QUESTION: 
What's the difference between a fall arrest and a fall restraint system, and in what situations should each be used? Are there any regulations or best practices to follow? 

ANSWER: 

Fall Arrest vs. Fall Restraint: 

A fall arrest system is designed to stop a fall that is already occurring. It includes components such as a full-body harness, a lanyard, and a secure anchorage point, all aiming to safely catch the worker if they fall, minimizing injury during the deceleration process. In contrast, a fall restraint system prevents the worker from reaching a point where a fall could occur. This system involves a tether attached to a worker's harness, restricting movement to a safe distance from the edge. 

Minimum Requirements vs. Industry Best Practices: 

OSHA regulations are considered minimum requirements and govern both fall arrest and fall restraint systems, ensuring they meet the baseline for strength, durability, and performance. For fall arrest systems, these requirements specify a maximum arresting force of 1,800 pounds when using a body harness and necessitate anchorage points capable of withstanding at least 5,000 pounds of force. Additionally, these regulations limit the maximum deceleration distance to 3.5 feet and the maximum free fall distance to 6 feet. 

The standards found in ANSI Z359 are generally considered industry best practices and provide more comprehensive guidelines for both types of systems. For fall arrest systems, they outline specifications for each component, including design, testing, and compatibility requirements. They emphasize using energy-absorbing lanyards to reduce arresting force, require harnesses to evenly distribute forces across the body, and insist on proper maintenance schedules to ensure continued performance. For fall restraint systems, industry best practices focus on prevention, recommending adjustable tethers and lanyards to limit workers' reach and ensuring all components are rated for their intended use and compatible with each other. They also outline regular inspection and maintenance requirements to ensure system reliability.

Choosing Between Fall Arrest and Fall Restraint: 

The choice between a fall arrest or fall restraint system depends on the work environment and the tasks being performed. If it's possible to completely prevent a fall by using a restraint system, this is often the preferred approach due to its preventive nature. However, in situations where workers must work near or beyond the edge of a fall hazard, and restraint is not feasible, fall arrest systems are necessary. 

For example, in rooftop maintenance, where workers are scheduled to perform routine checks on HVAC units and solar panels on the top of a building, a fall restraint system may be preferred. The workers use a tether attached to their harnesses, anchored to points on the roof, restricting their movement and preventing them from reaching the roof's edge or getting too close to skylights or other openings. In contrast, in steel framework construction, where workers are assembling a new steel structure for an extension of the facility, a fall arrest system might be necessary. This task involves maneuvering across beams at significant heights, climbing ladders, and working near edges. A fall arrest system allows this flexibility while providing safety, catching workers if they fall, and minimizing injury during the deceleration process. 

By distinguishing between fall arrest and fall restraint systems and understanding both minimum requirements and industry best practices, workers and employers can take proactive steps to mitigate the risks of working at heights. The goal is to stop falls, ensuring every worker returns home safely at the end of the day.  

 Chris Warrick, NRP is a Nationally Registered Paramedic, Confined Space Rescue Technician, and EMS educator who serves as Medical Program Manager at Roco Rescue. 

Follow Chris 

Additional Q&A Resources

• Hierarchy of Fall Protection Poster
• Suspension Trauma Explained
  
  

At Roco Rescue, we know every rescue has a story worth telling. Stories of courage, teamwork, and skill that not only inspire but also teach vital safety lessons. That’s why we’re inviting you to share your experiences through our "Recognizing Real Rescues" program, which aims to spotlight these important stories and enhance safety practices across industries.

Why Share Your Rescue Story?
Your stories help build a wealth of knowledge that improves emergency response and safety for everyone. By sharing the details of real rescues, you help others prepare better and respond more effectively in similar situations.

What’s in it for You?

• Recognition: We honor every story submitted with a special plaque, recognizing your team’s success in managing a rescue operation.
• Bayou Bucks™: If we feature your story, you’ll earn $150 in “Bayou Bucks,” which you can use towards buying equipment or open-enrollment training from Roco.
• Collaboration: We work with you to write a detailed account of your rescue, focusing on the challenges you faced and how you overcame them. This not only highlights your team’s skills but also underlines your commitment to maintaining safety.
  

