The updates to the AS/NZS 1891.4 standard bring fundamental changes to how the equipment for industrial fall protection systems are selected, maintained and used.
Standards are incredibly important documents that have an impact across just about every aspect of your life.
There are standards that outline what can or, more importantly, cannot be included in our food. There are standards that govern how cars are manufactured to provide enhanced safety to their occupants and the general public. There are standards that inform how buildings are constructed so that they don’t suddenly deconstruct themselves.
The nature of documents like standards is that they are reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Over time, what is considered best practice can change, new processes and products can be developed, and new ideas can be had about what is possible.
One of the most important standards in the world of height safety is AS/NZS 1891, part 4. This standard guides the selection, use and maintenance of personal equipment for working at height.
This standard has just been updated for 2025, and this new version contains a number of important additions and clarifications that everyone involved with work at height should be aware of.
First off, the name of the standard has actually changed from the previous, 2009, version.
It is now called AS/NZS 1891.4:2025 Personal equipment for working at height, Part 4: Selection, use and maintenance. This is, admittedly, something of a mouthful.
Overall changes and improvements in AS/NZS 1891.4:2025
Perhaps most importantly, this standard has been updated to bring it into alignment with a range of other related standards that had been introduced or reviewed subsequent to its last publication back in 2009.
These include the other four parts of the 1891 series (there are five total, including this one) as well as AS 5532, an updated versionof which has been published alongside this standard.
The overall structure of the document has been updated, making for significantly less going backwards and forward through it to find the information you may be looking for.
A lot of duplication of content, both within the standard itself and across other related standards, has also been removed. This reduces the instances where there may be conflicting advice or ambiguity about what specifics need to be followed in a given situation.
Hierarchy of fall protection systems
Everyone knows – or at least they should know – the hierarchy of risk controls. The scheme that assists in determining how any particular risk can be best mitigated.
Height safety and fall protection systems generally fall under the engineering and PPE controls within that hierarchy. But not all height safety systems are created equal. The updated 1891.4 standard specifies the preferred order in which fall protection systems be considered.
That order is:
- Total restraint
- Restrained fall
- Limited free fall
- Free fall
- Restraint technique
It may seem out of place that restraint technique systems are placed lower on the hierarchy than systems that allow falls to occur. However, there is a reasonable logic behind that decision.
Restraint technique requires a user’s input into the system while they are using it in order for it to be effective.
Take, for example, a typical roof anchor point system. The user of the system has to connect to all the anchor points in the correct sequence, while also making sure their adjustable rope line is only ever adjusted so they can reach the next anchor. Any error by the user when accessing this system means that, should a fall occur, the system may not adequately protect them.
In comparison, using a system that is designed to arrest a fall the fall clearance calculations and preparations for a rescue are all done prior to the user entering the work area and connecting to the system. Although the risk of a fall is possible, the mitigation of the risk is completed before work starts. It does not require ongoing input by the worker.
Selecting and designing height safety systems in AS/NZS 1891.4:2025
When it comes to how height safety and fall protection systems are designed (the ‘selection’ part of ‘selection, use and maintenance’ in the title) there are a couple of updates in the new 1891.4 that need to be considered.
The biggest change is that when designing a system on steeply pitched roofs where the worker needs to rely on their system to maintain secure footing. The fall protection system must be setup to allow for the worker to be able to setup a secondary connection.
For systems using roof anchors, this could require additional anchors being included in the design, or a different anchor layout being implemented.
Additional information has also been included on the use of diversion anchors and how swing falls (previously called pendulum falls) can be mitigated.
For fall arrest systems, the equation used to calculate fall clearances has also been clarified. Instead of needing to use the maximum length of an adjustable lanyard or rope line, the functional length can be used. The functional length is defined as the length of the connection system between the user’s harness and the anchor. It should be noted that this then requires the user to only allow extension of the rope line or lanyard to the extent required to access a work area while not allowing them to reach over an edge or enter a fall zone.
Using fall protection systems with AS/NZS 1891.4:2025
The updated AS/NZS 1891.4:2025 standard introduces some important changes for those using height safety and fall protection systems.
Firstly, the new standard requires that re-anchoring be undertaken by the user in situations where a diversion from an anchor is greater than 60-degrees. This can be achieved through the use an alpine butterfly knot tied into the user’s rope line. This creates a new primary anchor point for the worker at this location.
Without re-anchoring, the forces applied to a diversion anchor that exceeds 60-degrees in the event of a fall can exceed the design loads of the anchor point. The anchor could fail, and the user be placed into a hazardous swing fall. By re-anchoring at the diversion anchor, that anchor becomes a new primary anchor and the loads generated in a fall will be limited to those well within the anchor’s designed capacity.
Secondly, a user must use a secondary (or backup) connection when working in situations where the fall protection system is playing a role in supporting the user’s weight. In these situations, the user is deemed to be in a situation similar to that of twin-rope or abseil work. This requires that a backup form of fall protection be present in the event the primary system fails.
In some circumstances, a passive form of secondary protection could be present to prevent a user falling over an edge. This could be guardrail, or something else that removes the ability of a user to fall over an edge.
Finally, there have been changes when it comes to the advice around training that users should have to assist in becoming competent in using height safety systems.
AS/NZS 1891.4:2025 provides an updated informative section in its appendices that outlines a number of recommended training outcomes that users should have to safely use fall protection systems.
None of the simplification changes the legislative or regulatory requirements for safety that workplaces must meet. Instead, it reduces a significant amount of conflict and ambiguity that existed in the previous edition of the standard.
Partners in protecting people
Height Safety Engineers contributed to the creation of the updated AS/NZS 1891.4 standard. HSE represents the Working at Height Association of Australia on the SF-015 committee. This committee, formed by Standards Australia, is responsible for the creation and maintenance of standards relating to height safety and fall protection.
To discuss your safety needs with the experts, call us on 1300 884 978, send an email to enquiries@heightsafety.net or click here to send us a message.
