british columbia forest safety council falling …...falling supervisor survey december 2011 human...
TRANSCRIPT
British Columbia Forest Safety Council
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011
Prepared for British Columbia Forest Safety Council
by Melanie Walls
Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability
www.human-factors-at-work.com
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 2 of 74
Executive Summary
102 falling supervisors responded to an online survey sponsored by BCFSC.
Participants are experienced and largely non union. Injury rates were higher for individuals with less than 10
years experience in their current position.
Participants work on steep slopes. Over 40% of participants work on slopes of 60% to 100% ‘Often’ or ‘Every day’
Participants are falling or supervising falling of large trees. Over 30% fall or supervise falling of 5 – 7 foot trees
‘Often’ or ‘Every day’.
Crew sizes are small. Around half of participants supervise chargehands and just over half of participants who
responded to the question (46) reported that they are certified falling supervisors (bullbuckers). As this number is
higher than the number of individuals who have currently been certified by BCFSC, this suggests a lack of clarity
about certification.
Half of participants fall infrequently and half spend at least one day falling per week. A typical working day is 10
to 12 hours (including travel time). With the majority having an official working day of 8 hours or less, it is clear
that participants are working more than is ‘officially’ required. The incidence of serious injuries was strongly
related to time spent falling, suggesting that it is falling trees that causes injuries, rather than simply walking the
block.
The incidence of serious injuries was strongly related to time spent falling, suggesting that it is falling trees that
causes injuries, rather than simply walking the block.
Participants are waking early (4am to 6am), and the average amount of sleep is 7 hours (meaning many are getting
less). There is a large gap (average 2 hours) between waking and arriving in the field. Average time in the field
is 9 hours (well over the 6.5 hour ‘faller day’).
Breaks are short, with the majority (69%) taking 30 minutes or less throughout the day.
Many are working a typical working week (5 on, 2 off). However, the average shift length tells a different story
(10 on, 4 off). Very little of the ‘time on’ is lost due to shut downs, meaning many will be working 10 days in a
row.
Many are experiencing difficulty finding qualified fallers, and the majority would definitely or maybe use a
centralized database if it was accessible. Most rely on personal contacts or fallers getting in touch when
recruiting.
Inspection times range from 15 minutes to half a day depending on the type of inspection. There is wide
variation in the length of inspections. There is no commonly agreed terminology for different types of inspection.
Individuals who spent less time on inspections were more likely to have experienced a serious injury. This is a very
interesting result and may benefit from further analysis. This result could not be fully explained by time spent
falling (which was not significantly related to inspection times).
Filling in paperwork at the camp/ office takes longer than any other inspection related task
The majority of participants report walking every block for every faller, and disagree with the statement ‘I don’t
usually have time to walk the block’.
Participants tailor the frequency of their visits to the type of faller, with trainee and problem fallers being visited
the most frequently. A small minority make very infrequent visits: 9% report visiting experienced fallers once a
month or less and over 5% visit trainee and problem fallers once a month or less.
The majority (84%) report that most stumps fully conform to all regulations
Inspections are almost always documented. Participants are spending considerable time on paperwork each day
– more than 1 hour for 37%.
Blasting was found to be OK, easy or very easy for just over half (52.5%). However this still means it is impossible
or difficult for nearly half arrange blasting to overcome falling difficulties (47.5%). Area deletions, substituting
pre-defined leave trees and machine assist are available to the majority of participants. Asking another faller for
help was the easiest option, regarded as easy or very easy by the majority.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 3 of 74
The results validate the 2011 project ‘Hazard Identification and Communication Tool’, as all hazard factors
identified as part of that project were judged to contribute to risk. The factor with the highest rating was
‘Working on top of each other (stacking fallers). The factor with the lowest rating was ‘Heavy leaners (leaning
out) at boundaries’.
Many participants are working whilst tired or injured. The majority are getting behind with documentation, some
on a daily basis. Many find themselves getting behind with inspections a few times a year.
Injury rates are extremely high. 48% have suffered a serious work related injury in the past 12 months. Carpal
tunnel syndrome (31%) and white finger (22%) are particularly common.
The number of participants who have experienced minor injuries in the past month is extremely high (66%).
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 4 of 74
Recommendations
1. A faller risk matrix developed previously for BCFSC states that individuals falling trees on slopes that are steeper than 60%,
or falling trees that are larger than 5’ (60”) require specialized skills. Based on the results of this survey, up to 40% of
participants may require specialized skills (note, however, that not all participants fall trees). BCFSC to review whether
this requirement for specialized skills matches actual skill levels in the population of falling supervisors.
2. There appears to be a lack of clarity about what certification means. BCFSC to communicate with falling supervisor
population to ensure the terms ‘qualified’ and ‘certified’ falling supervisor are clearly defined and fully understood.
3. A typical working day was 10 to 12 hours, supporting the results of the falling supervisor workload research in 2010. This
is considerably longer than the official working day of 8 hours or less. Average time in the field is 9 hours. Combined
with an average sleep time of 7 hours, this suggests that falling supervisors are likely to be suffering from fatigue, which will
tend to accumulate over the course of their shift (average 10 days). Participants are waking early (4am – 6am) which will
also contribute to fatigue as circadian rhythms mean this is a time of low alertness. Fatigue can cause some of the same
performance impacts as drinking alcohol. BCFSC to communicate performance impact of fatigue to supervisors, and
investigate means of encouraging supervisors to self-monitor for fatigue.
4. Supervisors who spent more time falling trees are more likely to have experienced serious injuries. This suggests that
falling trees rather than simply walking the block is the main cause of serious injuries. It would be interesting to compare
injury rates of supervisors to fallers, as anecdotal evidence in the workload research performed in 2010 suggested that
supervisors may be more at risk of injury when falling due to the distraction of their supervisory responsibilities.
5. Inspection terminology lacks clarity. In conducting the preparation for the survey it was apparent that participants had
varying interpretations of what, for example, an ‘informal’ inspection might be. BCFSC to provide examples of inspections
in accordance with OH&SR 3.5 and 26.22.1 to illustrate possible scenarios where an informal inspection might be
conducted.
6. A small number of individuals (5%) are making very infrequent inspections, once a month or less. BCFSC to provide
examples of inspections and triggers for inspections, with reference to OH&SR 3.5. Key focus should be on work practices
and methods pertaining to fallers OH&SR 26.22.1 and WC Act 115(2)(e).
7. BCFSC to promote the faller evaluation video (which focuses on inspections) and continue to reinforce inspections in the
falling supervisor training.
8. Individuals who spent less time on inspections were more likely to have experienced a serious injury. This is a very
interesting result and may benefit from further analysis. BCFSC to consider further analysis of the survey data to
understand how this result came about.
9. Filling in paperwork at the camp/ office takes longer than any other inspection related task. This supports anecdotal
evidence collected in 2010 suggesting that supervisors are finding themselves doing more paperwork than inspecting.
