Question 1

Why should fatigue be specifically considered when assigning personnel to height work tasks?

Accepted Answer

Fatigue degrades concentration, grip strength, balance, and judgement — all of which are directly relevant to fall risk and safe equipment use Hours-of-rest compliance and fatigue awareness are not just regulatory box-ticking for height work — a fatigued worker is measurably more likely to make a balance, grip, or judgement error at exactly the point where that error has the most severe consequence.

Question 2

A MEWP is to be positioned on a deck area that has a slight slope and is partially covered in oil residue from a recent transfer. What should happen before the MEWP is deployed?

Accepted Answer

The deck area should be cleaned and the slope/level checked against the MEWP's rated operating limits before deployment; if outside those limits, a different position or method should be used Oil residue reduces outrigger/wheel grip and a slope beyond the manufacturer's rated limit can cause instability or tip-over — both must be addressed before deployment, not compensated for through operator caution alone.

Question 3

A crew member who is fully competent in standard harness/lanyard work-at-height procedures is asked to use a newly installed rigid rail climbing system on the mast for the first time, without any specific briefing on the new system. Is general height-work competency sufficient here?

Accepted Answer

No — the worker should receive a specific briefing/familiarisation on the rigid rail system's traveller mechanism, attachment/detachment points, and any system-specific limitations before first use Different fall-arrest systems have different mechanisms (e.g. how the traveller locks, how to pass intermediate brackets) — general competency with harnesses and lanyards does not automatically transfer to safe, correct use of an unfamiliar engineered system.