How to Participate:

• Submit Your Story: Fill out this form to detail the rescue event, including challenges, strategies, and outcomes. You can also upload any relevant photos or videos.
• Collaborate on Your Feature: We’ll work together to create a feature article that will be shared on our website, social media, and newsletters.

Every rescue teaches valuable lessons. Sharing your experiences can help the entire rescue community get better at what they do. No matter the size of your team, your story is important. Let’s share these lessons and keep improving our safety standards. Become a part of our community, which is dedicated to safety and excellence in rescue operations. Visit our website to share your rescue story today.

Roco Would Like to Recognize Your Outstanding Rope Rescue!

Nominate your rescue team so we can recognize your professional efforts with a Roco Outstanding Rope Rescue Plaque. All reports that we receive highlighting an actual rescue event will be considered.

Download the Real Rescue Form here. You can then email the completed form to info@RocoRescue.com.

Roco Rescue has entered a strategic partnership with the Voluntary Protection Program Participants' Association (VPPPA), extending exclusive benefits to VPPPA members*. Through this Partnership, VPPPA members gain access to specialized rescue training program discounts and scholarships with Roco Rescue!

Discounted Training Opportunities

VPPPA members benefit from a 10% discount on Open Enrollment Registration Courses across Roco Rescue's comprehensive training catalog. This exclusive discount underscores Roco Rescue's commitment to advancing safety excellence within the VPP community.

Member-Exclusive Scholarships

In addition to the discount program, VPPPA members will now also have access to a VPPPA member-exclusive Rescue Training Scholarship Program. This program offers up to four scholarships per year for VPPPA members, enabling access to Roco Rescue's acclaimed Rescue Essentials course. 

As Chris Williams, Executive Director of VPPPA, aptly puts it, "Roco Rescue embodies the commitment that VPPPA and its members share to advancing health and safety excellence."

How to Get Started

For VPPPA members looking to take advantage of these exclusive benefits, visit this link for more information.

*Applies to Full, Associate and Corporate membership types, excluding Roco competitors.

QUESTION: 
What is the role of a spine board in emergency medical response, specifically when dealing with confined space and high-angle rescues?

NOTICE: It is extremely important to follow local protocols in providing emergency medical care.

ANSWER: 

For many years, spine boards have been a staple in emergency medical responses for moving and transporting patients with suspected spinal injuries. In rescue operations, spine boards do an excellent job of immobilizing the patient as well as providing a means of transporting the patient from one location to another.

The mindset of always using a backboard may not be the best for every patient - in fact, there is a risk of harm. 

Studies in emergency medicine have brought a critical perspective to the use of spine boards. While they are indispensable in certain situations, these studies highlight the negative effects of prolonged immobilization on a hard surface. Issues such as pressure sores, discomfort, and breathing problems have been reported, suggesting that the use of spine boards should be carefully considered and not automatically applied to all EMS cases.  

The approach to using spine boards is becoming more selective and nuanced. Medical professionals now advocate for a protocol known as "Spinal Motion Restriction," which tailors the immobilization method to the specifics of the injury and the rescue context. This might involve using devices like C-collars or employing techniques that minimize movement without the complete rigidity of a spine board, especially if the rescue scenario allows for careful handling. 

Team protocols and procedures should stress the importance of not causing additional harm through interventions.

---

The decision to use a spine board should be based on a thorough assessment of the injury, the patient's condition, and the rescue environment. Especially due to research that indicates unnecessary use may lead to complications that could potentially outweigh the benefits.

In rescue, spine boards still provide an excellent means of securing a sick or injured patient. It provides a rigid means of transport offering protection of the patient's neck and back. This can be particularly vital in scenarios like high-angle rescues or extractions from confined spaces, where the risk of challenging movements is significant.