BCFSC has revised the Falling Supervisor course to address these issues. BCFSC to promote online resources to reduce
paperwork.
10. Blasting is easy, very easy, or OK to arrange for nearly half of participants (52.5%). However, this suggests that almost half
of fallers may be using alternative, less safe methods to deal with danger trees due to lack of access to blasting. BCFSC to
investigate means of making blasting more widely available (e.g., promote Dangerous Tree Blasting for Fallers course).
11. The Hazard factors identified as part of the 2011 Hazard Identification and Communication Tool project were all judged to
contribute to risk. This provides strong evidence that the hazard factors are seen as contributing to risk by falling
supervisors. BCFSC to discuss each hazard factor individually and identify whether there is potential for reducing exposure
(e.g., is there a way to reduce or eliminate ‘working on top of each other (stacking fallers)).
12. Injury rates are extremely high, particularly Carpal tunnel syndrome and white finger. BCFSC to discuss possible
preventative measures for each injury type with WorkSafeBC, and communicate results to supervisors.
13. The frequency of minor injuries is extremely high. The 2004 Forest Safety Task Force report (A Report and Action Plan to
Eliminate Deaths and Serious Injuries in British Columbia’s Forests, p.22) states that: “The profile for serious injuries and
less serious injuries is almost identical. This is significant in that the environment that can cause a minor strain can also
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 5 of 74
cause a major amputation or even a death. The margin of difference between strains and sprains and serious injuries and
death is very small and can be due to chance. As such, the conditions that cause less serious injuries need to be targeted
in the reduction of serious injuries and deaths.” A frequency of 66% experiencing minor injuries in the previous month is
very high, and suggests that supervisors may be avoiding injury through luck and not as a result of maintaining a safe
working environment. Minor injuries were reported by supervisors who fall trees, and also by those who do not.
In order to reduce fatalities, it is essential to detect and address unsafe situations. The only way to do this before a
serious injury has occurred is to track and respond to less serious incidents. It is recommended that BCFSC take steps to
develop a near miss reporting system to track near misses and minor injuries, in order to take a pro-active approach to
safety, as opposed to a reactive approach driven by serious injuries and fatalities. This will help to achieve the goal of
addressing situations that can lead to a fatality, before the fatality actually happens.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 6 of 74
Method
An online survey was conducted in the Fall of 2011. The survey was developed based on interviews with falling supervisors and
industry experts, and was piloted with five individuals before distribution. Participants were Falling Supervisors who were
contacted using BCFSC list of Falling Supervisors and also via the Safe Companies e-mail list. When incomplete responses were
remove, 102 remained. This met the survey target of 100 responses.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 7 of 74
Results
Demographics
Age, tenure, and contract type
Participants are experienced and largely non union. Injury rates were higher for individuals with less than 10
years experience in their current position.
All participants were male
Participant age ranged from 25 – 64
16% had a union contract, and 84% were non union
Years working in the forestry industry ranged from 8 to 46
Years working in current position ranged from 6 months to 40 years
There was a significant relationship between years in current position and occurrence of serious injuries
(Spearman Correlation r = -.233, P = 0.033). Individuals with less than 10 years experience in their current
position showed higher incidence of serious injuries. Length of time in the forestry industry was not significantly
related to injuries. Note that only supervisors who spend at least some time falling trees had experienced a
serious injury (the analysis included all supervisors, whether they fall trees or not). See section discussing injuries
for more detail (page 16).
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 8 of 74
Workplace characteristics
Slope steepness
Participants work on steep slopes. Over 40% of participants work on slopes of 60% to 100% ‘Often’ or
‘Every day’
Information about slope steepness is shown below
Over 40% of participants work on slopes of 60% to 100% ‘Often’ or ‘Every day’
Over 20% work on slopes steeper than 100% ‘Often’ or ‘Every day’
Note that participants are not necessarily falling trees
Timber size
Participants are falling or supervising falling of large trees. Over 30% fall or supervise falling of 5 – 7 foot
trees ‘Often’ or ‘Every day’.
Over 50% of participants fall or supervise falling of 3 – 5 foot trees ‘Every day’
Over 30% fall or supervise falling of 5 – 7 foot trees ‘Often’ or ‘Every day’
Over 20% fall or supervise falling of trees over 7 foot ‘Often’ or ‘Every day’
Note that supervisors are not necessarily falling – some may be working on these slopes whilst supervising, and supervising fallers
falling timber of this size.
Crew size and composition
Crew sizes are small. Around half of participants supervise chargehands. Just over half of participants who
responded to the question (46) reported that they are certified falling supervisors (bullbuckers). As this
number is higher than the number of individuals who have currently been certified by BCFSC, this suggests a
lack of clarity about certification.
Most participants (over 50%) are working in small crews of 8 or fewer people (including supervisors, fallers and
chargehands)
47% supervise chargehands and 53% do not
The majority (65%) are the designated qualified supervisor
45% report that they are certified, and 55% report that they are not
70% supervise 6 or fewer fallers
75% supervise at least one non faller
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 9 of 74
How participants spend their time
Time spent falling
Half of participants fall infrequently and half spend at least one day falling per week. A typical working
day is 10 to 12 hours (including travel time). With the majority having an official working day of 8 hours or
less, it is clear that participants are working more than is ‘officially’ required. The incidence of serious
injuries was strongly related to time spent falling, suggesting that it is falling trees that causes injuries,
rather than simply walking the block.
20% do not fall trees
38% spend less than one hour falling trees in a typical week
51.5% spend at least one full day in the field falling trees (or equivalent hours) in a typical week
22% work 9 hours or less on a typical working day
Around half of participants work 10 to 12 hours on a typical working day
For 65% the official working day is 8 hours or less
The average working day is 15 hours, compared to an average official day of 11 hours
Time spent falling trees was very significantly related to occurrence rate of serious injuries (Spearman correlation =
0.405, P < 0.001). Individuals who do not fall trees didn’t report any serious injuries in the previous 12 months.
Individuals who spent 5 – 6 days per week falling trees had almost all experienced a serious injury in the previous
12 months. This suggests that it is falling trees that causes serious injuries, rather than simply walking the block.
Minor injuries were not significantly related to time spent falling.
Time of day
Participants are waking early (4am to 6am), and the average amount of sleep is 7 hours (meaning many are
getting less). There is a large gap (average 2 hours) between waking and arriving in the field. Average
time in the field is 9 hours (well over the 6.5 hour ‘faller day’).
Most participants
Wake up between 4am and 6am
Arrive in the field from 6am to 8am
Finishing in the field anywhere from 1pm to 6pm
Are asleep by 10pm
The average amount of sleep is 7 hours
Time in the field varies widely – the average time is just under 9 hours
The average time between waking and arriving in the field is 2 hours
The average time between leaving the field and sleeping is 6 hours
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 10 of 74
Breaks
Breaks are short, with the majority (69%) taking 30 minutes or less throughout the day.
