A working at height risk assessment only prevents falls when it examines the real context in which the job is carried out, not just the hazards listed on a checklist. To make work safer in practice, supervisors must bridge the gap between the method imagined during planning and the conditions workers face on site. This requires understanding system pressures, environmental changes, human factors, and embedding critical pause points that help workers verify essential controls before high-risk actions.
Why Traditional Working at Height Risk Assessments Fall Short
Despite extensive regulation and decades of improvement, falls from height remain the leading cause of workplace fatality. RAMS documents are usually in place, hazards are identified, and controls appear appropriate.
The issue isn’t the absence of a risk assessment. The issue is that the assessment captures work-as-imagined, not work-as-done. Real jobs are shaped by:
- Unexpected task requests
- Access conflicts
- Weather and lighting changes
- Equipment availability
- Production pressure
- Improvised adaptations workers make to keep the job moving
Research supports this consistently.
A 2024 psychological network study by Jansen et al. shows that workers’ decisions at height depend heavily on context, how risky the task feels at the time, how practical the controls are, and whether they intend to use specific safety actions. Systematic reviews by Poon et al. (2014) and Briones-Bitar et al. (2025) show that fall incidents frequently emerge not from missing checklist items but from contextual pressures and organisational constraints that push work away from the planned method.
Safer height work depends on our ability to bridge the gap between how the job is imagined and how it unfolds in reality.
Enable Supervisors and Planners to Understand How Context Reshapes Risk during Work at Height
A risk assessment is only effective when it reflects how the job will actually run in practice. This requires understanding the context of work, the pressures, constraints and situational cues that influence decisions on the day. It must involve the people doing the tasks, because they can show where the plan is most likely to break down and which controls will actually be used.
Supervisors do not simply need a list of hazards.
They need a clear understanding of how those hazards will behave when mixed with:
- Time pressure
- Competing trade interactions
- Weather conditions
- Equipment limitations
- Natural variability of human performance in developing effective rescue plans
Framing the task this way sets the stage for a more realistic assessment, one that anticipates how the job will be adapted rather than assuming a static, ideal sequence. From here, we can examine why the planned method often collapses under real conditions, and how to design controls that remain robust in the face of drift.
Why the Safe Method on Paper Doesn’t Survive the Shift
1. Workers Respond to the Context They Experience, Not the One in the RAMS
Behaviour is shaped by immediate experience, not paperwork.
Jansen et al. (2024) found that:
- Workers often feel unlikely to fall
- They worry even less about consequences
- Specific intentions (e.g., “clip on at this location”) predict behaviour far better than abstract “be safe” attitudes
If tie-off points are awkward, the job feels routine, or time pressure increases, workers adapt.
In practice: Controls relying on voluntary uptake drift, unless the work is designed so that the safe action is the easiest.
2. Organisational and System Pressures Undermine the Method
Systematic reviews (Poon et al.; Briones-Bitar et al.) reveal contextual factors that quietly weaken safety:
- Optimistic sequencing with no buffer
- MEWPs or platforms “booked” but unavailable, not charged, not fuelled, out of date, or the wrong type
- Conflicting trades occupying planned areas
- Weather-altering surfaces or visibility
- Supervisors covering too many tasks
These pressures alter the context of work long before a fall happens.
In practice: The method doesn’t fail; the system fails to support it.
3. Weak Feedback Loops Allow Small Deviations to Grow
Contextual drift often goes unchallenged:
- Near misses are normalised, ignored or trivialised
- Makeshift steps or platforms are accepted
- Altered scaffolds left unreported
- Risk assessments not updated when conditions change
Without active learning, the gap between imagined and actual work widens until a fall makes it obvious.
A Framework for Safer Working at Height Risk Assessments
This six-step approach helps supervisors identify contextual risk, anticipate drift, and establish controls that hold up under real conditions, closing the gap between plan and practice.
1. See the Whole System, and Its Context
Before listing hazards, ask:
- What constraints shape this job today?
- What assumptions about access, space or equipment may be wrong
- What pressures will workers be under?
System weaknesses often explain more about fall risk than individual actions.
In practice: If the context encourages improvisation, exposure is already elevated.
2. Survey the Actual Environment and Equipment
A RAMS cannot reflect evolving site conditions. Walk the site to uncover:
- Blocked access routes
- Improvised adjustments
- Changes to scaffold configuration
- Weather impacts
- Missing or relocated PPE
- Fragile or uneven surfaces
In practice: Ask: “Does the current context still support the planned method?”
3. Break Down the Task and Anticipate Contextual Error Traps
Map the task as workers will actually perform it.
Look for:
- Awkward tie-off points
- Tool-carrying during climbing
- Repetitive phases where attention dips
- Transitions between ladders, platforms and MEWPs
- Steps requiring perfect memory or vigilance
In practice: Design for human variability, not idealised compliance.
4. Layer Controls That Work in Real Context
Controls must function even when conditions shift.
Hierarchy of controls:
- Eliminate height work where possible
- Collective protection (guardrails, platforms)
- Personal fall protection with usable anchor points
- Practical rescue plan adapted to the environment
In practice: Test every control by asking:
“Will this still work when the job becomes busy, messy or rushed?”
5. Build Critical Pause Points Into the Job
Critical pause points are pre-planned micro-pauses that help workers double-check essential controls at moments where risk escalates or an irreversible exchange of energy occurs.
Examples:
- Before stepping off the edge while attached to a lanyard: check clip, anchor and line tension
- Before transitioning from ladder to platform: confirm footing and hand placement
- Before repositioning a MEWP: check ground and exclusion zone
- Before working on fragile surfaces: validate load and access stability
Critical pause points help workers:
- Assess the actual context
- Validate control integrity
- Catch drift early
- Cross-check with colleagues
In practice: Critical pause points act as brakes, preventing contextual drift from escalating into an incident. Get the team to support each other and challenge each other.
6. Keep Learning From Real Context
During the job:
- Promote open reporting, listen to real concerns and improve access controls
- Surface contextual issues early
- Adjust controls as conditions change
After the job:
- Review how work was actually carried out
- Identify workarounds or drift
- Update RAMS accordingly
Continuous learning gradually tightens the alignment between planned and actual work.
Key Takeaways
- Falls happen when the context of real work diverges from the planned method.
- Effective assessments consider system pressures, environment, human decision-making, and contextual error traps.
- Critical pause points help workers reassess context and verify controls at pivotal moments.
- Safe systems expect variability and are designed to absorb it.
Bringing It All Together
Bridging the gap between work-as-imagined and work-as-done is the foundation of safer work at height. When risk assessments consider real-world context, anticipate drift, and embed critical pause points, organisations create methods that hold up under pressure, not just on paper.
Want to strengthen your team’s approach to working at height?
Human Focus provides evidence-based training and digital tools that help organisations understand context, anticipate drift and embed safer habits in everyday work.
Speak with our team to review your current approach and identify practical ways to improve the reliability of working-at-height controls.
