Skip to main content
    QHSEtech
    Updated 25 September 2026
    Software Guide · Sources reviewed 22 September 2026

    Working at heights and fall protection: the task and the equipment

    Working at height (the Great Britain term) and fall protection (the US term) name one programme with two sides. The task side asks whether the work was planned by someone competent, whether a rescue plan exists that someone could actually execute, and what happens when the wind gets up after the permit was issued. The equipment side asks whether the harness is serviceable and in date, whether the anchor is rated and inspected, and whether the person using it is competent for that system. Each is a separate record with its own owner and expiry, and they are often tracked in places that never meet. This guide evaluates software on whether it can join them: is this person, on this anchor, with this harness, safe to work right now, and what does the system do when the answer is no?

    Jump to the 5 products

    Editorial responsibility: Dimitris Mitsios (Founder of The QHSE Standard; product marketing at Tekmon) · Tekmon pays for sponsored placements on this site (disclosure) · How pages are made · LinkedIn · Content date: 22 September 2026

    TekmonAd

    Explore its published safety, quality and maintenance workflows. Confirm modules and pricing in a scoped proposal.

    On this page (12 sections)

    Plan, supervise, and stop — the duty is not a checklist

    Great Britain's Work at Height Regulations require work at height to be properly planned, appropriately supervised and carried out in a manner that is, so far as reasonably practicable, safe — with work not carried out when weather conditions jeopardise health or safety. The word doing the work there is planned: a permit form completed at the point of work is not a plan, and software that only produces the form has automated the wrong artefact. Great Britain HSE: work at height; The Work at Height Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/735)

    In the United States the framing is different and the scrutiny is high: OSHA states that falls cause one in three construction worker deaths and reports 389 fatal falls to a lower level out of 1,034 construction fatalities in 2024. We do not extend those figures beyond US construction, because they are US construction data — but they explain why this permit is the one most likely to be examined after an event. In US construction, the general fall protection requirement at 29 CFR 1926.501 applies at six feet or more above a lower level, and it heads OSHA's list of the standards federal OSHA cited most often after worksite inspections in fiscal year 2025 (October 2024 to September 2025); Great Britain's regulations are not framed as a single height threshold. If you operate across both regimes, do not assume a configuration built to one satisfies the other: the trigger, the hierarchy and the inspection language all differ. US OSHA: fall prevention campaign; US OSHA: commonly used statistics; US OSHA 29 CFR 1926.501: duty to have fall protection; US OSHA: top 10 most frequently cited standards, fiscal year 2025

    So evaluate on three things a form alone cannot do. Can the system tell you the plan was made before the crew arrived, and by whom? Does it hold a rescue plan specific to this location rather than a generic attachment? And can it stop work that is already authorised when a condition changes — because the permit was valid when issued and the wind was not.

    Three things the task side must do

    Plan before the crew travels

    Method, access equipment, exclusion zone and supervision decided and recorded in advance, with the planner identified. Ask what the system does when work starts without an approved plan — permit it, warn, or block.

    Rescue that is executable

    A rescue plan naming who performs it, with what equipment, from where, and within what time. Generic attachments are the norm and are close to useless. Ask whether the plan is validated against the people actually on site that day.

    Stop rules after issue

    Wind, lightning and visibility change after a permit is granted. Establish whether the system can suspend a live permit, who is notified, how the crew learns, and whether resumption needs a new authorisation.

    The equipment side: the records an investigator asks for

    The Work at Height Regulations also require equipment to be selected and inspected accordingly. The Work at Height Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/735)

    The system will be read by someone investigating an incident or responding to an inspection, and what they will ask for is the inspection history of a specific item, the certification of a specific anchor, and the competence record of a specific person, on a specific date. Everything else on a feature list is secondary to producing those three things quickly and provably.

    Three equipment records, three different expiries

    Equipment lifecycle

    Harnesses, lanyards and self-retracting lifelines with inspection intervals, certification expiry and retirement. The hard part is not the schedule but quarantine: what stops an overdue or post-fall item being issued again.

    Anchor register

    Location, load rating, installation and inspection history, and usage restrictions. Ask how a temporary anchor is handled, and how an anchor that failed inspection is prevented from appearing on a permit.

    Competence

    Training and authorisation for the specific system in use, including rescue. A general working-at-height course is not authorisation to use a particular device; confirm the record distinguishes them.

    Researched product scope

    No researched profile is a dedicated working-at-height product, and none of the sources we checked made a heights-specific claim we could verify. The task side is assembled from permit, training, inspection and incident capabilities; not ranked, not equivalents, not tested hands-on.