Shift length
Many are working a typical working week (5 on, 2 off). However, the average shift length tells a different
story (10 on, 4 off). Very little of the ‘time on’ is lost due to shut downs, meaning many will be working 10
days in a row.
The majority work 5 days on 2 days off
The average shift length is 10 days
Average time off after a shift is 4 days
75% spend half a day or less not working during a typical shift (due to weather shut downs, etc.)
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 11 of 74
Manpower and recruitment
Many are experiencing difficulty finding qualified fallers, and the majority would definitely or maybe use a
centralized database if it was accessible. Most rely on personal contacts or fallers getting in touch when
recruiting.
63% have found it difficult or very difficult to find qualified fallers this year
50% expect they will need more qualified fallers in 2012 (23% expect they will not)
The majority would definitely (27%) or maybe (56%) use a database of qualified fallers. A minority of participants
would definitely not use a database (17%)
The most popular means of finding fallers was personal contacts/ people I have worked for before and being
contacted by fallers
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 12 of 74
Inspections
Time taken for different types of inspection
Inspection times range from 15 minutes to half a day depending on the type of inspection. There is wide
variation in the length of inspections. There is no commonly agreed terminology for different types of
inspection. There is no commonly agreed terminology for different types of inspection.
Individuals who spent less time on inspections were more likely to have experienced a serious injury. This
is a very interesting result and may benefit from further analysis. This result could not be fully explained
by time spent falling (which was not significantly related to inspection times).
When developing the survey it became clear that there is a lack of clarity in definitions of different types of
inspection. Often terms like ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ were used to mean different things depending on the person.
This lack of consistency suggests there may be confusion.
Informal faller inspections take 30 minutes or less for the majority (79%)
Monthly faller inspections take 1 – 2 hours for many (56%) but some report taking 10 minutes and others half a
day, suggesting there is wide variation.
Formal faller inspections take half a day or more for 57%
There was a strong relationship between serious injuries and typical time to do an informal faller inspection
(Spearman correlation = -0.31, P < 0.01). Every single individual who reported spending 5 minutes on informal
faller inspections had experienced a serious injury, whereas very few individuals who spent 45 minutes or more on
informal inspections had experienced a serious injury in the past year. This is a very interesting result and may
benefit from further analysis
A similar strong relationship was found for monthly faller inspections (Spearman correlation = -0.329, P < 0.01).
Individuals who spent an hour or less were relatively more likely to experience a serious injury compared to those
who spent 1.5 hours or more.
There was no relationship between time spent on formal inspections such as the 23 pager and injuries
Inspection breakdown
Filling in paperwork at the camp/ office takes longer than any other inspection related task
The following bullets give the most common answer for each question, and the percentage of fallers giving that answer (e.g., for
Walking the block/ fallers quarters the most common response was that it took 5 – 20 minutes, with 43% of participants giving this
answer).
Walking the block/ fallers quarter 5 – 20 minutes (most common answer, reported by 43% of supervisors)
Measuring and examining stumps 10- 30 minutes (42%)
Measuring bucked logs and reviewing quality 0 – 5 minutes (43.5%)
Observing the faller falling and bucking 5 – 20 minutes (47%)
Giving advice/ feedback, discussing inspection with faller 5 to 10 minutes (31%)
Filling in paperwork 'in the field' (if not already included in previous answers) 5 – 20 mins (43)
Filling in paperwork 'at the camp/ office' 5 minutes to 2 hours (no single answer predominated)
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 13 of 74
Walking the block
The majority of participants report walking every block for every faller, and disagree with the statement
that ‘I don’t usually have time to walk the block’.
The majority (60%) agree or strongly agree that they walk every block for every faller
74% agree or strongly agree that they walk the block for novice fallers
69% disagree or strongly disagree that they don’t usually have time to walk the block
69% agree or strongly agree that they walk the block when the block is hazardous
Frequency of visiting different types of faller
Participants tailor the frequency of their visits to the type of faller, with trainee and problem fallers being
visited the most frequently. A small minority make very infrequent visits: 9% report visiting experienced
fallers once a month or less and over 5% visit trainee and problem fallers once a month or less.
The most frequent answers are
Average faller – once a week
Experienced faller – Once a week
Newly qualified faller – Daily
Trainee (working with another faller) - More than once a day/ Continuously
Problem faller - More than once a day/ Continuously
Stump conformance
The majority (84%) report that most stumps fully conform to all regulations.
Documentation
Inspections are almost always documented. Participants are spending considerable time on paperwork
each day – more than 1 hour for 37%.
The majority of participants document inspections using one or several pages of information
The 23 pager is not used for typical inspections
94% document at least something. 37% spend one hour or more daily on paperwork relating to safety or faller
management.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 14 of 74
Ease of overcoming falling difficulties
Blasting was found to be OK, easy or very easy for just over half (52.5%). However this still means it is
impossible or difficult for nearly half arrange blasting to overcome falling difficulties (47.5%). Area
deletions, substituting pre-defined leave trees and machine assist are available to the majority of
participants. Asking another faller for help was the easiest option, regarded as easy or very easy by the
majority.
Blasting was found to be OK, easy, or very easy for just over half (52.5%) and difficult or impossible for 47.5%
Making area deletions was OK, easy, or very easy for 75%
Substituting pre-defined leave trees was OK, easy, or very easy for 80%
Machine assist was OK, easy, or very easy for 71%
Asking another faller was easy or very easy for 82%
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 15 of 74
Risk and Hazards
Hazard factor risk ratings
The results validate the 2011 project ‘Hazard Identification and Communication Tool’, as all hazard factors
identified as part of that project were judged to contribute to risk. The factor with the highest rating was
‘Working on top of each other (stacking fallers). The factor with the lowest rating was ‘Heavy leaners
(leaning out) at boundaries’.
A project was conducted in 2011 to support decision making relating to falling hazards (‘Hazard Identification and
Communication Tool’. As part of the project a list of Hazard Factors was identified. The survey conducted as
part of the current project enabled data to be collected on the extent to which participants regarded the different
factors as contributing to risk.
The hazard factors are shown in decreasing order of risk (highest risk first)
1. Working on top of each other (stacking fallers)
2. Trees that are unsafe to fall (e.g. danger trees)
3. Falling trees uphill
4. Difficulty avoiding conflict with other phases
5. Brushing standing timber/ disturbing canopy
6. Block layout that make it difficult to position fallers so they are within 10 minutes walk of each other
7. Not having room to fall timber sidehill
8. Difficulty getting to timber within the block (e.g. due to terrain)
9. Heavy leaners (leaning out) at boundaries
Risky situations
Many participants are working whilst tired or injured. The majority are getting behind with
documentation, some on a daily basis. Many find themselves getting behind with inspections a few times
a year.
