Third degree burn sustained during rope access hot work

  • Safety Flash
  • Published on 27 July 2010
  • Generated on 7 April 2026
  • IMCA SF 06/10
  • 2 minute read

A Member has reported an incident in which a rope access technician (RAT) suffered third-degree burns whilst engaged in hot work. 

What happened?

The injured person was engaged in rope accessed structural cutting activity using an oxy-acetylene torch on a 20 inch pump caisson. During the operation sparks and molten material were blown in the direction of the injured party, and a small piece of molten material was caught in the tongue and ankle protector of his left safety shoe, causing serious burns to the left foot. The injured person was able to stop work, swiftly remove his safety shoe and safely descend to deck level using the rope access gear. Following initial first aid, it was noted that the burn was more serious than could be treated onboard and arrangements were made for the injured person to receive further treatment in hospital ashore.

Area in which rope access hot work was taking place

Area in which rope access hot work was taking place

Injured person’s safety shoe showing burn damage

Injured person’s safety shoe showing burn damage

Our Member’s investigation revealed the following:

The direct cause of the incident was failure to use the correct personal protective equipment (PPE). Spat protectors were not readily available, partly due to inadequate organisation. These offer flame retardant protection to part of the under leg, ankle and shoe.

The root cause of the incident was inadequate procedures and standards of work.

  • Procedures -specific details of hazards and precautions were not implemented in procedures for rope access hot work activities.
  • Risk assessment -a full risk assessment for rope access-based hot work was not available and the job specific risk assessment used did not reflect any job specific issues.
  • Permit to work (PTW) -the permit to work showed partially generic pre-setting on hazards and precautions with references to standard rather than specific job safety analysis (JSA).
  • Job safety analysis -a specific job safety analysis was not available at the time of the incident.
  • Toolbox talks (TBT) -the quality of toolbox talks was not sufficient and needed to be improved.

Following the incident, the following actions were taken:

  • Arrangements were made to make spat protectors available as soon as possible.
  • Investigated the use of more substantial protective equipment for persons doing hot work.
  • Arranged for all appropriate worksite safety documentation (e.g. PTW, JSA and TBT records) to be available with specific detailed job-related entries.
  • Investigated further training for personnel engaged in hot work, particularly flame-cutting.

Latest Safety Flashes:

MAIB: Sinking of tug Biter with loss of two lives

MAIB has published Accident Investigation 17/2024 relating to the girting and capsize of tug Biter with the loss of two lives.

Read more
Dropped object – strop parted over sharp edge

A cylinder was lifted to a height of approximately 6 metres over deck of the vessel, the sharp steel edges of the cylinder cut through the firehose protection and caused the strop to part.

Read more
Person injured when pry bar slipped

A crew member who was applying downward pressure to their pry bar to lift a track, fell towards the deck when the pry bar slipped.

Read more
MSF: High potential near miss during FRC maintenance

The Marine Safety Forum has published Safety Alert 26-01 relating to an incident where there was an unplanned lowering of an FRC to the sea

Read more
BSEE: Crane incident leads to serious facial injuries

BSEE has published Safety Alert 512 relating to a crane incident during well abandonment which led to a worker being struck and suffering serious facial injuries.

Read more

IMCA Safety Flashes summarise key safety matters and incidents, allowing lessons to be more easily learnt for the benefit of the entire offshore industry.

The effectiveness of the IMCA Safety Flash system depends on the industry sharing information and so avoiding repeat incidents. Incidents are classified according to IOGP's Life Saving Rules.

All information is anonymised or sanitised, as appropriate, and warnings for graphic content included where possible.

IMCA makes every effort to ensure both the accuracy and reliability of the information shared, but is not be liable for any guidance and/or recommendation and/or statement herein contained.

The information contained in this document does not fulfil or replace any individual's or Member's legal, regulatory or other duties or obligations in respect of their operations. Individuals and Members remain solely responsible for the safe, lawful and proper conduct of their operations.

Share your safety incidents with IMCA online. Sign-up to receive Safety Flashes straight to your email.