    Tekmon pays for a sponsored placement (above); its place in this list follows the same rule as every entry. How lists are ordered

    Same rule for every product: tagged “Fall Protection”, “Safety Equipment”, “Permit to Work”, “Permits to Work (PTW)”, “Control of Work”, “Construction Safety”, “Equipment Inspection”, “Safety Management” or “EHS Management”, with a sourced working-at-height or fall-protection capability in its record, or one the vendor stated to us, labelled as vendor-stated. 5 qualify.

    • Safesite

      Documented: Fall protection inspection templates and equipment-linked inspections. Source: templates.safesitehq.com

    • Tekmon

      Vendor-stated: Fall Protection. Not yet confirmed in public documentation; ask to see it in a demo.

    • HammerTech

      Construction onboarding, subcontractor collaboration, permits, pre-task plans and inspections. It is built around contractor-heavy project sites, so confirm which of those functions are in the quoted package rather than in the product as a whole, and whether a work-at-height rescue plan is a form you configure or a downloadable sheet. Source: hammertech.com

    • Rapid Global

      Documented: Hot work permit issuing. Source: support.rapidglobal.com

    • Papertrail

      Documented: Fall protection and height-safety equipment records. Source: papertrail.io

    The task demonstration: change something after approval

    1

    Plan the work a day ahead

    Record the method, access equipment, exclusion zone and supervisor in advance, with the planner named. Confirm the plan is a distinct record the permit references, not a section of the permit form.

    2

    Attach a rescue plan and then remove the rescuer

    Name a specific rescuer, then mark that person absent. Establish whether the permit is affected at all. A rescue plan that survives the loss of its rescuer is a document, not a control.

    3

    Name a worker whose heights training expired

    Attempt to add them to the permit. Establish whether the check is heights-specific or a general training flag, and whether it blocks or merely warns.

    4

    Raise a weather stop on a live permit

    Suspend authorised work for wind. Confirm who is notified, what the crew sees on a device that may be offline, and whether resumption requires fresh authorisation or simply clearing the flag.

    5

    Investigate an arrested fall

    Record a fall that injured nobody. Confirm it can be investigated, that the equipment involved is traceable and quarantined, and that the finding can reach the risk assessment for similar work elsewhere.

    The equipment demonstration: make the system say no

    1

    Issue equipment that is one day overdue

    Attempt to assign a harness whose inspection has just lapsed. Establish whether the system blocks it, warns, or records it silently, and who, if anyone, is notified.

    2

    Retire an item after an arrested fall

    Record that a harness took a fall and confirm it cannot re-enter circulation. Ask what the field user sees when they scan it, because the person who finds it next will be on site, not at a desk.

    3

    Fail an anchor inspection, then try to use it

    Mark an anchor as failed and attempt to raise a working-at-height permit against it. If the permit can still be issued, your control depends entirely on the issuer remembering.

    4

    Assign a worker who is not competent for the device

    Try to authorise someone whose training has expired, or who is trained on a different device. Establish whether the check is device-specific or only a general course flag.

    5

    Produce the pack an inspector would ask for

    For one worker on one date, export the harness inspection history, the anchor certification and the competence record as one set. Time it, and confirm it is readable without a licence.

    Task questions that separate candidates

    Is the plan a separate record from the permit, with its author?
    Can work start without an approved plan, and what happens if it does?
    Is the rescue plan location-specific and validated against who is on site?
    Can a live permit be suspended, and by whom?
    How does an offline crew learn that a permit was suspended?
    Does resumption require new authorisation?
    Is the competence check heights-specific or a general training flag?
    Are scaffold tags and MEWP pre-start checks in scope, or separate modules?
    Can an arrested fall with no injury be investigated as an event?
    Does a finding reach the risk assessments for similar work elsewhere?

    Equipment questions that separate candidates

    Can overdue equipment be issued, and what happens if it is?
    How is post-fall equipment quarantined, and what does a field scan show?
    Does a failed anchor inspection block a permit against that anchor?
    Are temporary anchors handled differently from fixed ones?
    Is competence recorded per device, or only as a general course?
    Can equipment inspections be completed offline, and what syncs back?
    Who is notified when an inspection lapses, and through what channel?
    Can equipment be traced to a serial number and an owner?
    Can the evidence pack be exported and read without the platform?

    Where the equipment side sits

    We do not hold researched evidence for products specialising in fall protection equipment management, so this page names none: an unresearched list of vendor names would be worth less than saying so. In practice the capability is usually assembled from adjacent categories: PPE management for the equipment lifecycle, offline inspection apps for the inspection routes, permit to work for the authorisation, and training management for competence. Each of those pages carries products with dated evidence.

    The task and the equipment are usually answered by different modules on the same quote, and they are frequently sold as one thing, so ask for each module to be named individually.

