ANSI/ASSP A10.48 is the construction and demolition operations standard specific to the telecommunications tower industry, covering qualification of riggers and signal persons, rigging plan requirements, and lift procedures. For a GC or tower owner who isn't a rigging specialist, the standard itself isn't the useful part — what matters is knowing what a subcontractor's rigging plan should actually contain, so you can tell a real one from a document created to satisfy a contract requirement without reflecting what's actually going to happen on the lift.
This isn't a substitute for the standard itself, and it isn't legal or engineering guidance — it's a field-level guide to what to look for when a subcontractor hands you a rigging plan for review.
Why a rigging plan exists in the first place
A tower lift — a section going up during erection, equipment coming down during a mod, a structure coming apart during decommissioning — involves load weights, rigging hardware and a sequence of steps where a mistake has real consequences: a dropped load, an overloaded piece of rigging hardware, a structure losing stability mid-sequence. A rigging plan is the document that forces that sequence to be thought through and written down before the lift happens, not improvised in the field.
The plan also creates a reviewable record. If something doesn't look right to a GC, a safety officer, or even the crew on site, there's a document to check against — rather than relying on verbal assurance that "we've done this before."
What should be in the plan
Load weights. Every load in the lift sequence should have a stated weight — the tower section, the antenna and mount assembly, the equipment being removed. A plan that doesn't specify weights can't be checked against rigging capacity, which defeats the purpose.
Rigging configuration and hardware ratings. The specific rigging hardware being used — slings, shackles, hoists, gin poles or capstan setup — should be identified along with its rated capacity, and that capacity should clearly exceed the load weight with an appropriate safety margin. This is the core math of the plan: does the rigging being used actually have the capacity for the load being lifted.
Lift sequence and method. The order of operations for the lift — what goes up or comes down first, how the crew manages the load during each step, how the load is controlled with taglines or guide lines. For multi-section erection or decommissioning in particular, the sequence matters because each step changes the structure's load path and stability.
Qualified rigger and signal person identification. A10.48 requires a qualified rigger to oversee rigging operations and a designated signal person to direct crane or hoist operators. The plan should name who's filling these roles for the specific lift, not just state generically that "a qualified rigger will be present."
Site-specific conditions. Ground conditions, access constraints, weather limits (wind speed thresholds for suspending the lift), and proximity to other structures or live equipment should be addressed as part of the plan, not left as a generic safety statement.
Communication protocol. How the crew communicates during the lift — hand signals, radio, or a combination — and what happens if communication is lost mid-lift.
Red flags in a rigging plan
A few things worth noticing when reviewing a subcontractor's plan:
- No stated load weights or rigging capacities — if the plan doesn't include numbers you can check against each other, it isn't functioning as a safety document, just a form.
- Generic language that could apply to any job — a plan that reads the same regardless of tower type, height or scope usually wasn't actually built for this specific lift.
- No named qualified rigger or signal person — a title without a person attached to it for this specific lift.
- Decommissioning or removal treated identically to an erection plan reversed — a structure coming apart loses stiffness and load path section by section. A rigging plan for a removal sequence should reflect that the structure's stability is changing throughout the process, not assume it behaves like a fully intact structure in reverse.
- No weather or site-condition limits stated — a plan that doesn't specify when the lift should be suspended (wind speed, visibility, lightning) is missing a standard safety control.
Erection, decommissioning and antenna/equipment lifts aren't the same plan
A rigging plan template that gets reused unchanged across every job type is one of the more common shortcuts in this trade, and it's worth understanding why it doesn't hold up.
Erection lifts start from a known, stable base and add load in a predictable sequence — each section landing on a structure that was stable before the lift and stays stable (if bolted up correctly) after it. The engineering reference point is the tower manufacturer's erection drawing, and the main variables are section weight, lift height and wind exposure as the structure gets taller.
Decommissioning and removal lifts run the opposite direction, and the structure's stability is not constant through the sequence the way it is during erection. A lattice tower missing its top three sections doesn't have the same stiffness or load path as the complete structure, which changes how much load the remaining structure can safely carry during the next lift in the sequence. A rigging plan for a tear-down should account for this section by section, not assume the reverse of the erection plan is automatically safe.
Antenna and equipment lifts are usually lighter individual loads than structural sections, but they come with a different set of hazards: RF exposure from co-located live antennas, confined platform space for the rigger and signal person, and feedline or jumper routing that can snag during the hoist. The plan should reflect these hazards specifically rather than just scaling down a structural lift plan.
Asking which of these three categories a specific rigging plan is written for — and confirming the content actually reflects that category rather than reading like a generic template — is a quick way to tell whether the plan was built for this lift or recycled from another job.
What to do if the field doesn't match the plan
Rigging plans are written from drawings, site surveys and stated conditions — and field reality occasionally doesn't match what was assumed on paper. A structural member in worse condition than expected, a load that weighs more than the stated figure, wind conditions approaching the stated limit. The right response is to stop and revise the plan, not proceed and adjust rigging on the fly. If a subcontractor's standard practice is to pause a lift and update the written plan when field conditions don't match what was assumed, that's a meaningfully different safety posture than one that treats the written plan as a formality completed before mobilization and not referenced again once the crew is on site.
Who should be reviewing this before the lift
Ideally, the rigging plan is reviewed and available before the lift — not produced after the fact to document what was already done. A GC awarding tower work doesn't need to be a rigging engineer to do a basic review: confirming the plan has specific numbers, a named rigger and signal person, and a sequence that makes sense for the specific structure and scope is enough to tell whether the subcontractor is actually planning the lift or just producing paperwork.
This is also one of the items worth confirming before awarding a scope in the first place — see our broader checklist for vetting a tower subcontractor for the rest of what to ask for. And once the lift is done, the rigging plan should connect directly to the closeout package — torque logs and as-built records that confirm the plan was actually followed in the field.
Need a rigging plan reviewed before you approve a lift, or want to see a sample before awarding a scope? Request crew availability and we'll walk through our standard rigging plan format for your project type.