In the past 12 months
60% have had to move pretty quickly to get out of the way of a tree/ other object
59% have felt too tired to work but for some reason had to work anyway
8% have had to work for hours at a stretch without a rest break on an almost daily basis
15% have worked longer than a 12 hour stretch a couple of times a week or more often
80.5% have got behind with documentation, 9% on an almost daily basis
63% have got behind with weekly faller inspections
62% have got behind with monthly stump audits
17% have worked while injured (first aid/ medically reported)
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 16 of 74
Injuries
Serious injuries
Injury rates are extremely high. 48% have suffered a serious work related injury in the past 12 months.
Carpal tunnel syndrome (31%) and white finger (22%) are particularly common.
Serious injuries
In the past 12 month
7% have broken or fractured a bone
3.5% have had a hernia or rupture
7% have had temporary or permanent damage to eyes
31% have had carpal tunnel syndrome(numbness/ tingling/ burning sensation in hand)
13% have had serious back problems
13% have had hearing loss or tinnitus (ringing in the ears)
22% have had white hand/ white finger
11% have suffered 3 or more serious injuries
48% have suffered at least one serious injury in the past 12 months
Note that injuries showed a strong relationship to time spent falling and duration of inspections. See also ‘Time spent falling’
page 9 and ‘Time taken for different types of inspection’ page 12
Minor injuries
The number of participants who have experienced minor injuries in the past month is extremely high
(66%).
In the past month, the percentage of participants who have experienced at least one minor injury is:
34% Strained or sprained muscle
34% Tripped and hurt themselves
55% Bruised
12% Cut
46% have experienced two or more different types of minor injury
66% have experienced at least one minor injury
Unlike major injuries, minor injuries were not significantly related to time spent falling.
Note that minor injuries are injuries that occurred in the past month (not 12 months as for serious injuries).
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 17 of 74
Appendix A: Graphs and detailed statistics
Demographics
Age, tenure, and contract type
Participants are experienced and largely non union. Injury rates were higher for individuals with less
than 10 years experience in their current position.
All participants were male
Participant age ranged from 25 – 64
16% had a union contract, and 84% were non union
Years working in the forestry industry ranged from 8 to 46
Years working in current position ranged from 6 months to 40 years
There was a significant relationship between years in current position and occurrence of serious injuries
(Spearman Correlation r = -.233, P = 0.033). Individuals with less than 10 years experience in their current
position showed higher incidence of serious injuries. Length of time in the forestry industry was not
significantly related to injuries. Note that only supervisors who spend at least some time falling trees had
experienced a serious injury (the analysis included all supervisors, whether they fall trees or not).
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants (e.g., 3% were aged between 25 and 29).
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 18 of 74
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 19 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
There was a significant relationship between years in current position and occurrence of serious injuries (Spearman Correlation r =
-.233, P = 0.033). Individuals with less than 10 years experience in their current position showed higher incidence of serious
injuries ([A] and [B] on the graph), particularly compared to individuals with 16 – 25 years experience [C]. Length of time in the
forestry industry was not significantly related to injuries.
Note that all supervisors who reported a serious injury in the past 12 months spend at least some time falling trees (the analysis
included all supervisors, whether they fall trees or not). See section discussing injuries for more detail (page 16).
[A]
[C]
[B]
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 20 of 74
Workplace characteristics
Slope steepness
Participants work on steep slopes. Over 40% of participants work on slopes of 60% to 100% ‘Often’ or
‘Every day’
Information about slope steepness is shown below
Over 40% of participants work on slopes of 60% to 100% ‘Often’ or ‘Every day’
Over 20% work on slopes steeper than 100% ‘Often’ or ‘Every day’
Note that participants are not necessarily falling trees
Slope steepness Most common answer
How often do you work on slopes like this?
0% to 30% Often
30% to 60% Often
60% to 100% Often
Steeper than 100% Sometimes
Frequency of working on slopes of different steepness
% giving this answer Slope steepness
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Every day
0% to 30% 2.0% 7.9% 16.8% 50.5% 22.8%
30% to 60% 1.0% 8.9% 14.9% 59.4% 15.8%
60% to 100% 7.0% 16.0% 30.0% 41.0% 6.0%
Steeper than 100% 22.2% 27.2% 29.6% 19.8% 1.2%
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 21 of 74
Timber size
Participants are working with large trees. Over 30% fall or supervise falling of 5 – 7 foot trees ‘Often’ or
‘Every day’.
Information about timber size is shown below
Over 50% of participants fall or supervise falling of 3 – 5 foot trees ‘Every day’
Over 30% fall or supervise falling of 5 – 7 foot trees ‘Often’ or ‘Every day’
Over 20% fall or supervise falling of trees over 7 foot ‘Often’ or ‘Every day’
Note that supervisors are not necessarily falling – some may be working on these slopes whilst supervising, and supervising fallers
falling timber of this size.
Timber size Most common answer
How often do you fall or supervise falling of the following sizes of tree?
Up to 20" Every day
20" to 28" Often
28" to 36" Often
36" to 60" (3 foot - 5 foot) Often
60" to 84" (5 foot - 7 foot) Often
84" + (7 foot +) Rarely/ Never
Frequency of working with/ supervising different sizes of tree
% giving this answer Timber size
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Every day
Up to 20" .0% 2.9% 11.8% 34.3% 51.0%
20" to 28" .0% 2.9% 13.7% 45.1% 38.2%
28" to 36" .0% 5.0% 18.0% 45.0% 32.0%
36" to 60" (3 foot - 5 foot) 3.9% 16.7% 24.5% 34.3% 20.6%
60" to 84" (5 foot - 7 foot) 19.4% 23.5% 20.4% 29.6% 7.1%
84" + (7 foot +) 27.6% 28.6% 19.4% 21.4% 3.1%
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 22 of 74
Crew size and composition
Crew sizes are small. Around half of participants supervise chargehands. Just over half of participants
who responded to the question (46) reported that they are certified falling supervisors (bullbuckers). As
this number is higher than the number of individuals who have currently been certified by BCFSC, this
suggests a lack of clarity about certification.
Most participants (over 50%) are working in small crews of 8 or fewer people (including supervisors, fallers and
chargehands)
47% supervise chargehands and 53% do not
The majority (65%) are the designated qualified supervisor
45% (46 participants) report that they are certified, and 55% report that they are not
70% supervise 6 or fewer fallers
75% supervise at least one non faller
What is your current crew size (including supervisors, fallers and chargehands)
Percentage of participants
1 - 4 32.7
5 - 8 23.8
9 - 16 15.8
17 - 24 11.9
25 or more 15.8
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 23 of 74
Do you supervise chargehands?
Number of
participants
Percentage of
participants
Valid Yes 46 46.9
No 52 53.1
Total 98 100.0
Do you have a designated qualified supervisor at the place where you work?
