The compliance
map.

This is the training duty itself, and it sits in the Workers Compensation Act, not in Part 11. It belongs to the employer — not to the worker, and not to us. A course is a tool an employer uses to discharge it.

The clause runs past your own safety: it extends to the health and safety of other workers at the workplace.

Hazard information is a duty in its own right, separate from training. It is why the course spends a whole module on recognising fall hazards before it ever opens a harness bag.

Cited at 23(1)(a) and (b), and 23(2)(a)(i) and (ii).

It matters on this page because the site-specific instruction under section 11.2(6) is usually given and signed by a supervisor standing on the job — not by a trainer sitting in an office.

Two limbs, and an online course on its own can only ever satisfy the first. The demonstration limb is the reason our practical assessment exists, and the reason a record from us names who watched you do it, on what date.

Three explicit learning outcomes, written into the Regulation. Limitations is the one that gets skipped — and it is the one that decides whether a harness saves somebody.

The duty is the employer’s, so we hand them the file rather than leave them chasing it. Every record of training carries the course and content version, the dates, the assessor, and the demonstrations performed — and the free employer dashboard exports the lot for a safety binder or a COR audit.

Four steps, at 3.12(2) through 3.12(5): report it; the supervisor investigates with you; if it is still not resolved a worker representative joins; then WorkSafeBC. The test is reasonable cause to believe, which protects you even if the hazard later turns out not to have been there.

Two neighbouring sections matter as much. 3.12.1 — the work cannot simply be handed to somebody else until it is resolved, and then only with written notice to that worker and to a worker representative. 3.13 — no prohibited action against you, and a temporary reassignment must be at no loss of pay.

Two limbs, and the second has no height attached to it at all. Rebar, a machine, an open tank underneath you — and you are inside the section at a metre and a half.

Quiz 1 tests the under-3-metre limb on purpose, because that is the one people get wrong.

You cannot skip to a harness because it is quicker to put on. Guideline G11.2-2 spells out that these subsections are a sequence, not a menu.

Our decision-tree exercise will not let you jump the queue either — it makes you rule each level out before it opens the next one.

Worth stating precisely, because it is commonly taught wrong. The duty is to use the system the employer provided — it is not a judgment call for the worker about when the Regulation is triggered.

This is the line people cross without noticing: a restraint lanyard set a little long is a fall arrest system with no clearance calculation behind it. Beyond 30 cm, everything fall arrest requires comes with it.

A control zone runs 2 m from the edge, widened where conditions call for it. A warning line sits 0.85–1.15 m high and is flagged at intervals of 2 m or less.

The monitor has no other duties, watches no more than 8 workers, and is named in the plan. It is not available on roofs steeper than 4:12, on skeletal structures, or on scaffolds. On a narrow roof — under 12 m — the whole surface may be treated as the control zone.

Strength: 550 N horizontally and 1.5 kN per metre vertically; a temporary guardrail, 550 N. There are rules for taking one out and putting it back.

This sits at the top of the hierarchy — the control the Regulation makes you consider before any harness.

Both halves matter. An unmarked sheet of plywood over a floor opening is a trap for the next trade through the building.

The guideline gives four reasons a belt fails in an arrest, and ties static suspension in a belt straight to the medical problem — which is why suspension trauma gets a full module here instead of a footnote.

“CSA or ANSI” is in the Regulation itself — British Columbia recognises both families, and a course that teaches only CSA is teaching half of what is in the truck.

“At the time of manufacture” is the other half: it is why lawful older gear stays lawful, and why the date of manufacture on the label is something you learn to read.

We teach both. The acceptance panel in the employer kit says plainly that an ANSI mark is lawful in BC — which is the question a supervisor actually asks when a worker turns up with American gear.

A lifeline of at least 27 kN, terminations of at least 22 kN, positioned within 1.2 m of a safe surface, with swing fall minimised — and further cautions past 91 m.

These two numbers settle most clearance arguments on a BC site.

The manufacturer’s limit wins whenever it is lower, which is why reading the instructions is part of the training rather than paperwork somebody files.

If it is not marked, you cannot prove it. The defect hunt puts an unmarked connector in the pile on purpose, and the practical asks you to find it and say why it fails.

Miss it and a clearance calculation that looked fine on paper is short by the height of the slope. The calculator carries a sloped-roof case for exactly this.

Pre-shift, every shift, by somebody qualified — which is a defined word in the Regulation, not a compliment.

The practical puts real gear in your hands and asks you to inspect it and then make the call on it.

No visual pass, no “it looks alright”. The inspection log in the employer kit carries the removal field, so the decision gets written down at the moment it is made.

And 11.6(2), the one that gets forgotten: each fall protection system gets its own independent attachment point. Two workers on one eyebolt is not two systems.

It is the number our clearance calculator runs on.

The guideline also covers how to choose a shock absorber, and says an anchor below 22 kN needs one unless an engineer has advised otherwise.

This is the guideline nobody reads until an anchor pulls.

The roof exercise gives you live swing-fall feedback as you move the anchor around, so the geometry stops being abstract.

The guideline’s specification, where it applies: rope at least 12 mm and 89 kN, hardware at least 71 kN, spans of 6–18 m, sag of about the span divided by 60, at least 1 m above the surface, free fall no more than 1.2 m, at least 3.5 m of clearance, and no more than 3 workers — 3.5 kN per worker in restraint.

The guideline also says what the drawings have to contain. The course teaches workers to read them and respect them, not to design them — knowing exactly where the engineer’s line falls is the point.

That second limb surprises people: use a control zone at two metres and you are in written-plan territory.

The plan must be available at the workplace before work begins — not written up afterwards to satisfy somebody.

Our plan builder maps to those five one for one, and is cross-checked against WorkSafeBC’s own fillable plan template, including the worker acknowledgement roster.

It sits outside Part 11, which is exactly why it gets missed.

A worker suspended in a harness is an emergency on a clock. So the rescue plan is a document written before the work, and self-rescue is something you have to be able to do in front of an assessor, not something you read about.

Qualified means knowing the work, the hazards in it and the means to control them, by reason of education, training, experience, or a combination of those. Practicable means what is reasonably capable of being done. Supervisor is defined here too — the person who instructs, directs and controls workers in the performance of their duties.

Because competent has no definition in BC law, our copy says qualified, our assessor policy is written against the definition at 1.1, and the assessor’s name and credential print on the record of training.

We say so out loud for two reasons. If your work is rope access, this is not the ticket you need.

And Part 34 is the proof that when British Columbia wants a named certificate, it says so in the Regulation. Part 11’s silence about approved courses is deliberate, not an oversight.