HSE: Industrial rope access - investigation into items of personal ...

1.3 QUESTIONNAIRE
A questionnaire was circulated to industrial users of rope access equipment. This included
arboriculturalists and theatre riggers as well as rope access technicians.
The objective was to gain an insight into what equipment was being used in the workplace, how
it was being used and why.
Within rope access the techniques are fairly standard, although variations exist. In the worlds of
arboriculture and theatre rigging, however, techniques are far more varied.
A summary of the replies is provided in the Appendix. The summary includes both statistics and
comments provided by the respondents. The questionnaire was circulated primarily to rope
access workers. The comments are particularly useful as technicians often use equipment
provided and chosen by their employers. Hence, data on what equipment is in use do not
necessarily reflect user choice. It was not possible to circulate the questionnaire more widely.
1.4 TESTING
1.4.1 General
A variety of tests was used to assess the performance of the equipment. Where appropriate these
were taken from either established or provisional standards. However, in some circumstances
new tests had to be devised. The aim was always to produce results that were both relevant and
impartial, i.e. the tests must not have been designed to favour a particular device.
1.4.2 Criteria
It was clearly important to test items of PPE against standards. It also seemed prudent to ‘roadtest’
them in the manner in which they would be used.
Items that produce impressive test results on paper may well prove to be impractical and
ultimately unusable in a work situation. This is due to a number of factors. Firstly, standards do
not specify a method of use. In order to produce comparable results, all items were tested in the
same manner irrespective of their recommended method of use. Clearly, this would not allow
some items to perform as well as they might. Therefore, both the tests and the results had to be
carefully assessed in accordance with the relevant method of use.
Secondly, the ease of use of the item had to be considered. Irrespective of test performance and
methods of use, a key measure of the value of a piece of equipment is its acceptability by the
user: the device will not be used if it is not user-friendly. It is therefore inevitable that this
aspect of the test programme was to some extent a product review from the user's point of view.
While this type of test will always be less objective than scientific tests, and preferences will
always vary from person to person, impartiality was of paramount importance and every attempt
was made to limit subjectivity.
To give new products a chance against established favourites, all devices were used by both
IRATA level 3 and level 1 Rope Access Technicians. While the level 3 Technicians’ expertise
and experience were invaluable in such a test, the level 1 Technician is likely to be less familiar
with all the equipment, and therefore, hopefully, less biased against unfamiliar equipment and
will be more open to change.
While in some circumstances the practical performance will outweigh the test results, ideally
items of equipment needed to excel in both practical and technical areas.
3