Number of participants Percentage of participants
Other, please specify 5 5.0
Yes, I am the designated qualified supervisor 65 64.4
Yes, someone else is the designated qualified supervisor
15 14.9
Yes, someone is always the designated qualified supervisor but the person varies
13 12.9
No, we do not have a designated qualified supervisor 3 3.0
Total 101 100.0
Are you a certified falling supervisor/ certified bullbucker?
Number of
participants
Percentage of
participants
Yes 46 45.1
No 56 54.9
Total 102 100.0
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 24 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants. The x axis shows number of fallers supervised. Most participants supervise
between 1 and 6 fallers.
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants. The x axis shows number of non fallers supervised. 25% of participants
supervise no (0) non fallers and 75% supervise at least one non faller.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 25 of 74
How participants spend their time
Time spent falling
Participants are evenly split between those who fall infrequently and those who spent at least one day
falling. A typical working day is 10 to 12 hours (including travel time). With the majority having an
official working day of 8 hours or less, it is clear that participants are working more than is ‘officially’
required. The incidence of serious injuries was strongly related to time spent falling, suggesting that it is
falling trees that causes injuries, rather than simply walking the block.
20% do not fall trees
38% spend less than one hour falling trees in a typical week
51.5% spend at least one full day in the field falling trees (or equivalent hours) in a typical week
22% work 9 hours or less on a typical working day
Around half of participants work 10 to 12 hours on a typical working day
For 65% the official working day is 8 hours or less
The average working day is 15 hours, compared to an average official day of 11 hours
Time spent falling trees was very significantly related to occurrence rate of serious injuries (Spearman
correlation = 0.405, P < 0.001). Individuals who do not fall trees didn’t report any serious injuries in the
previous 12 months. Individuals who spent 5 – 6 days per week falling trees had almost all experienced a
serious injury in the previous 12 months. This suggests that it is falling trees that causes injuries, rather than
simply walking the block.
Minor injuries were not significantly related to time spent falling.
Time spent falling in a typical week Number of participants
Percentage of participants
None I do not fall trees 20 19.8
Less than 15 minutes 8 7.9
Less than 1 hour 10 9.9
Less than 1 day 11 10.9
1 - 2 full days in the field or equivalent hours
12 11.9
3 - 4 days 17 16.8
5 - 6 days 19 18.8
7 days 4 4.0
Total 101 100.0
Missed question 1
Total 102
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 26 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants. The x axis shows time spent falling in a typical week. Time spent falling trees
was very significantly related to reported rate of serious injuries (Spearman correlation = 0.405, P < 0.001). Individuals who do
not fall trees didn’t report any serious injuries in the previous 12 months [A]. Individuals who spent 5 – 6 days per week falling
trees had almost all experienced a serious injury in the previous 12 months [B]. This suggests that it is falling trees that causes
injuries, rather than simply walking the block.
[A] [B]
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 27 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 28 of 74
The Y Axis (Mean) shows the average number of hours worked.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 29 of 74
Time of day
Participants are waking early (4am to 6am), and the average amount of sleep is 7 hours (meaning many
are getting less). There is a large gap (average 2 hours) between waking and arriving in the field.
Average time in the field is 9 hours (well over the 6.5 hour ‘faller day’).
Most participants
Wake up between 4am and 6am
Arrive in the field from 6am to 8am
Finishing in the field anywhere from 1pm to 6pm
Are asleep by 10pm
The average amount of sleep is 7 hours
Time in the field varies widely – the average time is just under 9 hours
The average time between waking and arriving in the field is 2 hours
The average time between leaving the field and sleeping is 6 hours
The Y Axis (Percent) shows percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 30 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) shows percentage of participants.
The Y Axis (Percent) shows percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 31 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) shows percentage of participants.
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 32 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) shows percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 33 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) shows percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 34 of 74
Breaks
Breaks are short, with the majority (69%) taking 30 minutes or less throughout the day.
Breaks per day (lunch, rest breaks,
total for all breaks)
Number of
participants
Percentage of
participants
Cumulative Percentage of
participants
Less than 5 minutes 10 11.8 11.8
5 - 10 minutes 15 17.6 29.4
10 - 20 minutes 20 23.5 52.9
20 - 30 minutes 14 16.5 69.4
30 - 45 minutes 14 16.5 85.9
45 minutes - 1 hour 11 12.9 98.8
1 - 1.5 hours 1 1.2 100.0
Total 85 100.0
Missed
question
17
Total 102
The Y Axis (Percent) shows percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 35 of 74
Shift length
Many are working a typical working week (5 on, 2 off). However, the average shift length tells a
different story (10 on, 4 off). Very little of the ‘time on’ is lost due to shut downs, meaning many will be
working 10 days in a row.
The majority work 5 days on 2 days off
The average shift length is 10 days
Average time off after a shift is 4 days
75% spend half a day or less not working during a typical shift (due to weather shut downs, etc.)
How many days do you work during a typical shift? (days on)
Shift length (days)
Mean (Average shift length) 10.59
Median 5.00
Mode (Most common answer) 5
Minimum shift length 3
Maximum shift length 61
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 36 of 74
How many days do you have off after a typical shift? (days off)
Days off after shift
Mean (Average number of days off) 3.83
Median 2.00
Mode (Most common answer) 2
Minimum number of days off 1
Maximum number of days off 25
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 37 of 74
Manpower and recruitment
Many are experiencing difficulty finding qualified fallers, and the majority would definitely or maybe use a
centralized database if it was accessible. Most rely on personal contacts or fallers getting in touch when
recruiting.
63% have found it difficult or very difficult to find qualified fallers this year
50% expect they will need more qualified fallers in 2012 (23% expect they will not)
The majority would definitely (27%) or maybe (56%) use a database of qualified fallers. A minority of
participants would definitely not use a database (17%)
The most popular means of finding fallers was personal contacts/ people I have worked for before and being
contacted by fallers
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 38 of 74
Would you use a centralized database of
qualified fallers if one existed? [1]
Number of
participants
Percentage of
participants
Definitely 49 50.5
Not sure 26 26.8
Definitely not 22 22.7
Total 97 100.0
Missed
question
5
Total 102
[1] The BCFSC has a database but this is only for internal use currently.
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 39 of 74
How do you find fallers? (Select all that apply)
Responses Percentage of
participants of
Cases
Number ticking
this answer
Percentage of
participants
How do you find
fallers?
Personal contacts/ people I have worked with before 79 51.3% 80.6%
Through BC Forest Safety Council 1 .6% 1.0%
Post an advertisement 11 7.1% 11.2%
Fallers contact me (send in resume/ apply) 47 30.5% 48.0%
I am not involved in finding qualified fallers 16 10.4% 16.3%
Total 154 100.0% 157.1%
Note that the total in the right hand column (Percentage of participants of Cases) is more than 100% as participants could
select (tick) more than one answer.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 40 of 74
Inspections
Time taken for different types of inspection
Inspection times range from 15 minutes to half a day depending on the type of inspection. There is wide variation in the length of inspections.
