British Columbia Forest Safety Council Falling …...Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human...

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.

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.



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%).



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



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.



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.



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).



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



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



of 74

Breaks


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.)



of 74

Manpower and recruitment



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



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


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)



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.



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%



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)



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).



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).



of 74



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]



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%



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%



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



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



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.



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



of 74


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]



of 74





of 74

The Y Axis (Mean) shows the average number of hours worked.



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.



of 74





of 74

Breaks


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




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



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



of 74

Manpower and recruitment



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




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.




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.



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



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).




of 74




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



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



of 74

Inspection breakdown


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)



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).




of 74



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




of 74





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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



of 74

Stump conformance

The majority (84%) report that most stumps fully conform to all regulations.




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




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




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%



of 74





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)



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).



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)



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%



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).



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%



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.



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



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

British Columbia Forest Safety Council Falling …...Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human...

Documents

Transcript of British Columbia Forest Safety Council Falling …...Falling Supervisor Survey December 2011 Human...