWPs can also be expensive to maintain and repair, particularly during unexpected breakdowns. The financial impact stems from several factors:

Lost operational time, resulting in project delays and reduced efficiency.
High replacement costs for specialised hydraulic parts.
Third-party MEWP engineer fees, which can be costly for emergency call-outs or major repairs.

Ultimately, MEWPs are powerful tools that can significantly enhance productivity when used correctly, but they are not always the best or most practical option. When planning a project, it’s essential to evaluate all available access methods including; rope access, scaffolding, and work restraint systems – and choose the safest, most efficient solution for the task at hand.

However, the decision to use MEWPs goes beyond just safety and functionality; logistical challenges and transportation costs must also be considered. Whether you choose to invest in your own transport fleet or outsource haulage, the financial impact on your projects can be substantial. The high costs associated with vehicle maintenance, operator licensing, fuel, and compliance can quickly add up, affecting your bottom line. On the other hand, outsourcing haulage comes with premium charges that must be factored into job pricing, or you risk losing bids to competitors or operating at a loss. Furthermore, it is crucial to factor in the ongoing costs of compliance, maintenance, and repairs when deciding whether they are the most practical and cost-effective solution for your project.

Finally, making informed decisions about both MEWP usage and transport logistics is key to maintaining worksite efficiency, worker safety, and business profitability; especially in a competitive industry where operational efficiency matters just as much as safety.

Conclusion: Selecting the Right Access Method for Safety, Efficiency, and Cost-Effectiveness

Working at height requires careful planning, risk assessment, and the right choice of access method to ensure both safety and efficiency. While MEWPs, scaffolding, and rope access each offer unique advantages, they also come with their own logistical challenges, compliance requirements, and financial implications.

MEWPs provide quick and versatile access, but their high maintenance costs, LOLER inspection requirements, and transportation logistics must be factored into project planning. Scaffolding remains a stable and widely used method, but its setup time, structural weight, and site disruption can make it impractical for certain jobs. Rope access, on the other hand, offers a fast, cost-effective alternative that minimises worker exposure to risk; but requires specialised training and strict safety protocols.

Conclusively, no single method is superior in all situations. The key to a successful work-at-height strategy is to assess each project individually, considering factors such as safety regulations, work duration, site accessibility, budget constraints, and operational efficiency. By making informed decisions, balancing safety, cost, and practicality, businesses can minimise risks, optimise productivity, and stay competitive in the industry while ensuring that every worker returns home safely at the end of the day. What is more; remember to always avoid working at height wherever possible, and when this is not possible work through the hierarchy of control to select the right work method for your project. If all else fails or you are unsure of anything seek advice from a working at height consultant!

Contact Hightech Industrial Access today

With over 30 years of experience, Hightech Industrial Access has provided the highest quality industrial site service and working at height services in the building, petro-chemical, shipyard, and renewable energy sectors. We provide working at height and rope access training in our state-of-the-art new venue situation in Darlington, County Durham, in the North East of England. We also have an extensive range of plant equipment for hire. We strive to be the leaders in providing the highest quality industrial access solutions. If you’d like to know more about the services we offer, please contact us, or call us at 01325 487085.