Question 1

A company's internal safety manual, based on an older edition of COSWP, states a particular height-work practice is acceptable, but the current WAH Regulations 2010 / MGN 410 guidance is more stringent on that same point. Which requirement should the Chief Officer follow?

Accepted Answer

Follow the more stringent WAH Regulations 2010 / MGN 410 requirement, since it is statutory law and takes precedence over COSWP guidance where the two conflict — the company manual itself should also be flagged for update A company manual reflecting outdated COSWP guidance does not override statutory regulations; identifying this gap is also valuable feedback to get the company's SMS documentation updated so the conflict doesn't recur for the next person referencing it.

Question 2

A vessel occasionally undertakes search and rescue support tasks under contract, and the Master wants to apply the Regulation 4(2) derogation broadly to reduce paperwork for all height-work tasks onboard, not just the SAR-specific ones. Is this a valid application?

Accepted Answer

No — the derogation only applies to the specific provision that cannot be complied with due to characteristics peculiar to the SAR/civil protection activity itself; it cannot be stretched to cover routine height-work tasks unrelated to that activity Misapplying a narrow legal derogation to reduce administrative burden generally is exactly the kind of interpretation that undermines the protective purpose of the regulations — the derogation is tied to the specific incompatible activity, not the vessel's broader operating profile.

Question 3

A worker is asked to climb a structure only 1.8 metres high to access a junction box, and the officer in charge assumes this falls outside 'work at height' since it's below the 2-metre figure sometimes quoted informally onboard. Is this assumption correct under the WAH Regulations 2010?

Accepted Answer

Not necessarily — there is no fixed distance threshold; the question is whether a fall from that height, in those specific circumstances (e.g. onto a hard or hazardous surface, near machinery, near an open edge), is liable to result in injury The informally quoted '2 metres' figure is a common misunderstanding — the actual legal test is whether the fall distance and circumstances are liable to result in injury, which could apply at well under 2 metres depending on what's below or around the work position.

Wah Mgn Whatif Maib Practice Questions