There is no commonly agreed terminology for different types of inspection. Individuals who spent less time on inspections were more likely to
have experienced a serious injury. This is a very interesting result and may benefit from further analysis. This result could not be fully
explained by time spent falling (which was not significantly related to inspection times).
When developing the survey it became clear that there is a lack of clarity in definitions of different types of inspection. Often terms like ‘formal’ and
‘informal’ were used to mean different things depending on the person. This lack of consistency suggests there may be confusion.
Informal faller inspections take 30 minutes or less for the majority (79%)
Monthly faller inspections take 1 – 2 hours for many (56%) but some report taking 10 minutes and others half a day, suggesting there is wide variation.
Formal faller inspections take half a day or more for 57%
There was a strong relationship between serious injuries and typical time to do an informal faller inspection (Spearman correlation = -0.31, P < 0.01). Every
single individual who reported spending 5 minutes on informal faller inspections had experienced a serious injury, whereas very few individuals who spent 45
minutes or more on informal inspections had experienced a serious injury in the past year. This is a very interesting result and may benefit from further
analysis
A similar strong relationship was found for monthly faller inspections (Spearman correlation = -0.329, P < 0.01). Individuals who spent an hour or less were
relatively more likely to experience a serious injury compared to those who spent 1.5 hours or more
There was no relationship between time spent on formal inspections such as the 23 pager and injuries
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 41 of 74
Time taken for inspection Type of inspection
5 mins 10 mins
15 mins
20 mins
30 mins
45 mins
1 hour 1.5 hours
2 hours
Half a day Most of a day
The full day
Informal faller inspection Standard inspection - what you might do on a day to day basis
6.4% 17.0% 22.3% 11.7% 21.3% 5.3% 8.5% .0% 4.3% 2.1% .0% 1.1%
Monthly faller inspection Including stump audit?
.0% 2.2% 2.2% 8.6% 12.9% 9.7% 24.7% 10.8% 20.4% 6.5% 1.1% 1.1%
Formal faller inspection 23 pager and new faller assessments
.0% .0% .0% .0% 3.4% 3.4% 5.7% 11.4% 19.3% 34.1% 15.9% 6.8%
% shows percentage of participants giving this answer (e.g., 22.3% spend 15 minutes doing an informal faller inspection).
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 42 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 43 of 74
There was a strong relationship between serious injuries and typical time to do an informal faller inspection (Spearman correlation = -0.31, P < 0.01). Every
single individual who reported spending 5 minutes on informal faller inspections had experienced a serious injury [A], whereas very few individuals who spent 45
minutes or more on informal inspections had experienced a serious injury in the past year [B]. This is a very interesting result and may benefit from further
analysis. This result could not be fully explained by time spent falling (which was not significantly related to inspection times).
[A] [B]
Typical time for informal faller inspection
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 44 of 74
A similar relationship was found for monthly faller inspections (Spearman correlation = -0.329, P < 0.01). Individuals who spent an hour or less were relatively
more likely to experience a serious injury compared to those who spent 1.5 hours or more.
There was no relationship between time spent on formal inspections such as the 23 pager and injuries.
Typical time for monthly inspection/ stump audit
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 45 of 74
Inspection breakdown
Filling in paperwork at the camp/ office takes longer than any other inspection related task
The following bullets give the most common answer for each question, and the percentage of fallers giving that answer (e.g., for Walking the block/ fallers quarters the most
common response was that it took 5 – 20 minutes, with 43% of participants giving this answer).
Walking the block/ fallers quarter: 5 – 20 minutes (43%)
Measuring and examining stumps: 10- 30 minutes (42%)
Measuring bucked logs and reviewing quality: 0 – 5 minutes (43.5%)
Observing the faller falling and bucking: 5 – 20 minutes (47%)
Giving advice/ feedback, discussing inspection with faller: 5 to 10 minutes (31%)
Filling in paperwork 'in the field' (if not already included in previous answers) : 5 – 20 mins (43)
Filling in paperwork 'at the camp/ office': 5 minutes to 2 hours (varies)
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 46 of 74
Inspection breakdown - how
time is spent
Less than 2
mins 2 - 5 mins 5 - 10 mins 10 - 20 mins 20 - 30 mins 30 - 45 mins
45 mins - 1
hour 1 - 2 hours 2 - 4 hours 4 hours+
Walking the block/ faller's
quarter
3.5% 9.3% 22.1% 20.9% 15.1% 10.5% 5.8% 8.1% 3.5% 1.2%
Measuring and examining
stumps
3.5% 14.0% 12.8% 22.1% 19.8% 11.6% 5.8% 7.0% 2.3% 1.2%
Measuring bucked logs and
reviewing quality
20.0% 23.5% 15.3% 21.2% 11.8% 4.7% 1.2% 2.4% .0% .0%
Observing the faller falling
and bucking
4.7% 12.9% 25.9% 21.2% 17.6% 7.1% 1.2% 5.9% 2.4% 1.2%
Giving advice/ feedback,
discussing inspection with
faller
5.8% 16.3% 31.4% 22.1% 11.6% 3.5% 4.7% 2.3% 1.2% 1.2%
Filling in paperwork 'in the
field' (if not already included
in previous answers)
6.3% 16.5% 24.1% 19.0% 15.2% 5.1% 6.3% 2.5% 5.1% .0%
Filling in paperwork 'at the
camp/ office'
7.1% 8.2% 12.9% 16.5% 17.6% 10.6% 10.6% 11.8% 4.7% .0%
Each cell shows the number of participants giving that answer (e.g., 22.1% spend 5 – 10 minutes walking the block/ fallers quarter).
Note that X Axis categories on the following graphs are not all the same (X Axis categories were not included if no one gave that answer, where a 0% is shown in the table
above).
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 47 of 74
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 48 of 74
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 49 of 74
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 50 of 74
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 51 of 74
Walking the block
The majority of participants report walking every block for every faller, and disagree with the statement
that ‘I don’t usually have time to walk the block’.
The majority (60%) agree or strongly agree that they walk every block for every faller
74% agree or strongly agree that they walk the block for novice fallers
69% disagree or strongly disagree that they don’t usually have time to walk the block
69% agree or strongly agree that they walk the block when the block is hazardous
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 52 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 53 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 54 of 74
Frequency of visiting different types of faller
Participants tailor the frequency of their visits to the type of faller, with trainee and problem fallers being
visited the most frequently. A small minority make very infrequent visits: 9% report visiting experienced
fallers once a month or less and over 5% visit trainee and problem fallers once a month or less.
The most frequent answers are
Average faller – once a week
Experienced faller – Once a week
Newly qualified faller – Daily
Trainee (working with another faller) - More than once a day/ Continuously
Problem faller - More than once a day/ Continuously
How often do you visit the following types of faller?