While spine boards are a critical tool in certain rescue operations, their use should be judicious and tailored to each unique situation. As emergency response techniques evolve, so will the strategies for spinal protection, ensuring that patient safety and outcome remain at the forefront of rescue operations.  

Additional Q&A Resources

• Rescue Plans...What is Required?
• Q&A: 11mm Rope and NFPA Requirements
• Q&A: Energy Absorber Systems and Safety Lines
• Q&A: What are the Rescue Requirements for Trenches/Excavations?
  
  

READER QUESTION: 
Is an energy absorber system needed on the safety line to help limit the impact forces should the belay system be engaged to arrest the falling load?

ROCO TECH PANEL ANSWER: 

Since we first answered this question here on our site, twin tensioned systems have become more and more popular. However, many rescue teams still employ traditional untensioned belay systems, which can still be effective. Therefore, familiarity with proper use is essential.

Additionally, modern equipment has provided an alternative option somewhat between the twin tensioned and untensioned methods: the “tight” belay system.

When using a “tight” belay system, such as an anchored ASAP, the shock absorber is incorporated into the anchor. This is still categorized as an untensioned safety line rather than twin tensioned system, but the rigging makes it easier for operators to keep the line tighter and minimize the potential free fall distance.

If your team has adopted use of twin tension systems, then the energy absorber may be a moot point for you. These twin tension systems ensure that both lines are under load at all times. This eliminates the free fall potential – if one fails, you have a load transfer (on a tensioned line) rather than a shock load.

Roco trains with all three types: traditional untensioned safety lines, “tight” belay systems and twin tension main/belay. In the untensioned belay systems, we do indeed incorporate an energy absorber (shock) on the end of the line.

Whichever system your team uses will be up to you. If you choose to use an untensioned safety line, OSHA and ANSI each may have a role to play in guiding what equipment you use.

While OSHA does not address specifics when it comes to rescue systems, there is some overlap from the OSHA as well as the ANSI standards that is helpful when considering the belay system during rescue. 

NFPA 1006 Standard for Technical Rescue Personnel Professional Qualifications, sections 5.2.9 through 5.2.11, provides guidance for the construction of a belay (safety line) system. Specifically, the 5.2.11 objective statement calls for the belay system to ensure “the fall is arrested in a manner that minimizes the force transmitted to the load.” The annex information adds: “Belay systems are a component of single-tensioned rope systems that apply a tensioned main system on which the entire load is suspended and a non-tensioned system with minimal slack (belay) designed, constructed, and operated to arrest a falling load in the event of a main system malfunction or failure. 

While these traditional systems used for lowering and raising are in common use, two-tensioned rope systems can also be used to suspend the load while maintaining near equal tension on each rope, theoretically reducing the fall distance and shock force in the event of a singular rope failure. To be effective, two-tensioned rope systems must utilize devices that will compensate appropriately for the immediate transfer of additional force associated with such failures.”

Additionally, the NFPA 1006 definition of belay is “The method by which a potential fall distance is controlled to minimize damage to equipment and/or injury to a live load.” And Annex information “This method can be accomplished by a second line in a raise or lowering system or by managing a single line with a friction device in fixed-rope ascent or descent. Belays also protect personnel exposed to the risk of falling who are not otherwise attached to the rope rescue system."

So, where can OSHA help in all of this? OSHA requires the maximum force of a fall arrest system not to exceed 1,800 pounds. ANSI is more protective and requires arresting forces not to exceed 900 pounds. NFPA does not state what the arresting forces need to be limited to, but the performance measurement is to “minimize damage to equipment and/or injury to a live load.” OSHA and ANSI have already done the homework on this and stated their performance requirements. One proven way to meet NFPA 1006 as well as OSHA and ANSI requirements is to incorporate an energy absorber in the belay (fall arrest) system. Whether 1,800 pounds or the ANSI required 900 pounds is appropriate, or if you use a two tensioned system, this is up to your AHJ.