A view to die for. OSHA and Free Climbing an Antenna

My wife told me about a YouTube video that my son had posted on Facebook.  "You got to see this, it's a guy climbing an antenna tower with a helmet-cam."

Being the slowpoke I am, I waited a day and wouldn't you know it, the guy who posted it took it down.

The video first appeared on The On Line Engineer's web site, but the man that shot it using a helmet camera, and who approved the edited version, said "he was getting calls from colleagues telling him that they were concerned about what the video showed," according to the web site's owner, Russ Brown. It was removed due to Brown's concern for his friend who provided the climbing footage.

Well darn.  But leave it to the internets!  Someone copied the video and you can watch it here.  It's a seven-minute video of two lighting technicians free climbing at the top of a 1,768-foot broadcast tower.  But voyeurism is not the purpose of this post, so on to the crux of the issue.  While watching the video I hear the narrator say:

"...it's easier, faster and most tower workers climb this way. Free climbing is more dangerous, of course, but OSHA rules do allow for it."

Say what?  You can't free climb without fall protection my brain and gut tell me...at least I don't think so....

Google Search and you get a lot of information on what people think you can't do and what tower climbers say they do.  But that's not important to me.  What does OSHA say about it, and then - as your safety guy - what do I want done.

Jim Coleman, Chairman of the National Association of Tower Erectors viewed the video this morning on YouTube and was troubled by the comments concerning free climbing. He was also concerned that it was entitled as a tutorial."I'm unaware of any guidance by OSHA that allows for free climbing as an acceptable method of accessing elevated work," Coleman said.

Well that's what I was thinking, so it must be true.  So in class I am talking about regulations and how difficult it is to comply when your employees disregard OSHA.  I bring up the video and make my bold statement of fact (I am the teacher remember) "you can't climb without fall protection!"

Now I have been teaching adults for 11 years and practically no one argues with the teacher, unless you are wrong and they know or believe themselves to be correct.  "That's not true, if you are a qualified climber.  Well at least in the power distribution industry...not sure about telecommunications." states one of my students who then informs me he teaches linemen.

OK, so maybe I am wrong...or is he...Didn't that Jim Coleman guy agree with me?

And therein lies the problem for us regulatory folks.  What do we have to do legally?  How does one know what is the truth when everyone spouts different truths?  Well since this is an OSHA type question, go to OSHA.

I look and look and look, but nothing can easily be found on their better than most web site.  Until I come across a PDF of a Federal Register May 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 99) Proposed Rules Page 28861-29153.  In it it talks about this concept of "Qualified Climber" and pretty much goes on to say that the term was defined in a 1990 proposed rule as:

A qualified climber was defined as "an employee who, by virtue of physical capabilities, training, work experience, and job assignment is authorized by the employer to routinely climb fixed ladders, step bolts or similar climbing devices attached to structures."

Hmmm...proposed rule?  OK, well what else does OSHA say?

OSHA proposed that rather than always providing conventional fall protection (cages, wells, ladder safety systems, or other fall protection) to employees climbing fixed ladders over 24 feet , the employer could allow qualified climbers to climb without fall protection provided certain criteria were met.

So apparently the electric power generation, transmission, or distribution industry (1910.269) and telecommunications industry (1910.268) all believe they can free climb if they are qualified climbers.  Here is what the electric power generation, transmission, or distribution industry is allowed to do:

Fall protection equipment is not required to be used by a qualified employee climbing or changing location on poles, towers, or similar structures, unless conditions, such as, but not limited to, ice, high winds, the design of the structure (for example, no provision for holding on with hands), or the presence of contaminants on the structure, could cause the employee to lose his or her grip or footing. [U]nqualified employees (including trainees) are required to use fall protection any time they are more than 4 feet above the ground. 1910.269(g)(2)(v)

But there is no such allowance in 1910.268 for Telecommunication work.  Instead what it states is:

Safety belts and straps shall be provided and the employer shall ensure their use when work is performed at positions more than 4 feet above ground, on poles, and on towers, except as provided in paragraphs (n)(7) and (n)(8) of this section. 1910.268(g)(1)

(n)(7): Outside work platforms. Unless adequate railings are provided, safety straps and body belts shall be used while working on elevated work platforms such as aerial splicing platforms, pole platforms, ladder platforms and terminal balconies.

(n)(8): Other elevated locations. Safety straps and body belts shall be worn when working at elevated positions on poles, towers or similar structures, which do not have adequately guarded work areas.

So unless you want to place maintaining an antenna in the 269 standards for power generation, transmission, or distribution, and not in the 268 standards for telecommunication which defines "field work" as...:

[T]he installation, operation, maintenance, rearrangement, and removal of conductors and other equipment used for signal or communication service, and of their supporting or containing structures, overhead or underground, on public or private rights of way, including buildings or other structures.

...free climbing that 1768 foot antenna without 100 percent fall protection in place the whole time is in violation of OSHA.  But wait...things are never what they seem to be, especially with regulations and how the agency "sees" things.

In the 2010 proposed rule, OSHA states:

[this] proposed rule "would not apply to [work] covered by Sec. 1910.268(n)(7) or (n)(8).  These two industry-specific standards [268 & 269] generally permit employees to free climb to work locations on poles, towers, and similar structures without the use of fall protection equipment. These standards protect employees by requiring adequate training in climbing [by] ensuring that employees are proficient in safe climbing techniques.

and

What is required is "three points of contact with the ladder when ascending or descending. (Please note this requirement only addresses the act of moving up or down a ladder, not working from a ladder.)

Really?  That's not what I read in the 268 standards for telecommunication.  But then I'm not the regulator - only the poor fool trying to figure out what actually needs to be done.

Bottom line is - just because OSHA does not regulate it, or states that for this specific industry or situation it's OK, does not make it so.  Accidents happen regardless of how much training you have, how many times you have done it, or your designation as "qualified."

That tower presents an unnecessary and undue risk to those two employees by its design.  The employees not using 100 percent fall protection increase the risk of a catastrophic event.  Engineer it out first, then require PPE.  Never rely on an employee to do what is safe for themselves.  Don't rely on OSHA for that matter either.

.