Once a month or less
Every 2 - 3 weeks
Once a week Every 2 - 3 days
Daily More than once a day/ Continuously
Average faller 4.7% 8.2% 30.6% 23.5% 17.6% 15.3%
Experienced faller 9.3% 14.0% 36.0% 15.1% 14.0% 11.6%
Newly qualified faller 6.4% 1.3% 7.7% 19.2% 35.9% 29.5%
Trainee (working with another faller)
5.5% 2.7% 4.1% 17.8% 28.8% 41.1%
Problem faller 6.6% .0% 6.6% 18.4% 25.0% 43.4%
Note numbers in the first column, showing the percentage of participants who visit fallers once a month or less.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 55 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants. The X Axis shows frequency of visits to an average faller. The most common
answer (highest bar) is once a week.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 56 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants. The X Axis shows frequency of visits to an experienced faller. The most common
answer (highest bar) is once a week.
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants. The X Axis shows frequency of visits to a newly qualified faller. The most
common answer (highest bar) is daily.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 57 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants. The X Axis shows frequency of visits to a trainee faller. The most common
answer (highest bar) is more than once a day/ continuously.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 58 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants. The X Axis shows frequency of visits to a problem faller. The most common
answer (highest bar) is more than once a day/ continuously.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 59 of 74
Stump conformance
The majority (84%) report that most stumps fully conform to all regulations.
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 60 of 74
Documentation
Inspections are almost always documented. Participants are spending considerable time on paperwork
each day – more than 1 hour for 37%.
The majority of participants document inspections using one or several pages of information
The 23 pager is not used for typical inspections
94% document at least something.
37% spend one hour or more daily on paperwork relating to safety or faller management.
How much detail do you document when you are
doing a typical inspection?
Number of
participants
Percentage of
participants
Other, please specify 7 8.0
The full 23 pager 2 2.3
Multiple pages of information 40 46.0
A single page of information 33 37.9
Nothing written unless there is a problem 5 5.7
Total 87 100.0
Missed question 15
Total 102
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 61 of 74
Time spent daily on paperwork relating to
safety or faller management Number of
participants
Percentage of
participants
Cumulative
Percentage of
participants
Less than 5 minutes 3 3.6 3.6
5 - 10 minutes 13 15.5 19.0
10 - 30 minutes 13 15.5 34.5
30 minutes - 1 hour 24 28.6 63.1
1 - 2 hours 18 21.4 84.5
2 - 4 hours 10 11.9 96.4
4 - 8 hours 2 2.4 98.8
8 hours + 1 1.2 100.0
Total 84 100.0
Missed question 18
Total 102
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 62 of 74
Ease of overcoming falling difficulties
Blasting was found to be OK, easy or very easy for just over half (52.5%). However this still means it is
impossible or difficult for nearly half arrange blasting to overcome falling difficulties (47.5%). Area
deletions, substituting pre-defined leave trees and machine assist are available to the majority of
participants. Asking another faller for help was the easiest option, regarded as easy or very easy by the
majority.
Blasting was found to be OK, easy, or very easy for just over half (52.5%) and difficult or impossible for 47.5%
Making area deletions was OK, easy, or very easy for 75%
Substituting pre-defined leave trees was OK, easy, or very easy for 80%
Machine assist was OK, easy, or very easy for 71%
Asking another faller was easy or very easy for 82%
Alternative means of overcoming falling
difficulties - how easy or difficult is it? Impossible Difficult OK Easy Very easy
Blasting 10.2% 37.5% 17.0% 18.2% 17.0%
Making area deletions 5.9% 18.8% 29.4% 32.9% 12.9%
Substitution options for pre-defined leave
trees
5.7% 13.6% 31.8% 34.1% 14.8%
Machine assist 8.0% 20.7% 29.9% 26.4% 14.9%
Ask another faller/ working partner assist 1.1% 1.1% 16.1% 26.4% 55.2%
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 63 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 64 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 65 of 74
The Y Axis (Percent) is percentage of participants.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 66 of 74
Risk and Hazards
Hazard factor risk ratings
The results validate the 2011 project ‘Hazard Identification and Communication Tool’, as all hazard factors identified as part of that project were
judged to contribute to risk. The factor with the lowest rating was ‘Heavy leaners (leaning out) at boundaries’. The factor with the highest
rating was ‘Working on top of each other (stacking fallers).
A project was conducted in 2011 to support decision making relating to falling hazards (‘Hazard Identification and Communication Tool’. As part of the
project a list of Hazard Factors was identified. The survey conducted as part of the current project enabled data to be collected on the extent to which
participants regarded the different factors as contributing to risk.
The hazard factors are shown in decreasing order of risk (highest risk first)
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 67 of 74
In your opinion, how much do the following impact the risk of having an injury or incident? No impact
on risk
Increases risk
a small
amount
Increases risk a
moderate
amount
Greatly
increases risk
Working on top of each other (stacking fallers) 1.10% 8.80% 17.60% 72.50%
Trees that are unsafe to fall (e.g. danger trees) 3.30% 6.60% 25.30% 64.80%
Falling trees uphill 1.10% 10.10% 31.50% 57.30%
Difficulty avoiding conflict with other phases 3.40% 11.50% 31.00% 54.00%
Brushing standing timber/ disturbing canopy 2.20% 11.10% 36.70% 50.00%
Block layout that make it difficult to position fallers so they are within 10 minutes walk of
each other
6.60% 16.50% 35.20% 41.80%
Not having room to fall timber sidehill 4.40% 22.00% 33.00% 40.70%
Difficulty getting to timber within the block (e.g. due to terrain) 3.30% 15.40% 40.70% 40.70%
Heavy leaners (leaning out) at boundaries 7.80% 32.20% 36.70% 23.30%
% of participants giving that answer (e.g., 72.5% believe that ‘Working on top of each other (stacking fallers)’ Greatly increases
risk).
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 68 of 74
Risky situations
Many participants are working whilst tired or injured. The majority are getting behind with documentation, some on a daily basis. Many
find themselves getting behind with inspections a few times a year.
Frequency of risky situations is shown below. Particularly interesting statistics are shown in grey.