    Sources and evaluation limits

    6 sources, checked 22–25 Sep 2026

    Great Britain: Great Britain HSE: work at height; The Work at Height Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/735). United States: US OSHA: fall prevention campaign; US OSHA: commonly used statistics; US OSHA 29 CFR 1926.501: duty to have fall protection. All checked 22 September 2026, except OSHA's most-cited list (US OSHA: top 10 most frequently cited standards, fiscal year 2025), checked 25 September 2026 (the merged fall protection guide quoted the fiscal year 2024 position; the list now covers fiscal year 2025).

    The previous version of this page said falls are consistently the number one cause of construction fatalities worldwide, and that each fatality almost always traces to a missing rescue plan, an uninspected harness, an undocumented anchor or an ignored scaffold tag. Neither statement was sourced; the first generalises US data globally and the second is a causal claim about fatal accidents that we have not established. Both are gone.

    On 25 September 2026 the fall protection guide was merged into this page: its equipment, anchor and competence sections moved here with their sources. The OSHA figures quoted are for construction in the United States and are not a global rate; they explain why this record is scrutinised, not a benchmark for your operation. We publish no estimate of incident reduction attributable to software, because we have not measured one and have not verified a published figure worth repeating.

    Product notes come from each profile's researched sources on the dates shown. No product was tested hands-on, none is ranked, and none is a dedicated heights product. Requirements differ by jurisdiction, industry and the equipment in use; software holds the evidence that a duty was discharged, it does not discharge it. For the authorisation mechanics, see permit to work.

    Related Guides

    Permit to Work SoftwarePPE Management SoftwareTraining Management SoftwareIncident Management SoftwareRisk Assessment Software

    More related guides

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Is working at height software different from fall protection software?
    They are usually the Great Britain and US names for the same programme. Within it, the task side covers planning, authorisation, rescue provision and the conditions that stop work, and the equipment side covers harness and lanyard inspection, anchor registers and post-fall quarantine. They are usually different modules on the same quote and are frequently sold as one thing, so ask for each to be named separately.
    What does fall protection software actually manage?
    Three records that expire independently: the equipment (harnesses, lanyards, self-retracting lifelines) with its inspection and retirement dates, the anchors with their ratings and inspection history, and the people with their competence and authorisation for the specific systems in use. The value is in the joins: being able to establish that all three were valid at the moment someone worked at height.
    Is there a single height at which fall protection is required?
    It depends on the jurisdiction and the work. In US construction, OSHA's general requirement at 29 CFR 1926.501 applies at six feet or more above a lower level. Great Britain's Work at Height Regulations are not framed as a single threshold; they require work at height to be planned, supervised and carried out by competent people with suitable equipment. Confirm what governs your sites rather than configuring to one rule.
    How important is post-fall equipment quarantine?
    Equipment that has arrested a fall must be removed from service. A retirement policy does not help if the item goes back into the store and the next person issues it, so test specifically what a field user sees when they scan an item that should be quarantined, rather than accepting that the system can record a retirement.
    Does a training course make someone competent?
    Not by itself, and the record should reflect that. Competence is for the specific system and task, including rescue, and a general working-at-height course does not authorise use of a particular device. Check whether the authorisation check is device-specific or simply looks for a valid course flag; the second is much easier to satisfy and much less useful.
    What makes a rescue plan adequate?
    That someone could execute it today. It should name who performs the rescue, with what equipment, from where, and within what time — and it should be specific to the location rather than a generic document attached to every permit. The test worth running is removing the named rescuer from the roster and seeing whether the system notices.
    Can software stop work when the weather changes?
    Some can suspend a live permit; many can only prevent one being issued. Since conditions change after authorisation, this is worth testing directly: suspend an approved permit, then establish who is notified, what a crew on an offline device sees, and whether work can resume by clearing a flag or needs fresh authorisation.
    Should arrested falls be investigated?
    Yes, and whether your system makes that easy is a fair test of it. A fall that injured nobody is the clearest possible evidence that the controls were needed and that something upstream failed. Confirm the event can be recorded without an injury, that the equipment involved is traceable and removed from service, and that the finding can reach similar work elsewhere.
    Which products are dedicated to working at height?
    None that we hold researched evidence for; none of the sources we checked made a heights-specific claim we could verify. In our catalogue, the 5 products that meet this guide's rule (a matching tag and a sourced working-at-height or fall-protection capability or one the vendor stated to us) are Safesite, Tekmon, HammerTech, Rapid Global and Papertrail, in documented-match order (see the list on this page). That order reflects documentation, not quality; no product is recommended. Treat the category as assembled from permits, training, inspection and incident modules rather than bought whole.