In the past year
60% have had to move pretty quickly to get out of the way of a tree/ other object
59% have felt too tired to work but for some reason had to work anyway
8% have had to work for hours at a stretch without a rest break on an almost daily basis
15% have worked longer than a 12 hour stretch a couple of times a week or more often
80.5% have got behind with documentation, 9% on an almost daily basis
63% have got behind with weekly faller inspections
62% have got behind with monthly stump audits
17% have worked while injured (first aid/ medically reported)
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 69 of 74
In the past 12 months, how often have you found yourself in a situation where: Not in the past
year
A few times in
the past year
A couple of
times a month
A couple of
times a week Almost daily
You have refused to work because it was unsafe 56.6% 39.4% 4.0% .0% .0%
You have been falling trees that you felt were high risk (or supervising them being
felled)
19.2% 50.5% 13.1% 13.1% 4.0%
A faller has started work on a block you haven't walked 65.0% 26.0% 8.0% .0% 1.0%
You have had to move pretty quickly to get out of the way of a tree/ other object 40.0% 42.0% 10.0% 2.0% 6.0%
You have felt too tired to work, but for some reason had to work anyway 40.8% 37.8% 15.3% 4.1% 2.0%
You have worked with people new to the job who hadn't had proper training 66.7% 26.3% 4.0% 1.0% 2.0%
You have worked while injured (first aid/ medically reported) 83.0% 14.0% 3.0% .0% .0%
You haven't had time to place all your fallers before they start work 70.1% 24.7% 4.1% 1.0% .0%
You have encouraged a faller to finish quickly 70.5% 23.2% 4.2% 1.1% 1.1%
You have had to work for hours at a stretch without a rest break 53.7% 25.3% 6.3% 6.3% 8.4%
You have worked longer than a 12 hour stretch 51.6% 27.4% 6.3% 7.4% 7.4%
You have been at work when not physically fit (strength/ flexibility/ stamina) 60.4% 29.2% 9.4% .0% 1.0%
You have got behind with documentation 19.5% 48.3% 18.4% 4.6% 9.2%
A new worker has started work without a 23 page evaluation being completed
within a few days
63.0% 28.4% 3.7% .0% 4.9%
You have got behind with weekly faller inspections 36.9% 51.2% 7.1% 2.4% 2.4%
You have got behind with monthly stump audits 38.3% 48.1% 8.6% 2.5% 2.5%
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 70 of 74
Injuries
Serious injuries
Injury rates are extremely high. 48% have suffered a serious work related injury in the past 12 months.
Carpal tunnel syndrome (31%) and white finger (22%) are particularly common.
Serious injuries
In the past 12 month
7% have broken or fractured a bone
3.5% have had a hernia or rupture
7% have had temporary or permanent damage to eyes
31% have had carpal tunnel syndrome(numbness/ tingling/ burning sensation in hand)
13% have had serious back problems
13% have had hearing loss or tinnitus (ringing in the ears)
22% have had white hand/ white finger
11% have suffered 3 or more serious injuries
48% have suffered at least one serious injury in the past 12 months
Note that injuries showed a strong relationship to time spent falling and duration of inspections. See also ‘Time spent falling’ page
9 and ‘Time taken for different types of inspection’ page 12
In the last 12 months, how frequently
have you experienced the following
injuries due to a work-related incident?
Not in the past 12
months
Once in the past 12
months 2 - 3 times 4 or more times
% % % %
Broken or fractured a bone 93.0% 7.0% .0% .0%
Knocked yourself out or got concussion 100.0% .0% .0% .0%
Hernia or rupture 96.5% 3.5% .0% .0%
Had temporary or permanent damage to
eyes from object/ impact
93.0% 3.5% 3.5% .0%
Table shows % of participants giving that answer (e.g., 7% had experienced a broken or fractured bone once in the past 12 months).
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 71 of 74
Answers from the previous table were compiled to
give a ‘Yes’ ‘No’ response
No Yes
% %
Broken or fractured a bone 93.0% 7.0%
Knocked yourself out of got concussion 100.0% .0%
Hernia or rupture 96.5% 3.5%
Permanent or temporary damage to eyes 93.0% 7.0%
In the last 12 months, have you experienced the
following injuries as a result of work?
Answers in this table were already given as a ‘Yes’
‘No’ response.
No Yes
% %
Carpal tunnel syndrome(numbness/ tingling/
burning sensation in hand)
69.0% 31.0%
Serious back problems 87.4% 12.6%
Hearing loss or tinnitus (ringing in the ears) 87.4% 12.6%
White hand/ white finger 77.9% 22.1%
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 72 of 74
When answers about different injury types are compiled for each faller, the answers are as follows:
Number of serious injuries in the
past 12 months Number of
participants
Percentage of
participants
Cumulative
Percentage of
participants
Valid 0 45 51.7 51.7
1 18 20.7 72.4
2 15 17.2 89.7
3 3 3.4 93.1
4 5 5.7 98.9
6 1 1.1 100.0
Total 87 100.0
Missed question 15
Total 102
This table shows that 45 participants experienced no serious injuries in the past 12 months, 15 participants experienced 2 different
types of injury, and 1 participant experienced 6 different serious injuries.
Any serious injuries in the
previous 12 months?
Answers from the previous table
were compiled to give a ‘Yes’
‘No’ response
Number of
participants
Percentage of
participants
Cumulative
Percentage of
participants
Valid No 45 51.7 51.7
Yes 42 48.3 100.0
Total 87 100.0
Missed question 15
Total 102
48.3% (100 – 51.7) have experienced one or more serious injuries.
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 73 of 74
Minor injuries
The number of participants who have experienced minor injuries in the past month is extremely high (66%).
In the past month, the percentage of participants who have experienced at least one minor injury is:
34% Strained or sprained muscle
34% Tripped and hurt themselves
55% Bruised
12% Cut
46% have experienced two or more different types of minor injury
66% have experienced at least one minor injury
Unlike major injuries, minor injuries were not significantly related to time spent falling
Note that minor injuries are injuries that occurred in the past month (not 12 months as for serious injuries).
Frequency of work related
minor injuries in the past
months
Not in the past
month
Once in the past
month 2 - 3 times 4 - 5 times
More than 5
times
Strained or sprained muscle 66.3% 27.9% 4.7% 1.2% .0%
Tripped and hurt yourself 65.9% 21.2% 10.6% 1.2% 1.2%
Bruised yourself 44.7% 34.1% 14.1% 2.4% 4.7%
Cut yourself 88.2% 8.2% 1.2% 2.4% .0%
Number of minor injuries
experienced in the past month Number of
participants
Percentage of
participants
Cumulative
Percentage of
participants
0 29 33.7 33.7
1 17 19.8 53.5
2 24 27.9 81.4
3 14 16.3 97.7
4 2 2.3 100.0
Total 86 100.0
Missed question 16
Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human Factors at Work
Performance, Safety, Usability.
Page 74 of 74
Number of minor injuries
experienced in the past month Number of
participants
Percentage of
participants
Cumulative
Percentage of
participants
0 29 33.7 33.7
1 17 19.8 53.5
2 24 27.9 81.4
3 14 16.3 97.7
4 2 2.3 100.0
Total 86 100.0
Missed question 16
Total 102
Any minor injuries in the previous
month?
Answers from the previous table
were compiled to give a ‘Yes’ ‘No’
response
Number of
participants
Percentage of
participants
Cumulative
Percent
No 29 33.7 33.7
Yes 57 66.3 100.0
Total 86 100.0
Missed question 16
Total 102